Legal Opinion

In Re Mh 2008-002596

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 20, 2009No. 1 CA-MH 09-0003PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BARKER, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant seeks relief from an order of commitment for involuntary mental health treatment. We address in this opinion the qualifications for acquaintance witnesses pursuant to A-izona Revised Statutes (“AR.S.”) section 36-539 (2009). Appellant requests that we establish an arbitrary number of encounters or minimum period of time over which a witness must have been acquainted with one for whom commitment is sought before the witness may function as an acquaintance witness under the statute. For the following reasons, we reject this request and affirm.

Facts and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. CañezArizona Supreme Court · 2002
  2. In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  3. In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  4. In Re Andrew C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. State v. TurrentineCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re MH2012-002480Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  2. In Re Mh2015-003266Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
  3. In Re Mh2018-004459Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  4. In Re: Mh 2020-004882Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2021
  5. In Re: Mh 2020-004882Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2021

1 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