Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-546.01 (2026)
Expedited appeal to the court of appeals
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An order for court ordered treatment may be reviewed by appeal to the court of appeals as prescribed in the Arizona rules of civil procedure or by special action. Such appeal or special action shall be entitled to preference.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, 897 P.2d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, 897 P.2d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “section 36-546.01 does not provide ASH with an avenue for appeal.”
In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240, 78 P.3d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-546.01 (2003). ¶ 5 Appellant first contends that the statute deprives the judge of authority to deny a continuance.”
In re MH 2007-001264, 189 P.3d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 36-539(C) (2003)], which grantfed] the Court discretion regarding the motion to continue.”
In re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058, 84 P.3d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-546.01 (2003). II. ¶ 7 To give context to the question before us, we set forth the pertinent aspects of the statutory scheme.”
In Re Mh2015-003266, 382 P.3d 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “After an evi-dentiary hearing, the superior court found Patient to be a danger to others and persistently or acutely disabled due to a mental disorder, and ordered combined inpatient and outpatient treatment for no more than 365 days, with inpatient treatment not to exceed 180…”
In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 69 P.3d 1017 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “The court ordered that the appellant undergo a combined inpatient and outpatient treatment program until he was found to be no longer persistently or acutely disabled, but not to exceed 365 days.”
In re MH 2006-000490, 154 P.3d 387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “Hadziahmetovic’s diagnosis was mental retardation, his extensive description of Appellant’s condition was sufficient to find that Appellant is gravely disabled due to a mental disorder.”
In Re Mh 2008-002596, 219 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “The court ordered involuntary treatment in a combined inpatient-outpatient program not to exceed 365 days, with the inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. The court found “that there [were] no appropriate and available alternatives [to] court-ordered treatment.”
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 36-540, the court issued an order for Appellant to undergo treatment for a period not to exceed 365 days, with a period of inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days.”
In re MH2012-002480, 306 P.3d 78 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Based on the evidence presented, the court found that as a result of a mental disorder, Appellant was “persistently and acutely disabled and in need of psychiatric treatment!,]” that she was “either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment,” and that there were “no…”
In re MH 2008-001188, 211 P.3d 1161 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “”) section 36-546.01 (2003). DISCUSSION ¶ 13 Appellant alleges that the physicians’ “persistent or acutely disabled” addenda failed to comply with statutory requirements because they did not specifically allege that she was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment.”
In re MH 2008-000438, 205 P.3d 1124 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 5 At the competency hearing, the court found Appellant “persistently or acutely disabled,” in need of treatment, and “unwilling or unable to accept voluntai’y treatment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.