Legal Opinion

Steele v. Hamilton County Community Mental Health Board

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 2000No. 99-1771PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The issue in this case is whether a probate court must find that an involuntarily committed mentally ill person is a danger to himself/herself or others before the court may issue an order permitting employees of the commitment facility to administer antipsychotic medication to the patient against his/her wishes. For the reasons that follow, we find that a court may issue an order permitting the administration of antipsychotic medication4 against a patient’s wishes without a finding that the patient is dangerous when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the patient lacks the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Washington v. HarperSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Riggins v. NevadaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Schloendorff v. Society of the New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1914

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. State v. MuncieOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. HaydenOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. HaydenOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2006

26 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