E.P. v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that matters of statutory interpretation do not depend on particular facts and are capable of repetition
• acknowledging that commitment can be justified on the risk of harm to self or others alone
• noting that the circumstances underlying E.P.’s commitment “were not only capable of repetition . . . , but they were repeated, because E.P. was committed three times on the same facts”
• affirming on grounds that person was likely to harm himself, and not addressing whether person was likely to harm others
• applying statutory definition of AS 47.30.915’s “likely to cause serious harm” to AS 47.30.730’s undefined “likely to cause harm”
• \The matter of statutory interpretation ... does not depend on E.P.'s particular facts.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).