14 results for 'cat:"Commitment" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Richman finds that the trial court erred in denying a gravely disabled person's motions to dismiss conservatorship proceedings. The trial court abused its discretion in finding that good cause existed to continue the trial despite a statutory requirement that proceedings commence within 10 days. But the disabled person failed to show prejudice or that the trial court erroneously concluded that she was gravely disabled. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Richman, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: A167919, Categories: commitment, due Process, Competence
Per curiam, the court of appeals denies the psychiatric patient's petition for a writ of mandamus in which he seeks to challenge the denial of his appeal of an order denying an unauthorized petition for release from civil commitment. The trial court properly considered the results of a recent review in considering whether a factfinder in a formal hearing must determine whether he no longer suffers from a behavioral abnormality that make him likely to commit a predatory act of sexual violence. Though another review showed the patient had support and job prospects, both reviews address similar concerns.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 09-22-00132-CV, Categories: commitment, due Process
J. Bishop finds the mental health board properly entered a commitment order for the involuntary treatment of the patient. The patient expressed delusions “focused on multiple rape experiences...by a lot of people...including [the] famous, psychiatrists, police officers, and animals.” His manic speech made it difficult to communicate with him. The patient contends his doctor did not provide a timeline or milestones he needed to meet; however, these concerns are dependent upon the patient's cooperation and progress, which are not predictable. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bishop , Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: A-23-453, Categories: Health Care, commitment, due Process
J. McGrath finds that the trial court properly held that respondent waived his rights to oppose a three-month involuntary civil commitment. He signed a stipulation while thinking logically and after a thorough discussion with counsel. But an order for the involuntary administration of medications was not supported by evidence of necessity. Reversed in part.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McGrath, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: DA 22-0014, Categories: commitment, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Lowy finds that the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process were violated by his involuntary commitment. It is unconstitutional for a pretrial defendant to be detained for an evaluation and observation of competency without a judge finding via clear and convincing evidence that there are no less restrictive means to determine the defendant’s competency to stand trial.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Lowy, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: SJC-13455, Categories: Constitution, due Process, commitment
J. Marconi affirms an order granting a petition for guardianship over a man who was involuntarily committed, but vacates the order granting the petition for his nonemergency involuntary admission. It is unclear whether the man lived in New Hampshire at the time the emergency admission expired and the non-emergency involuntary admission petition was filed. Reversed in part.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court, Judge: Marconi, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 2021-0408, Categories: commitment, due Process, Guardianship
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly in revoking defendant’s community supervision for violating a protective order after he allegedly failed to submit to required drug testing. Defendant argued the revocation was “unduly influenced by a pending murder charge against him,” but defendant was aware of his probation requirements and therefore “[d]ue process was satisfied.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00120-CR, Categories: Bail, due Process, commitment
Per curiam, the court of appeals vacates the superior court's order that defendant remain in inpatient treatment pending the filing of a civil-commitment case. Defendant was due certain findings before the order was made, including a determination whether he has a mental illness, and whether he is a danger to himself or others. Vacated.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 23-CO-0233, Categories: commitment, due Process
J. Gonzalez finds that the lower court improperly allowed involuntary treatment petitions to be filed against two individuals held at a hospital and continued to be held well after the commitment orders had expired. While a third individual in this case was held under a valid court order, the state "totally disregarded" the rights of two others under the Involuntary Treatment Act when it simply began new involuntary treatment proceedings when it realized the older court orders expired. Filing new involuntary treatment proceedings while someone is already being held without authority is blatantly unacceptable under the law, and so those petitions are remanded for dismissal. Reversed in part.
Court: Washington Supreme Court, Judge: Gonzalez, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 100668-3, Categories: commitment, due Process
J. Whitener finds that the lower court improperly refused to dismiss an involuntary treatment petition against an individual. The individual was held after the involuntary 72-hour hold had expired, despite the individual asking to leave. The state instead evaluated him for a new 72-hour hold the day after the expiration and filed for a 14-day commitment order. That petition was granted, but the matter should have been dismissed because even being kept overnight after a hold order has expired is a violation of the Involuntary Treatment Act. Reversed.
Court: Washington Supreme Court, Judge: Whitener, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 100716-7, Categories: commitment, due Process
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly in finding a man to be a sexually violent predator and civilly committing him. The man argued the jury had been unfairly prejudiced when the court allowed them to hear details of his adjudicated and unadjudicated offenses, but that evidence was provided with the “limited purpose of assisting the jury in weighing the experts’ opinions on the ultimate issue of [the man’s] behavioral abnormality” and did not unfairly prejudice him. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: June 19, 2023, Case #: 08-22-00222-CV, Categories: Evidence, commitment, due Process