Conservatorship of Early
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THE COURT.
The underlying issue in this case concerns the nature of the evidence which a jury properly may consider in determining whether a person is “gravely disabled’’ and, therefore, subject to a conservatorship proceeding and possible involuntary confinement under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.; unless otherwise designated, all further statutory references are to that code.)
We will agree with appellant’s contention that in determining whether he is “gravely disabled” a jury is entitled to consider the availability of third party…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- O'Connor v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Conservatorship of RouletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Paularena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- People v. FigueroaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- People v. HurtadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Conservatorship of BaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- San Diego County Department of Social Services v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.