Legal Opinion

In Re Hospitalization of Naomi B.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 2019No. 7328 S-15859/S-16467PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I. INTRODUCTION

We are presented with two separate appeals from involuntary commitment orders, brought by two appellants, one of whom also appeals a related involuntary medication order. The challenged orders expired while the respective appeals were pending; we consolidated the cases for briefing on whether to revisit our mootness jurisprudence in involuntary commitment and involuntary medication appeals. We now hold that all appeals of involuntary admissions for treatment and involuntary medication are categorically exempt from the mootness doctrine. After reviewing each case on its merits…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Humphrey v. CadySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Riggins v. NevadaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. In Re the Detention of LaBelleWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  5. People v. Alfred H.H.Illinois Supreme Court · 2009

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Cora G. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS, Justin D. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCSAlaska Supreme Court · 2020
  2. In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Luciano G.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019
  3. In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R.Alaska Supreme Court · 2020
  4. 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
  5. In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Danielle B.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019

30 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