Torisky v. Schweiker

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that submitting to state custody rarely creates a special relationship if the patient can leave
• noting that “even commitments formally labeled as ‘voluntary’ may arguably amount to de facto deprivations of liberty” and that “[c]ourts of appeals have looked to the particular facts of an individual’s custody and, in particular, to whether the individual is free to leave state custody”
• endorsing “looking beyond the label of an individual’s confinement to ascertain whether the state has deprived an individual of liberty in such a way as to trigger Youngberg’s protections”
• doubting voluntary status where record was “far from clear that any of the plaintiffs were in a position to extricate themselves from state custody at the time of . . . their injuries”
• “[E]ven commitments formally labeled as ‘voluntary’ may arguably amount to de facto deprivations of liberty from their inception.”
• “[Appellants] are entitled to pursue their appeal, however, and we are required to proceed without the benefit of an appellee’s brief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).