6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re MH 2006-000749green2 sentences2011Cf. MH 2006-000749, 214 Ariz. 318, ¶ 23 , 152 P.3d at 1206 (determining whether waiver voluntary and knowing “particularly problematic in an involuntary treatment hearing” because patient alleged to be “so persistently or acutely disabled as a result of a mental disorder that she should be compelled to receive treatment”). ¶ 7 Thus, we find no reason to conclude appellant had actual or constructive notice of the hearing, much less that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present. 2011Cf. MH 2006-000749, 214 Ariz. 318, ¶ 23 , 152 P.3d at 1206 (determining whether waiver voluntary and knowing “particularly problematic in an involuntary treatment hearing” because patient alleged to be “so persistently or acutely disabled as a result of a mental disorder that she should be compelled to receive treatment”). ¶ 7 Thus, we find no reason to conclude appellant had actual or constructive notice of the hearing, much less that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Jesse M.green2 sentences2008In re Jesse M., 217 Ariz. 74, 76, ¶ 9 , 170 P.3d 683, 685 (App.2007). 2008In re Jesse M., 217 Ariz. 74, 76, ¶ 9 , 170 P.3d 683, 685 (App.2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 175 , 800 P.2d 1260, 1283 (1990) (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, ¶ 3 , 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999) (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial). ¶ 19 Our conclusion that section 36-539 does not foreclose a patient from waiving her appearance at an involuntary treatment hearing is buttressed by the fact that a contrary reading of the statute would lead to an absurd result. 2007Id. at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 175 , 800 P.2d 1260, 1283 (1990) (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, ¶ 3 , 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999) (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial). ¶ 19 Our conclusion that section 36-539 does not foreclose a patient from waiving her appearance at an involuntary treatment hearing is buttressed by the fact that a contrary reading of the statute would lead to an absurd result. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Persongreen2 sentences2007See Coconino County No. MH 1425, 181 Ariz. at 293, 889 P.2d at 1091 (“[Statutory requirements [in an involuntary commitment hearing] must be strictly adhered to.”). 2007See Coconino County No. MH 1425, 181 Ariz. at 293, 889 P.2d at 1091 (“[Statutory requirements [in an involuntary commitment hearing] must be strictly adhered to.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Amaya-Ruizgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 175 , 800 P.2d 1260, 1283 (1990) (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, ¶ 3 , 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999) (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial). ¶ 19 Our conclusion that section 36-539 does not foreclose a patient from waiving her appearance at an involuntary treatment hearing is buttressed by the fact that a contrary reading of the statute would lead to an absurd result. 2007Id. at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 175 , 800 P.2d 1260, 1283 (1990) (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, ¶ 3 , 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999) (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial). ¶ 19 Our conclusion that section 36-539 does not foreclose a patient from waiving her appearance at an involuntary treatment hearing is buttressed by the fact that a contrary reading of the statute would lead to an absurd result. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxxgreen2 sentences2007An adult who is the subject of a proposed involuntary treatment order is “entitled to [a] full and fair adversary hearing[ ].” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 627 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also In re MH 2004-001987, 211 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶ 20 , 120 P.3d 210, 214-15 (App.2005); cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (due process must be afforded to patient in civil commitment proceeding). ¶ 15 The procedural requirements the legislature established 2007An adult who is the subject of a proposed involuntary treatment order is “entitled to [a] full and fair adversary hearing[ ].” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 627 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also In re MH 2004-001987, 211 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶ 20 , 120 P.3d 210, 214-15 (App.2005); cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (due process must be afforded to patient in civil commitment proceeding). ¶ 15 The procedural requirements the legislature established | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nold v. Nold
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Canady
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 175 , 800 P.2d 1260, 1283 (1990) (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, ¶ 3 , 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999) (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial). ¶ 19 Our conclusion that section 36-539 does not foreclose a patient from waiving her appearance at an involuntary treatment hearing is buttressed by the fact that a contrary reading of the statute would lead to an absurd result. 2007Id. at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 175 , 800 P.2d 1260, 1283 (1990) (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, ¶ 3 , 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999) (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial). ¶ 19 Our conclusion that section 36-539 does not foreclose a patient from waiving her appearance at an involuntary treatment hearing is buttressed by the fact that a contrary reading of the statute would lead to an absurd result. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
O'Connor v. Donaldson
green
2 sentences2007An adult who is the subject of a proposed involuntary treatment order is “entitled to [a] full and fair adversary hearing[ ].” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 627 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also In re MH 2004-001987, 211 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶ 20 , 120 P.3d 210, 214-15 (App.2005); cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (due process must be afforded to patient in civil commitment proceeding). ¶ 15 The procedural requirements the legislature established 2007An adult who is the subject of a proposed involuntary treatment order is “entitled to [a] full and fair adversary hearing[ ].” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 627 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also In re MH 2004-001987, 211 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶ 20 , 120 P.3d 210, 214-15 (App.2005); cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (due process must be afforded to patient in civil commitment proceeding). ¶ 15 The procedural requirements the legislature established | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Bishop
green
2 sentences2007If, as here, the patient is not present, third parties may be examined about the facts of the patient’s apparent decision to waive her right to appear, about their understanding of that decision and about whether it was made voluntarily. 7 ¶30 Although we are bound not to upset the superior court’s finding of a voluntary waiver absent an abuse of discretion, see Bishop, 139 Ariz. at 569 , 679 P.2d at 1056 , we must remand this matter because of the absence of any evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that Appellant voluntarily chose to waive her right to be present at the in 2007If, as here, the patient is not present, third parties may be examined about the facts of the patient’s apparent decision to waive her right to appear, about their understanding of that decision and about whether it was made voluntarily. 7 ¶30 Although we are bound not to upset the superior court’s finding of a voluntary waiver absent an abuse of discretion, see Bishop, 139 Ariz. at 569 , 679 P.2d at 1056 , we must remand this matter because of the absence of any evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that Appellant voluntarily chose to waive her right to be present at the in | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Parham v. J. R.
green
2 sentences2007An adult who is the subject of a proposed involuntary treatment order is “entitled to [a] full and fair adversary hearing[ ].” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 627 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also In re MH 2004-001987, 211 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶ 20 , 120 P.3d 210, 214-15 (App.2005); cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (due process must be afforded to patient in civil commitment proceeding). ¶ 15 The procedural requirements the legislature established 2007An adult who is the subject of a proposed involuntary treatment order is “entitled to [a] full and fair adversary hearing[ ].” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 627 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also In re MH 2004-001987, 211 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶ 20 , 120 P.3d 210, 214-15 (App.2005); cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (due process must be afforded to patient in civil commitment proceeding). ¶ 15 The procedural requirements the legislature established | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.