Legal Opinion

Goetz v. Crosson

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 10, 1992No. 515, Docket 91-7761PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns what sort of psychiatric assistance, if any, a state must provide to indigent individuals subject to involuntary commitment or retention proceedings. Judge Goettel held that New York’s procedures governing such commitment or retention were constitutionally sufficient and entered summary judgment against the appellants. We agree with Judge Goet-tel that the Due Process Clause does not confer on involuntarily committed persons an absolute right to psychiatric assistance at commitment or retention proceedings. However, we cannot exclude the possibility…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Barefoot v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Vitek v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Kulak v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
  2. Rodriguez v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  3. Rodriguez v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  4. Ahlers v. RabinowitzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
  5. Warren v. PatakiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API