Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Dep't of Corr. v. Office of Admin. Hearings

66 Cal.App.4th 1100 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Dep't of Corr. v. Office of Admin. Hearings

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Qawi

    32 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 266 times
    Noting that antipsychotics "have been the cause of considerable [reversible and potentially permanent] side effects. . . . On rare occasions use of these drugs has caused sudden death."

    (See Keyhea injunction, supra, pts. I.4., III.I.2.; Department of Corrections v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1108 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 473].)

  2. People v. Gonzales

    No. H037084 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 2012)

    He proposes that we “require that the superior court’s order be amended to specify the administration of Risperdal for up to 10 milligrams per day for up to six months.” He finds support for the dosage specification in the due process-based United States Supreme Court precedent we have described above and the temporal limitation in the same due process principles and because constitutional guaranties to the equal protection of the laws (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7) require it, given that under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act authorization for involuntary treatment of dangerous mentally disordered individuals lasts no more than 180 days following an initial two-week treatment regimen (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5300) and involuntary medication of a state prisoner may last only 180 days unless continued by the granting of a successive petition (Department of Corrections v. Office of Administrative Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1104, 1106, 1108). Defendant counsel had this exchange with Dr. Perez on cross-examination:

  3. Conservatorship of Pamela J

    133 Cal.App.4th 807 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 27 times
    Taking judicial notice of documents reflecting events occurring after judgment

    Given the short time frames for petitioning the court for such a determination of a patient's capacity, "the issues they raise are in the class of those `"`"capable of repetition, yet evading review"'"' which may be addressed even though they are moot. [Citation.]" ( Department of Corrections v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 473].) Moreover, because the issues in this case are important to the fundamental rights of all LPS patients whose treatment may include proposed ECT, we exercise our discretion to retain the matter and decide the issues.

  4. In re Calhoun

    121 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that under Harper, "the due process clause permits the involuntary medication of competent SVP with antipsychotic drugs in the absence of an emergency, provided that such treatment is in the SVP's medical interest"

    "Involuntary medication" has been defined as "`the administration of any psychotropic, psychoactive, or antipsychotic medication or drug to any person by the use of force, discipline, or restraint,' or the administration of any such medication or drug to a person who does not give informed consent." ( Department of Corrections v. Office of Administrative Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1103 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 473].) The referee found that "Depakote and Mellaril were not involuntarily administered to petitioners."

  5. In re Calhoun

    112 Cal.App.4th 1262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)

    "Involuntary medication" has been defined as "`the administration of any psychotropic, psychoactive, or antipsychotic medication or drug to any person by the use of force, discipline, or restraint,' or the administration of any such medication or drug to a person who does not give informed consent." (Department of Corrections v. Office of Administrative Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1103.) The referee found that "Depakote and Mellaril were not involuntarily administered to petitioners."

  6. Basilio M. v. Office of Admin. Hearings

    2d Crim. No. B291050 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 5, 2020)

    If the Legislature wishes to change those standards . . . then that is itsprerogative." (Department of Corrections. v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1108-1109, italics added.) The Legislature did just that in 2011, when it enacted section 2602 and amended section 2600 to delete any reference to the Keyhea injunction.

  7. People v. C.D.D.

    E062033 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2015)

    (Cf. Washington v. Harper, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 227, fn.11 [inmate with history of at least 20 assaults on fellow inmates and staff]; see Department of Corrections v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1105 [recent repeated threats to kill facility staff and prosecutor or judge, staff assault].) A finding of dangerousness cannot be based upon a defendant's dissatisfaction with the way his or her case is progressing, which was the focus of defendant's complaints and agitation in this case.

  8. People v. Soto

    No. H037041 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2012)

    Similarly, the involuntary medication of a state prisoner may not continue for more than 180 days unless a renewal petition is granted. (Department of Corrections v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1104.) However, we need not determine whether the 180-day limit applicable to the involuntary medication of MDOs and state prisoners also applies to an order authorizing the nonemergency involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to a SVP.

  9. In re Locks

    73 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)

    "By specifically referring to the Keyhea injunction in section 2600, the Legislature has expressly endorsed the injunction's standards for involuntary medication. . . ." ( Department of Corrections v. Office of Administrative Hearings (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1108; see also Department of Corrections v. Office of Administrative Hearings (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 780 [psychiatrist may be appointed by administrative law judge to assist inmate and counsel in responding to medication order].)