The Court of Appeals has dismissed as moot the appeal of a woman’s involuntary commitment, determining the collateral consequences doctrine does not apply in her case.
The negative collateral consequences a patient potentially faces from an involuntary temporary commitment order makes review of an expired order “meaningful” and not moot, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled, though it ultimately affirmed the commitment.
A man’s appeal of his expired temporary involuntary commitment order was not moot, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Thursday. However, the COA also affirmed a trial’s court judgment that granted a petition for the man’s commitment.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a trial court’s involuntary commitment order of a woman to the Logansport State Hospital for treatment, finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the woman is mentally ill.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a trial court’s denial of a man’s petition challenging his continued confinement at a mental health facility, finding the evidence showed the man remained dangerous to himself and others.
Agreeing to consider a mental health commitment case despite the patient’s release, a split Court of Appeals of Indiana has reversed the imposition of a special condition prohibiting the patient from consuming alcohol or drugs during his outpatient treatment.
A hospital psychiatry resident had enough training, experience and interactions with a mentally ill woman to be considered an expert when she testified at the woman’s commitment hearing, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Tuesday.
A woman’s appeal of her completed involuntary commitment does not present an exception to mootness, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled in a dismissal.
If a party objects to holding a remote hearing, a trial court can’t deny the motion by simply citing COVID-19 without further elaboration.
A woman who was permitted to challenge her involuntary commitment order by the Indiana Supreme Court did not sway the Court of Appeals of Indiana on remand from its original decision after it concluded again that her temporary commitment was appropriate.
A mentally ill man who was committed after acting pro se has secured a reversal by the Court of Appeals of Indiana, as the appellate court determined he was not competent enough to waive his right to counsel.
A man who challenged his involuntary mental health commitment after he had already been released failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that he shouldn’t have been held against his will.
Despite her involuntary commitment order having long since expired, a woman will be permitted to challenge the order at the Court of Appeals of Indiana after the Indiana Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying its precedent on how appellate courts should review involuntary commitment cases that have become moot. A dissenting justice, however, repeated previous concerns about the majority’s approach to the public-interest mootness exception.