Legal Opinion
In Re James
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 4, 1986No. 84-1752PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court must make an explicit finding that inpatient treatment is the least restrictive alternative before revoking a patient’s outpatient commitment pursuant to the District of Columbia Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill Act, D.C.Code § 21-501 et seq. (1981). Because the revocation directly affects a patient’s conditional liberty interest, we hold a finding is required. Accordingly, since the trial court did not find indefinite inpatient treatment was the least restrictive alternative, and the record is inconclusive, we…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Vincent E. Jenkins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
- Thomas E. Blunt v. United States of America, Thomas E. Blunt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- Catherine Lake v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, Saint Elizabeths HospitalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
- In Re Johnnie Barnard, PatientCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re MeltonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Matter of StokesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Matter of RosellDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- In Re MeltonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Matter of PlummerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.