People v. Mary Ann P.

106 Citing cases

  1. In re Hannah C

    857 N.E.2d 733 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    The Illinois Supreme Court has proscribed such selective authorization of a treatment plan. In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 405, 781 N.E.2d 237, 244 (2002), overruling In re Nancy M., 317 Ill. App. 3d 167, 178, 739 N.E.2d 607, 616 (2000). In In re Mary Ann P., the petition listed six different medications.

  2. In re Louis S

    361 Ill. App. 3d 774 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 43 times
    Reversing the trial court's order granting a petition to administer involuntary treatment where the hospital failed to provide the patient with written notification of the risks, benefits, side effects, and alternative treatments

    Our supreme court has stated the authorization of involuntary medication of mental-health patients is a matter of "`substantial public concern.'" Robert S., 213 Ill. 2d at 46, 820 N.E.2d at 434, quoting In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 402, 781 N.E.2d 237, 243 (2002). Also, the short duration of an order authorizing involuntary treatment renders it likely that similar litigation would again be mooted by the expiration of the order.

  3. In re Lance H

    402 Ill. App. 3d 382 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    In LanceH., the State conceded that the trial court's failure to follow section 3–816(a) required reversal of the trial court's order.

    "First, the procedures which must be followed and the proofs that must be made before a court may authorize involuntary treatment to recipients of mental health services are matters of a public nature and of substantial public concern." In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 402 (2002). Here, there are questions involving the procedures and statutory guidelines to be followed; these are matters of considerable public concern.

  4. People v. Brittany F. (Brittany F.)

    2024 Ill. App. 4th 220788 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    As a result, this court cannot grant respondent effectual relief, and the appeal is moot. See, e.g., In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 401, 781 N.E.2d 237, 242 (2002) (finding the appeal was moot where the involuntary treatment order had expired). ¶ 27 Despite being moot, respondent invites this court to consider this appeal and the issues raised herein under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review and public interest exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

  5. In re T.S

    402 Ill. App. 3d 1159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Whether the trial court complied with section 2-28 of the Juvenile Court Act is a matter of statutory construction. Thus, our review is de novo.In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 404, 269 Ill.Dec. 440, 781 N.E.2d 237 (2002); In re M.G., 313 Ill.App.3d 871, 874, 247 Ill.Dec. 187, 731 N.E.2d 960 (2000).           " The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature."

  6. In re Mark W.

    811 N.E.2d 767 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)

    Appellate courts generally lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. See In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 401, 781 N.E.2d 237, 242 (2002). However, we find that the constitutional issue raised in Mark W.'s appeal falls within the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

  7. In re Mark

    348 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Appellate courts generally lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. See In re Mary Ann P, 202 Ill. 2d 393, 401, 781 N.E.2d 237, 242 (2002). However, we find that the constitutional issue raised in Mark W.'s appeal falls within the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

  8. In re Evelyn S

    337 Ill. App. 3d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining that "an order for involuntary admission is also an order for treatment"

    Appellate courts generally lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 401, 781 N.E.2d 237, 242 (2002). We find that the issues raised in Evelyn S.'s appeal fall within the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine, however.

  9. People v. H.P. (In re H.P.)

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 150302 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 14 times

    ¶ 17 First, as both the Illinois Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly emphasized, the procedural safeguards that must be followed before a mental health patient may be medicated against his will are matters of great public concern. See In re Mary Ann P. , 202 Ill. 2d 393, 402, 269 Ill.Dec. 440, 781 N.E.2d 237 (2002) ; Debra B. , 2016 IL App (5th) 130573, ¶ 21, 404 Ill.Dec. 116, 55 N.E.3d 212 ; In re Evelyn S. , 337 Ill. App. 3d 1096, 1102, 273 Ill.Dec. 1, 788 N.E.2d 310 (2003). We acknowledge that when a respondent raises questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, as H.P. does in this case, the "inherently case-specific" nature of such questions ordinarily does not "present the kinds of broad public interest issues" involved in most mental health cases.

  10. In re Jonathan

    399 Ill. App. 3d 396 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 33 times
    Providing that an appeal is deemed moot where it presents no actual controversy or where the issues involved in the trial court no longer exist because intervening events have rendered it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief

    ' " (Emphasis in original.) Gail F., 365 Ill.App.3d at 447, 302 Ill.Dec. 656, 849 N.E.2d 448, quoting In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 406, 269 Ill.Dec. 440, 781 N.E.2d 237 (2002).           The Code does not permit the fact finder " to parse the recommended treatment and selectively authorize only certain requested medications."