Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In the Matter of B.B., Alleged to Be Seriously Mentally Impaired, B.B.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 4, 2013No. 12–0158Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMansfield, Justice

I agree that if we reach the merits, the district court’s order should be affirmed. However, I would dismiss the appeal as moot.

The majority seemingly holds that an appeal from a civil commitment order, where the appellant has been released, should only be dismissed as moot if there have been “a series of recent, successive involuntary commitments that were either not appealed or upheld on appeal.” I think this standard opens the door to too many future appeals of commitment orders where nothing tangible is at stake. I am not in favor of using our judiciary’s limited resources in this fashion.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. People v. Alfred H.H.Illinois Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Rarey v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 2000
  4. Dickinson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2008
  5. Matter of Involuntary Commitment of SkeltonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2000

2 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