Legal Opinion
In Re Johnson
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 7, 1997No. 93-FM-1094PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
Stanley Johnson was held in civil contempt of a court order requiring him to submit to a psychiatric examination at the Commission on Mental Health pursuant to a private, non-emergency petition for judicial hospitalization filed under the Ervin Act, D.C.Code § 21-541(a)(2) (1997).1 On appeal, Mr. Johnson alleges that the Ervin Act is unconstitutional in that it violates his rights to privacy and due process of law, that the petition used to commence the judicial hospitalization proceeding in his case was factually insufficient to meet due process probable cause…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Thomas v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Mack v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
- Keels v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997