Legal Opinion · Concurrence
In Re Fuller
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 6, 1952No. Calendar 45,303Published
1ConcurrenceBoyles, J.
(concurring in.part). I agree with Justice Carr that there was an absence of any competent testimony at the hearing in probate court to prove insanity. Por that reason the patient must be released. I do not find it necessary to concur in some of the other reasons given.
The testimony has been quoted in full. It does not tend to prove insanity.
“Among other questions presented is petitioner’s-contention that at the hearing in the probate court no. competent testimony was produced tending to prpve petitioner’s alleged insanity, and therefore his commitment by the probate court was absolutely void…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In Re GordonMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
- In Re Harold H. RobertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
- In Re AslanianMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- In Re HainesMichigan Supreme Court · 1946