(a) A patient who has been ordered hospitalized may apply for discharge to the Criminal
Division of the Superior Court within which the hospital is located. A patient who
has been ordered to receive treatment other than hospitalization may apply for discharge
to the Criminal Division of the Superior Court that originally entered the order;
the court in its discretion may transfer the matter, for the convenience of witnesses
or for other reasons, to the Criminal Division of the Superior Court within which
the treatment is centered or in which the patient resides. Applications may be made
no sooner than 90 days after the issuance of an order of continued treatment or no
sooner than six months after the filing of a previous application under this section.
(b) The hearing on the application for discharge shall be held in accordance with the
procedures set forth in sections 7613, 7614, 7615, and 7616 of this title.
(c) If the court finds that the applicant is not a patient in need of further treatment,
it shall order the patient discharged.
(d) If the court finds that the applicant is a patient in need of further treatment, it
shall deny the application and order continued treatment for an indeterminate period
in accordance with subsections 7621(b), (c), and (d) of this title. (Added 1967, No. 305 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1968; amended 1977, No. 252 (Adj. Sess.), § 12; 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 238.)
In re C. B., 518 A.2d 366 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 4דIn May and June 1984, counsel for petitioners filed applications for discharge pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7801. In all four cases consolidated on appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioners were not “patients in need of further treatment,” see 18 V.”
In re V. C., 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 5דfiled an application for discharge under 18 V.S.A. § 7801 alleging that VSH was not providing adequate treatment and asking the court to order the Commissioner to provide adequate treatment.”
In re G. K., 514 A.2d 1031 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 2דSee 18 V.S.A. § 7801. We disagree. The patient-initiated review process “suffers from conceptual as well as serious practical deficiencies.”
G.T. v. Stone, 622 A.2d 491 (Vt. 1993). “” We went on to hold that the patient- *614 initiated review process fails to satisfy the due process rights of persons subject to indeterminate involuntary treatment orders under 18 V.S.A. § 7801. Id. at 179, 514 A.2d at 1034.”
In re L.A., 2008 VT 5 (Vt. 2008). “For the same reason, the Legislature might want to automatically stay discharge orders under 18 V.S.A. § 7801. ¶ 14. By the same token, an exemption from an automatic stay would not necessarily be appropriate for involuntary-medication orders, considering the highly invasive…”
In Re Vc, 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 5דfiled an application for discharge under 18 V.S.A. § 7801 alleging that VSH was not providing adequate treatment and asking the court to order the Commissioner to provide adequate treatment.”
In Re Cb, 518 A.2d 366 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 4דIn May and June 1984, counsel for petitioners filed applications for discharge pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7801. In all four cases consolidated on appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioners were not "patients in need of further treatment," see 18 V.”
In Re Gk, 514 A.2d 1031 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 2דSee 18 V.S.A. § 7801. We disagree. The patient-initiated review process "suffers from conceptual as well as serious practical deficiencies.”
In re J. F., 365 A.2d 258 (Vt. 1976). · cites it 3דSubsequent to the filing of this appeal, the State sought review of the case under authority of 18 V.S.A. § 7801 before the Waterbury District Court.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7801(a) — 2 cases
In re C. B., 518 A.2d 366 (Vt. 1986). “In May and June 1984, counsel for petitioners filed applications for discharge pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7801. In all four cases consolidated on appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioners were not “patients in need of further treatment,” see 18 V.”
In Re Cb, 518 A.2d 366 (Vt. 1986). “In May and June 1984, counsel for petitioners filed applications for discharge pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7801. In all four cases consolidated on appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioners were not "patients in need of further treatment," see 18 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7801(c) — 4 cases
In re C. B., 518 A.2d 366 (Vt. 1986). “In May and June 1984, counsel for petitioners filed applications for discharge pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7801. In all four cases consolidated on appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioners were not “patients in need of further treatment,” see 18 V.”
In re V. C., 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). “filed an application for discharge under 18 V.S.A. § 7801 alleging that VSH was not providing adequate treatment and asking the court to order the Commissioner to provide adequate treatment.”
In Re Cb, 518 A.2d 366 (Vt. 1986). “In May and June 1984, counsel for petitioners filed applications for discharge pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7801. In all four cases consolidated on appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioners were not "patients in need of further treatment," see 18 V.”
In Re Vc, 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). “filed an application for discharge under 18 V.S.A. § 7801 alleging that VSH was not providing adequate treatment and asking the court to order the Commissioner to provide adequate treatment.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7801(d) — 2 cases
In re V. C., 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). “filed an application for discharge under 18 V.S.A. § 7801 alleging that VSH was not providing adequate treatment and asking the court to order the Commissioner to provide adequate treatment.”
In Re Vc, 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). “filed an application for discharge under 18 V.S.A. § 7801 alleging that VSH was not providing adequate treatment and asking the court to order the Commissioner to provide adequate treatment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.