Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, 920 P.2d 18.

28 citing documents.

In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, (“When the legislature has spoken with such explicit direction, our duty is clear.”).
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047 263 P.3d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047 263 P.3d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
See In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
When the legislature has spoken with such explicit direction, our duty is clear.” In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, , (notice requirement requires strict compliance and cannot be waived).
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, , (notice requirement requires strict compliance and cannot be waived).
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 36-533(B) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Matter of Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, , (reversing an order for involuntary treatment because the petition failed to include two physician affidavits).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 36-533(B) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Matter of Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, , (reversing an order for involuntary treatment because the petition failed to include two physician affidavits).
In re MH 2006-000023 150 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000023 150 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
contends that the disposition of her case is controlled by In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In cases, such as this one, where a significant liberty interest is at stake, these “statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.” Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995); see Coconino County No. MH 95-0074
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995); see Coconino County No. MH 95-0074
In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058 84 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058 84 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Additionally, “[t]he legislature is well aware that we have required parties to comply with [the statute’s] provisions with exactness given the liberty interests at issue.” MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. at 354, ¶ 15 , 54 P.3d at 383 ; see also Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, , (“Given the liberty interests implicated in a court-ordered treatment proceeding, a more liberal reading of section 36-533 is precluded.”); MH 1425, 181 Ariz. at 293 , 889 P.2d at 1091 (“Because [involuntary trea
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240 78 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240 78 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Cf. In re MH95-0074, , (most Title 36 provisions “are set forth with precision and clarity”).
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139 54 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139 54 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
We have previously indicated that the statutory scheme at issue has been set forth with “precision and clarity.” In the Matter of the Appeal in Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See In re Appeal in Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074