green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
19.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 ·
…mootness doctrine would not apply... the collateral consequences and stigma of being adjudged mentally ill remain to plague appellant throughout his life
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re DA
mootness doctrine would not apply... the collateral consequences and stigma of being adjudged mentally ill remain to plague appellant throughout his life
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re D.A.
mootness doctrine would not apply... the collateral consequences and stigma of being adjudged mentally ill remain to plague appellant throughout his life
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Harris, R.
Finken v. Roop, 339 A.2d 764, 773-74 (Pa. Super. 1975)). [J-40-2023] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 9 separate for purposes of the use of hearsay, this distinction does not comport with how practitioners and magisterial judges treat these components in practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Harris, R.
Finken v. Roop, 339 A.2d 764, 773-74 (Pa. Super. 1975)). [J-40-2023] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 9 separate for purposes of the use of hearsay, this distinction does not comport with how practitioners and magisterial judges treat these components in practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: T.B., a Minor Appeal of: T.B.
Finken v. Roop, 339 A.2d 764, 771 (Pa.Super. ental liberty that ; Id. at 772-773 deprivation of liberty and the unfortunate stigma which follow involuntary Since this proceeding was the equivalent of a trial, and the court below sua sponte directed a new civil commitment hearing be this appeal. -5-
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re S.A.
(2×)
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155 , 339 A.2d 764, 771 (1975). 9 Having reached this determination, we turn to the question of whether the Commonwealth has a compelling state interest that is addressed by application of Act 21. ¶34 As discussed above, § 6401 evidences a desire by the General Assembly to establish civil commitment procedures designed to provide necessary treatment to sexually violent delinquent children and to protect the public from danger.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re SA
(2×)
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155 , 339 A.2d 764, 771 (1975). [9] Having reached this *847 determination, we turn to the question of whether the Commonwealth has a compelling state interest that is addressed by application of Act 21. ¶ 34 As discussed above, § 6401 evidences a desire by the General Assembly to establish civil commitment procedures designed to provide necessary treatment to sexually violent delinquent children and to protect the public from danger.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Werner
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa. Super. 155, 175 , 339 A.2d 764, 774 (1975) (the burden upon the Commonwealth in a civil commitment proceeding must be equal to or greater than the clear and convincing standard); and In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. 590, 594 , 515 A.2d 883, 885-86 (1986) (burden on party seeking involuntary termination of parental rights is to establish facts by clear and convincing evidence).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Chiumento
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 163 , 339 A.2d 764, 768 (1975), appeal dismissed, 424 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1452 , 47 L.Ed.2d 728 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of A.P.
(2×)
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 173-74 , 339 A.2d 764, 773-74 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Smith
(2×)
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 173-174 , 339 A.2d 764, 773-774 (1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re J.P.
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 163 , 339 A.2d 764, 768 (1975), appeal dismissed, 424 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1452 , 47 L.Ed.2d 728 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of JP
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 163 , 339 A.2d 764, 768 (1975), appeal dismissed, 424 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1452 , 47 L.Ed.2d 728 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Commitment of Hutchinson
(2×)
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 163 , 339 A.2d 764, 768 (1975), appeal dismissed, 424 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1452 , 47 L.Ed.2d 728 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corra v. Coll
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 171-172 , 339 A.2d 764, 772-773 (1975), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 424 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1452 , 47 L.Ed.2d 728 (1976): “Euphemistic terminology is not determinative of the application of the Due Process Clause.. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Commitment of Hutchinson
(2×)
Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa.Super. 155, 163 , 339 A.2d 764, 768 (1975) appeal dismissed 424 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1452 , 47 L.Ed.2d 728 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kinner v. State
In holding this statute unconstitutional, the court noted: "`In need of care' is so broad as to be virtually meaningless." Id. at 778.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamm v. Philadelphia Board of Education
The party alleging constitutional infirmity has the burden of proof on this issue, and any doubts must be resolved in favor of sustaining the legislation: Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Com., 469 Pa. 92 , 364 A. 2d 919, 921 , appeal dismissed 97 S. Ct. 1090 (1976); Glancey v. Casey, 447 Pa. 77, 88 , 288 A. 2d 812 (1972); Com. ex rel Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa. Superior Ct. 155, 165 , 339 A. 2d 764, 769 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 960 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Beverly
(2×)
The Pennsylvania statute allowed a petition for commitment to be filed when "a person is believed to be mentally disabled and in need of care or treatment of such mental disability." The Pennsylvania statute defined "mentally disabled" as: "[A]ny mental illness, mental impairment, mental retardation, or mental deficiency, which so lessens the capacity of a person to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be under care as provided in this act." 339 A.2d 764 at 775.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Janet D. v. Carros
Finken v. Roop, supra at 162, n.4, 339 A.2d at 767-768, n.4 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Neill v. O'Neill
(2×)
The mental commitment statutes of other states have recently been held unconstitutionally vague where the statutes merely require a certification by two physicians that the individual is in need of observation and treatment or that the subject’s illness renders him "in need of care.” See Kendall v. True, 391 F Supp 413, 418 (WD Ky 1975); Commonwealth ex rel Finken v. Roop, — Pa Super —, 339 A2d 764, 778-79 (1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Union Real Estate Company of Pittsburgh
v.
Brown
v.
Brown
Appeal, No. 203.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 5, 1975.
Frank E. Coho, for appellants; No appearance entered nor brief submitted for appellee.
Jacobs, Silvestri.
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (2)
opinion by
Silvestri, J.Order affirmed.
Jacobs, J., absent.