People v. Mary Ann P.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that procedures to be followed and proofs to be made for involuntary mental health treatment were “matters of a public nature and of substantial public concern”
• ruling that, where the legislature had not “seen fit to amend” a statute in the fashion advocated by the respondent, the supreme court would not “inject [that] provision into the statute” “under guise of statutory construction”
• ruling that, where the legislature had not “seen fit to amend” a statute in the fashion advocated by the respondent, the supreme court would not “inject [that] provision into the statute” “under guise of statutory construction”
• ruling that, where the legislature had not \seen fit to amend\ a statute in the fashion advocated by the respondent, the supreme court would not \inject [that] provision into the statute\ \under the guise of statutory construction\
• noting that \the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders is a `\highly specialized area of medicine which is better left to the experts.\' [Citation.]\
• noting that “the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders is a ‘ “highly specialized area of medicine which is better left to the experts.” ’ [Citation.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).