Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re MH 2007-001236, 204 P.3d 418.

55 citing documents.

In Re: Mh2024-005691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Mh2024-005691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
2007-001236, ¶ 15 (App. 2008).
In Re Pinal County Mental Health Case Mh202400075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Re Pinal County Mental Health Case Mh202400075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Mental Health No. MH 2007-001236, n.3 (App. 2008).
Henke v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Henke v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
2007-001236, ¶ 29 (App. 2008) (clear and convincing evidence of medical issue requires “evidence expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability”).
In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
No. MH 2007-001236, ¶ 20 (App. 2008)).
In Re: Mh 2022-006353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re: Mh 2022-006353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
2007-001236, ¶ 15 (App. 2008).
In Re:mh 2021-008085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re:mh 2021-008085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See In re MH2007-001236, ¶ 20 (App. 2008).
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 2007-001236, Dr. Colon did not testify and therefore the deficiencies in his affidavit could not have been similarly cured.7 Thus, even assuming Dr. Madan’s testimony cured the deficiencies in his affidavit, his “sole affidavit is not enough to meet the statutory burden.” Id.
In Re: Mh2020-007661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re: Mh2020-007661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 15 (App. 2008).
In Re: Mh2020-01691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re: Mh2020-01691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
2007-001236, ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2008).
In Re: Mh2020-003246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re: Mh2020-003246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 15 (App. 2008).
In Re: Mh2020-001988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re: Mh2020-001988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 6, n.5 (App. 2012) (citing In re MH2007-001236, ¶ 12, n.3 (App. 2008)).
In Re: Mh2020-002060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re: Mh2020-002060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Accordingly, “the record must contain all statutorily required information, including medical evidence expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability to prove the elements for involuntary treatment.” See In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 29 (App. 2008).
In Re Mh2019-007059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Mh2019-007059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
2007-001236, ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2008).
In Re Mh2018-00006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Mh2018-00006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2007-001236, ¶ 15 (App. 2008).
In the Matter of Colton P. 397 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In the Matter of Colton P. 397 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 15 (App. 2008) (citations omitted).
In Re Marla S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Re Marla S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
2007-001236, -70, ¶ 30, -28 (App. 2008) (expert’s failure to use “magic word or phrase such as probability is not determinative”) (citation omitted).
In Re PIMA COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. MH20130801 347 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
In Re PIMA COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. MH20130801 347 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Mental Health No. MH 2007-001236, (to support involuntary treatment order, physician’s opinion must be “expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty”).
In the Matter of Larry B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In the Matter of Larry B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 36-540(A).2 A trial court’s factual findings supporting a civil commitment order “will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.” In re MH 2007–001236, ¶ 15
In the Matter of Gary P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In the Matter of Gary P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[T]he testimony from each physician must be to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability as to the statutory elements before a court may find that the clear and convincing standard [required to order involuntary treatment] has been met.” In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 29
In Re: Mh2013-001989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re: Mh2013-001989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 36– 540(A); In re MH 2007–001236, ¶ 15
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
2007-001236, , 165 n. 3, ¶ 12, , 423 n. 3 (App.2008).
In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 15 , ( ¶ 8 , In re MH 2006-000749, ¶ 13 , Little v. All Phoenix S. Cmty.
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona 270 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona 270 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 15 , (citations omitted).
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 Maricopa County Mental Health No. MH 2007-001236
In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010