Legal Opinion

In re MH2012-002480

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 27, 2013No. 1 CA-MH 12-0077PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GOULD, Judge.

¶ 1 This appeal addresses whether two witnesses who testified at an involuntary commitment proceeding qualified as “acquaintance witnesses” pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36-539(B). Finding that they did, we affirm the superior court’s involuntary commitment order.

Background and Procedural History

¶ 2 In late July 2012, Appellant’s doctor filed a petition for court-ordered evaluation alleging that Appellant was persistently or acutely disabled, unwilling to accept voluntary treatment, and “delusional and psyehotic” with impaired insight and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  2. In re MH 2006-000749Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  3. In Re the Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Matter No. MH 862-16-84Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  4. In Re Mh 2008-002596Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re: Mh2019-004895Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
  2. In Re Mh2019-007059Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
  3. In Re: Mh 2019-004895Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API