Legal Opinion

J.R. v. Michael Hansen

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided October 15, 2015No. 12-14212PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

Two years ago we certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court about that State’s scheme for the involuntary commitment of the intellectually disabled. J.R. v. Hansen, 736 F.3d 959 (11th Cir.2013) (J.R. I). Today we revisit this appeal with the benefit of that court’s answers. See J.R. v. Palmer, 175 So.3d 710, 2015 WL 2236760 (Fla. May 14, 2015) (J.R. II). We hold that the statutory scheme, as definitively interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, is facially unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. O'Connor v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Parham v. J. R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Martin v. KempDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2018
  2. Knight v. Sheriff of Leon Cnty.District Court, N.D. Florida · 2019
  3. BWW Inc v. BrighamDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2022
  4. Behl v. PetersDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2020
  5. Brantley County Development Partners, LLC v. Brantley County, GeorgiaDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 2021

9 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