Wash. Rev. Code » Title 71 · Chapter 71.05

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.310

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court shall set a hearing on the petition for ninety-day or one hundred eighty-day treatment within five judicial days of the trial setting hearing, or within ten judicial days for a petition filed under RCW 71.05.280(3). The court may continue the hearing in accordance with RCW 71.05.236. If the person named in the petition requests a jury trial, the trial must be set within ten judicial days of the next judicial day after the date of filing the petition. The burden of proof shall be by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and shall be upon the petitioner. The person has the right to be present at such proceeding, which shall in all respects accord with the constitutional guarantees of due process of law and the rules of evidence under RCW 71.05.217.
During the proceeding, the person named in the petition shall continue to be treated until released by order of the superior court or discharged by the behavioral health service provider. If the hearing has not commenced within thirty days after the filing of the petition, not including extensions of time ordered under RCW 71.05.236, the detained person shall be released.
[ 2020 c 302 s 44; 2012 c 256 s 8; 2005 c 504 s 709; 1987 c 439 s 9; 1975 1st ex.s. c 199 s 8; 1974 ex.s. c 145 s 22; 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 s 36.]

Notes:

Purpose—Effective date—2012 c 256: See notes following RCW 10.77.605.
Findings—Intent—Severability—Application—Construction—Captions, part headings, subheadings not law—Adoption of rules—Effective dates—2005 c 504: See notes following RCW 71.05.027.
Alphabetization—Correction of references—2005 c 504: See note following RCW 71.05.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: In re the Detention of M.W.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Detention of M.W. (2016) wash · cites it 6× “See RCW 71.05.310. The 2013 amendment at issue in this case alters that procedure for a small group of individuals.”
In Re the Detention of LaBelle (1986) wash · cites it 6× “In each case, a full hearing on the petition was held pursuant to RCW 71.05.310 at which the trial court found appellants to be gravely disabled and ordered LaBelle and Richardson committed to Western State Hospital for 90 days and Marshall to High-line Evaluation and Treatment…”
State v. Stout (2007) wash · cites it 4× “310 states that those facing civil commitment shall be afforded proceedings that “in all respects accord with the constitutional guarantees of due process of law.”
In Re Detention of Stout (2007) wash · cites it 4× “310 states that those facing civil commitment shall be afforded proceedings that "in all respects accord with the constitutional guarantees of due process of law.”
Born v. Thompson (2005) wash · cites it 5× “¶10 Turning first to the individual interests at stake, without question a “commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.”
Dunner v. McLaughlin (1984) wash · cites it 4× “RCW 71.05.310. At the probable cause hearing (RCW 71.”
Born v. Thompson (2005) wash · cites it 5× “¶ 10 Turning first to the individual interests at stake, without question a "commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.”
Addington v. Texas (1979) scotus “18, §7616 (b) (Supp. 1978); Md. Dept, of Health & Mental Hygiene Reg.”
In re the Detention of W.C.C. (2016) washctapp · cites it 2× “2 and former RCW 71.05.310 (2005), which established a 5 day limit for continuances of hearings on 90 day commitment petitions.”
In Re The Detention Of: S.e. (2017) washctapp · cites it 2× “Thereafter, another contested proceeding is held—pursuant to the procedures set forth in RCW 71.05.310—and the superior court or a jury must find that the additional commitment is warranted pursuant to distinct statutory grounds tailored to the 180-day commitment request.”
McCarthy v. Schuoler (1986) wash · cites it 2× “We agree with Schuoler that the State should have to prove each element justifying the authorization of ECT under RCW 71.05.370(7) with "clear, cogent, and convincing" evidence.”
In re the Detention of M.K. (2012) washctapp “2 FACTS ¶2 After his arrest on September 18, 2009, for criminal trespass and obstructing a police officer, MK was involuntarily detained at WSH for a 14-day mental health evaluation and for involuntary mental health treatment under RCW 71.05.310 and .320. WSH staff determined…”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.310(1) — 1 case
Pierce County v. State (2008) washctapp
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.