Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In re MH 2008-001752

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 5, 2009No. 1 CA-MH 08-0048PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED OPINION

JOHNSEN, Judge.

¶ 1 The Patient in this case argues we should reverse an involuntary mental-health treatment order on the ground that no witness at the hearing identified her as the subject of the petition for treatment. We conclude a patient in such a proceeding has *568no due-process right to an in-eourt identification and affirm the treatment order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A2A medical doctor filed a petition for an involuntary mental-health evaluation of Patient. The petition stated there was reasonable cause to believe Patient was a danger to herself and was persistently or…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Parham v. J. R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. City of Phoenix v. DonofrioArizona Supreme Court · 1965
  4. State v. Gonzalez-GutierrezArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  5. People v. GarciaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re Mh-2008-000867Arizona Supreme Court · 2010
  2. In re MH 2009-001264Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  3. In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  4. In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  5. Menghini v. MenghiniCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API