Legal Opinion
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 6, 2010No. 2 CA-MH 2010-0001PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ECKERSTROM, Judge.
¶ 1 After a hearing on a petition for court-ordered treatment, the trial court found by clear’ and convincing evidence that appellant is persistently and acutely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and is either unable or unwilling to accept treatment voluntarily. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-540(A)(2), the court ordered that appellant receive inpatient and outpatient treatment for not more than 365 days, including no more than 180 days of inpatient treatment. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the order because neither of the two…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Phoenix v. GeylerArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- State v. WiseArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- Logerquist v. McVeyArizona Supreme Court · 2000
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, SinesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- In Re Mh2011-000914Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Steven Lane Fuller v. State of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.