Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harlfinger v. Martingreen2 sentences2003See Harlfinger v. Martin, 435 Mass. 38 , 754 N.E.2d 63, 75 (2001). 2003See Harlfinger v. Martin, 435 Mass. 38 , 754 N.E.2d 63, 75 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc.green1 sentence2003The Minnesota Court of Appeals has summarized the appropriate factors for determining when treatment ends: “(1) whether there is a relationship between physician and patient with regard to the illness; (2) whether the physician is attending and examining the patient; and (3) whether there is something more to be done.” Wheeler , at 138 (quoting Krause v. Farber, 379 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Minn.Ct.App.1985)). [¶ 32] The continuing treatment doctrine requires an active physician-patient relationship, and is not triggered by actions such as the patient continuing on prescribed medications, return visits | 1 | 1 |
Krause v. Farbergreen2 sentences2003The Minnesota Court of Appeals has summarized the appropriate factors for determining when treatment ends: "(1) whether there is a relationship between physician and patient with regard to the illness; (2) whether the physician is attending and examining the patient; and (3) whether there is something more to be done." Wheeler, at 138 (quoting Krause v. Farber, 379 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Minn.Ct.App.1985)). [¶ 32] The continuing treatment doctrine requires an active physician-patient relationship, and is not triggered by actions such as the patient continuing on prescribed medications, return visits t 2003The Minnesota Court of Appeals has summarized the appropriate factors for determining when treatment ends: “(1) whether there is a relationship between physician and patient with regard to the illness; (2) whether the physician is attending and examining the patient; and (3) whether there is something more to be done.” Wheeler , at 138 (quoting Krause v. Farber, 379 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Minn.Ct.App.1985)). [¶ 32] The continuing treatment doctrine requires an active physician-patient relationship, and is not triggered by actions such as the patient continuing on prescribed medications, return visits | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Interest of KJL
green
2 sentences1996Thus, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patient continues to be “a person requiring treatment.” K.J.L., 541 N.W.2d at 700 . 1996Thus, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patient continues to be "a person requiring treatment." K.J.L., 541 N.W.2d at 700 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
In Interest of JS
green
2 sentences1998IV, 545 N.W.2d at 148 (quoting N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-31(1)). *94 [¶ 15] In his brief, J.S. "does not contest he is mentally ill or in need of treatment." J.S. argues, however, he has the right, under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-40(2), to the least restrictive treatment alternative, and outpatient treatment is the least restrictive alternative. 1998IV, 545 N.W.2d at 148 (quoting N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-31(D). [¶ 15] In his brief, J.S. “does not contest he is mentally ill or in need of treatment.” J.S. argues, however, he has the right, under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-40(2), to the least restrictive treatment alternative, and outpatient treatment is the least restrictive alternative. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In the Interest of L.L.
green
2 sentences1995Exclusion from one’s continuing treatment and forced medication hearing is not qualitatively or quantitatively comparable to a de minimis delay in a continuing treatment hearing, and so the majority’s reliance on In Interest of L.L., 482 N.W.2d 854 (N.D.1992), is not convincing. 1995Exclusion from one's continuing treatment and forced medication hearing is not qualitatively or quantitatively comparable to a de minimis delay in a continuing treatment hearing, and so the majority's reliance on In Interest of L.L., 482 N.W.2d 854 (N.D.1992), is not convincing. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.