Legal Opinion
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided September 22, 2005No. 1 CA-MH 05-0007PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
120 P.3d 210 (2005)
211 Ariz. 255
In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX
No. 1 CA-MH 05-0007.
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E.
September 22, 2005.
Andrew P. Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney, Phoenix, By Lisa Stelly Wahlin, Deputy County Attorney, for Appellee.
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix, By Karen Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, for Appellant.
OPINION
BARKER, J.
¶ 1 Appellant appeals a court order for involuntary mental health treatment. She argues that the trial court's decision to allow telephonic testimony at her hearing was error and requires reversal. We disagree…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Greene v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- O'Connor v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Parham v. J. R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. McCabeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009