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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Interest of JS.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Interest of JS Anchor | green | “in some cases, a reporting doctor may reasonably conclude that less restrictive alternatives to hospitalization simply do not exist.” | 8 |
| 2 | In Interest of JS | green | “to balance the competing interests of protecting a mentally ill person and of preserving that person's liberty, our standards of decision require trial courts to use a clear and convincing standard of proof while we use a more probing 'clearly erroneous' standard of review.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.