In re MH 2006-000023
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, Judge.
¶ 1 J.B.1 appeals from the trial court’s finding that she requires involuntary treatment for her mental disorder. For the following reasons, we vacate the court’s order because J.B. was not provided with timely notice of the hearing as required by statute.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 2 On January 5, 2006, a doctor petitioned for a court-ordered evaluation of J.B. pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36-523 (2003). The following day, the trial court issued a detention order for evaluation and notice, and appointed counsel for J.B. A.R.S. §…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Trantor v. FredriksonArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Matter of Cause No. Mh-90-00566Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered PersonArizona Supreme Court · 1995
- Huck v. HaralambieArizona Supreme Court · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In Re Jesse M.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- In re MH 2007-001236Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- In Re Mh 2008-002659Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- In re MH 2007-001264Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- In re MH 2007-001275Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.