Legal Opinion

In re MH 2008-000438

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 10, 2009No. 1 CA-MH 08-0017PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PORTLEY, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant challenges his involuntary treatment order. Specifically, he argues that he was not personally examined by two doctors as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 36-501 to -550.07 (2003 and Supp.2008). For the following reasons, we agree and vacate the order.

FACTS

¶ 2 A petition and application for a court ordered evaluation of Appellant was filed on February 27, 2008. The petition alleged that Appellant was a danger to himself and to others. The application, filed by a Magellan 1 case manager who had met with Appellant the day before,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Wyatt v. WehmuellerArizona Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1985
  3. In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  4. In re MH 2006-000749Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1995

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  2. In Re Mh2011-000914Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  3. State Ex Rel. Thomas v. DuncanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  4. In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  5. In Re Mh2009-002120Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API