Idaho Supreme Court· 5/26/1982
Application of True
Citations
- 645 P.2d 891
- 103 Idaho 151
- 29 A.L.R. 4th 366
- 1982 Ida. LEXIS 255
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that due process required written notice to patient of reasons for and evidence relied on justifying rehospitalization
- rights cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment require a balancing of the relative interests of the individual and the state
- rights cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment require a balancing of the relative interests of the individual and the state
- rights cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment require a balancing of the relative interests of the individual and the state
- the “minimum due process requirements” for return of an inpatient on conditional leave are prompt written notice of the reasons for re-institutionalization, and a hearing before a neutral body as soon as reasonably possible
- the \minimum due process requirements\ for return of an inpatient on conditional leave are prompt written notice of the reasons for re-institutionalization, and a hearing before a neutral body as soon as reasonably possible
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McFadden, Bakes, Bistline, Donaldson, Shepard
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial CouncilIdaho Supreme Court· 2001-07-10· cited 67×
- United States v. EllerbeeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1984-08-24· cited 26×
- Powers v. Canyon CountyIdaho Supreme Court· 1985-07-12· cited 18×
- Curnow v. YarbroughSupreme Court of Colorado· 1984-02-21· cited 17×
- Application of DowningIdaho Supreme Court· 1982-06-17· cited 16×
- In Re Commitment of BLNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2002-01-03· cited 16×
- Maresh v. State, Department of Health & Welfare Ex Rel. CaballeroIdaho Supreme Court· 1998-11-24· cited 15×
- Matter of MillsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1983-10-13· cited 14×
- In Re KBMichigan Court of Appeals· 1997-04-29· cited 11×
- Carter v. State, Dept. of Health & WelfareIdaho Supreme Court· 1982-06-17· cited 10×
- Matter of PlummerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1992-05-15· cited 10×
- State v. RussellIdaho Supreme Court· 1982-06-17· cited 5×
- State v. ChiltonIdaho Supreme Court· 1987-02-05· cited 4×
- State v. Michael Douglas WhiteIdaho Court of Appeals· 2015-06-15
- Stoneberg v. StateIdaho Supreme Court· 1984-05-04
Cites
41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court· 1970-05-04· cited 5,926×
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 5,755×
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court· 1972-10-10· cited 3,921×
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court· 1981-08-28· cited 3,458×
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1971-03-02· cited 3,052×
- Goss v. LopezSupreme Court· 1975-01-22· cited 3,014×
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court· 1979-04-30· cited 3,004×
- Ingraham v. WrightSupreme Court· 1977-04-19· cited 2,975×
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroySupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 2,289×
- Vitek v. JonesSupreme Court· 1980-03-25· cited 1,747×
- Shelton v. TuckerSupreme Court· 1960-12-12· cited 1,729×
- O'Connor v. DonaldsonSupreme Court· 1975-06-26· cited 1,231×
- Parham v. J. R.Supreme Court· 1979-06-20· cited 1,078×
- Humphrey v. CadySupreme Court· 1972-03-22· cited 784×
- Baxstrom v. HeroldSupreme Court· 1966-02-23· cited 762×
- State v. WolfeIdaho Supreme Court· 1978-07-17· cited 302×
- Laing v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1976-01-13· cited 251×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.