Legal Opinion

In Re Mh2014-002674

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 3, 2015No. 1 CA-MH 14-0073PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PORTLEY, Judge:

¶ 1 Appellant, who is deaf, challenges the trial court’s order that she undergo a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment at a mental health treatment facility. She argues that her statutorily defined due process rights were violated because the court-ordered evaluations were conducted through written communications despite her request for an American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter. Because a reasonable attempt was made to secure an ASL interpreter and Appellant effectively communicated with both evaluating doctors during the evaluations, we find no due…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Tucker v. TennesseeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  2. In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  3. HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  4. Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  5. In Re the Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1993

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API