In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Gabriel C.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BOLGER, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
The respondent in a mental health commitment proceeding argues that the delay between his detention and his involuntary commitment hearing violated time limits imposed by statute and due process of law. But we conclude that the relevant statutory time limit begins upon a respondent's arrival at an evaluation facility, that there was no obvious or prejudicial statutory violation in this case, and that the delay in this case did not violate due process. We also conclude that the respondent's appeal of his involuntary medication order is now moot.
II. FACTS…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Humphrey v. CadySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Project Release v. PrevostCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- Adams v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- In Re Hospitalization of Naomi B.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019
- In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jacob S.Alaska Supreme Court · 2016
- In Re Hospitalization of Connor J.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019
- In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Luciano G.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019
- In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Mabel B., In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Sarah D.Alaska Supreme Court · 2021
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.