In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Mark V.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASTAUGH, Senior Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
In November 2011 the superior court entered a 30-day involuntary civil commitment order for Mark V. after the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Mark posed a "substantial risk ... of harming others."1 Mark argues on appeal that the court clearly erred in so finding. Because his period of commitment under that order has expired and Mark was soon released from custody, his "weight of the evidence" appeal is technically moot. But he argues that the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine nonetheless justifies…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- People v. Alfred H.H.Illinois Supreme Court · 2009
- Trustees for Alaska v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
- Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1324 v. City of FairbanksAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- Ulmer v. Alaska Restaurant & Beverage Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In Re Hospitalization of Naomi B.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019
- In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Mark V.Alaska Supreme Court · 2016
- Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. First National Bank AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
- In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Luciano G.Alaska Supreme Court · 2019
- In Re of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Dakota K.Alaska Supreme Court · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.