6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 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 the Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93.green2 sentences2010We therefore affirmed the treatment order, concluding that even though the statute requires a physician to explain the advantages and disadvantages of treatment to a patient, mental health officials are not required to "engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained in order to fulfill the letter of the requirement ... particularly [] where ... the record reflects a long history of mental illness, and testimony of four witnesses establishes current behavior supporting the diagnosis of an acute and persistent disorder." Id. at 568 , 863 P.2d at 2 2010We therefore affirmed the treatment order, concluding that even though the statute requires a physician to explain the advantages and disadvantages of treatment to a patient, mental health officials are not required to "engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained in order to fulfill the letter of the requirement ... particularly [] where ... the record reflects a long history of mental illness, and testimony of four witnesses establishes current behavior supporting the diagnosis of an acute and persistent disorder." Id. at 568 , 863 P.2d at 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Cause No. Mh-90-00566
green
2 sentences1993This is particularly true where, as here, the record reflects a long history of mental illness, and the testimony of four witnesses establishes current behavior supporting the diagnosis of an acute and persistent disorder. ■ In this case, as in In re Maricopa County No. MH 90-00566, 173 Ariz. 177 , 840 P.2d 1042 (App.1992), the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wolgamott, testified that the patient was unable to understand and express an understanding of treatment alternatives because of his mental disorder. 1993This is particularly true where, as here, the record reflects a long history of mental illness, and the testimony of four witnesses establishes current behavior supporting the diagnosis of an acute and persistent disorder. ■ In this case, as in In re Maricopa County No. MH 90-00566, 173 Ariz. 177 , 840 P.2d 1042 (App.1992), the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wolgamott, testified that the patient was unable to understand and express an understanding of treatment alternatives because of his mental disorder. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Blier
green
2 sentences1980We held in State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501 , 557 P.2d 1058 (1976), that it is not reversible error for the parties to fail to sign a written stipulation, provided that the record amply demonstrates the parties’ intention to submit the issue of competency on the experts’ reports. 1980We held in State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501 , 557 P.2d 1058 (1976), that it is not reversible error for the parties to fail to sign a written stipulation, provided that the record amply demonstrates the parties’ intention to submit the issue of competency on the experts’ reports. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Pahlka v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1952Co., 62 Okl. 223 , 161 P. 544 , the court said at *103 page 550 in stating what is not a permanent nuisance: “ ‘When a cause of injury is abatable, either by an expenditure of labor or money, it will not be held permanent.’ (Citing cases.)” The court then said in explanation of that statement: “It may be said that,’ in its exact expression, this rule bears a contradiction, in that every human edifice might be altered by the expenditure of labor or money, and that therefore, under the strict letter of the rule, no artificial improvement could be permanent. 1952Co., 62 Okl. 223 , 161 P. 544 , the court said at *103 page 550 in stating what is not a permanent nuisance: “ ‘When a cause of injury is abatable, either by an expenditure of labor or money, it will not be held permanent.’ (Citing cases.)” The court then said in explanation of that statement: “It may be said that,’ in its exact expression, this rule bears a contradiction, in that every human edifice might be altered by the expenditure of labor or money, and that therefore, under the strict letter of the rule, no artificial improvement could be permanent. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.