Legal Opinion

In re MH 2004-001987

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 22, 2005No. 1 CA-MH 05-0007PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BARKER, J.

¶ 1 Appellant appeals a court order for involuntary mental health treatment. She argues that the trial court’s decision to allow telephonic testimony at her hearing was error and requires reversal. We disagree and accordingly affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

¶2 In December 2004, appellant’s sister became concerned about appellant’s recent behavior. Those concerns led her to file an Application for Involuntary Evaluation. Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 36-520 (2003). That application stated appellant had shaved her head, stopped paying her bills and rent, started wandering…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Greene v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. O'Connor v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Parham v. J. R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In re MH 2006-000749Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  2. Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic SecurityCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  3. Edward P. Bolding v. State of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  4. In Re Mh-2008-000867Arizona Supreme Court · 2010
  5. In Re Mh2010-002637Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011

5 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