In Re Mh-2008-000867

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that any confrontation right is found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, not the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment
• finding that criminal cases addressing the Confrontation Clause were inapplicable to mental health commitment proceedings because such proceedings are civil
• stating civil commitment is “a massive curtailment of liberty” and requires due process protection
• the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause does not apply in involuntary commitment proceedings under Title 36
• “’[D]ue process,’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).