Legal Opinion
In re Urcuyo
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 20, 2000PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Anthony J. Cutrona, J.
These cases represent the first constitutional challenge to the assisted outpatient treatment provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, commonly referred to as Kendra’s Law.
Respondents contend that contrary to the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution, the common law of New York State and the Equal Protection Clauses of the New York and United States Constitutions mandate that in order for a court to grant a petition for assisted outpatient treatment, it must find by clear and convincing evidence…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- O'Connor v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Schloendorff v. Society of the New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re Gail R.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- In re K.L.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Cohen v. Anne C.New York Supreme Court · 2001
- Gracie Square Hospital v. Jesglar C.New York Supreme Court · 2014
- In re WeinstockNew York Supreme Court · 2002