Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re Brown, 889 P.2d 1088.

47 citing documents.

In Re: Mh2025-001114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 36-539(C); MH2010-002637, 228 Ariz. at 76 ¶ 1; (“Because such proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty, however, the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.”).
In Re: Mh2024-004594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
observes, “acquaintance witnesses may not include those who have participated in the psychological evaluation of the patient for commitment purposes.”
In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
(“Because such proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty, however, the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.”); In re Maricopa Cnty.
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(“Because such proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty .
In Re Mh2019-007059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re: Mh 2019-004895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Mh2018-004459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See In re Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, MH-1425, In re MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. at 355, ¶¶ 24-25.
In Re Mh2018-00006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(noting, in the context of a different component of the evaluation requirement, that “the statute is tightly drawn to avoid situations such as this, where the patient appears to have been committed primarily on the opinion and observations of one psychiatrist.”).
In Re Mh2015-002490 422 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
No. MH 1425, (considering an otherwise moot issue because a decision addressing a common practice would have “a significant impact on the mechanics of involuntary commitment hearings”).
In Re: Patricia E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. MH 1425, –93 (1995) (order vacated because evidence at involuntary commitment hearing did not include testimony of two evaluating physicians and two or more witnesses acquainted with patient).
In Re PIMA COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. MH20130801 347 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Mental Health No. MH 1425
In Re: Mh2013-001989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In re Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, see also In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003–000058
In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 18 , 205 P.3d at 1127 ; , (even “difficult and time consuming” statutory requirements warrant strict compliance).
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. Mh3079411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Mh2010-002637 263 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(“Because [civil commitment] proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty ...
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047 263 P.3d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 1425, , see also In re Maricopa County Mental Health No. MH 2003-000058
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
11, 13 , see also In re Coconino County Mental Health No. 1425
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).
In Re Mh-2008-000867 236 P.3d 405 Ariz. 2010
In re MH 2008-001752 218 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.” Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 213 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 292, , 1090 (1995); ¶ 7 , In re Maricopa County No. MH 94-00592
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 292, , 1090 (1995); In re MH 2005-001290, ¶ 7 , In re Maricopa County No. MH 94-00592
In re MH 2008-000097 210 P.3d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See also Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1090 (1995) (emphasizing that the legislature intended “to prevent professional mental health evaluators, whether consciously or otherwise, from simply ratifying or ‘rubber stamping’ one another’s findings”).
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 , (citing Alleged Mentally Disordered Person Coconino County No. MH 1425, , ).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX, ¶ 8 , (citing Alleged Mentally Disordered Person Coconino County No. MH 1425, , ).
In re MH 2007-001236 204 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
9 ¶ 13, 154 P.3d at 390-91, the superior court still must ensure that all statutory requirements for involuntary treatment are strictly met and satisfied by clear and convincing evidence before ordering treatment because COT constitutes “ ‘a serious deprivation of liberty.’” In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); A.R.S.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 204 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
89 ¶ 13, 154 P.3d at 390-91, the superior court still must ensure that all statutory requirements for involuntary treatment are strictly met and satisfied by clear and convincing evidence before ordering treatment because COT constitutes "`a serious deprivation of liberty.'" ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); A.R.S.
In re MH 2007-001264 189 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) and In re MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)).
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) and In re MH 1125, , 293, , 1091 (1995)).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 36-539 Hearing ¶ 13 Arizona courts have repeatedly recognized that civil commitment constitutes "`a serious deprivation of liberty.'" ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); see also Jesse M., 217 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 9 , 170 P.3d at 685 ; MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 214 Ariz. at 320, ¶ 14, 152 P.3d at 1203 .
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 36-539 Hearing ¶ 13 Arizona courts have repeatedly recognized that civil commitment constitutes “‘a serious deprivation of liberty.’” In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); see also Jesse M., 217 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 9, 170 P.3d at 685 ; MH 2006-000749, 214 Ariz. at 320, ¶ 14 , 152 P.3d at 1203 .
In Re Jesse M. 170 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 9 An involuntary commitment hearing is a civil proceeding that can result in “a serious deprivation of liberty.” In re MH 2006-000028, ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)).
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Matter of Coconino County No. MH 1425, , rev’d on other grounds, , (holding that it was not error for the trial court to admit reports of two physicians in lieu of testimony, stating “[njothing in the statute requires that the testimony be oral”).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Matter of Coconino County No. MH 1425, , rev'd on other grounds, , (holding that it was not error for the trial court to admit reports of two physicians in lieu of testimony, stating "[n]othing in the statute requires that the testimony be oral").
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 14 Involuntary treatment by court order is “a serious deprivation of liberty.” In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995); cf. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 , 100 S.Ct.
In re MH 2006-000023 150 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(citing Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995)), and added that “[s]trict compliance with the notice requirement” is required as “is confirmed by the fact that the notice provisions cannot be waived.” Id.
In re MH 2005-001290 142 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
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 this case, the express statutory requirements take on added significance “[bjecause involuntary treatment proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of appellant’s liberty interests [.]” Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, , (citing In re Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995)).
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX 69 P.3d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
We must, however, “read the statute as a whole, and give meaningful operation to all of its provisions.” , ( , ).
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139 54 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re the Appeal in Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074 920 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Cf. Matter of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995) (“Because [involuntary-treatment] proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty, however, the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.”).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, e.g., Matter of Mental Health Case MH 92-020