What is the test for involuntary commitment in a mental health case?

The court in Hofferber agreed that an involuntary commitment must be supported by a finding of present dangerousness. But in determining what "degree of 'dangerousness' " should apply, the court found that the distinctions among the various definitions were "more form than substance." (Conservatorship of Hofferber, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 176, 167 Cal.Rptr. 854, 616 P.2d 836.) A "conclusive presumption of current dangerousness" based only on past violent felonious conduct would deny equal protection. (28 Cal.3d at p. 177, 167 Cal.Rptr. 854, 616 P.2d 836; Jones v. United States (1983) 463 U.S. 354, 103 S.Ct. 3043, 77 L.Ed.2d 694.) However a finding that the person is presently a danger to others, based on the appropriate standard of proof, satisfies due process concerns.