§

In re R.K

338 Ill. App. 3d 514 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
In re R.K

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Rob W. (In re Rob W.)

    2021 Ill. App. 200149 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    ¶ 73 In reaching this conclusion, we note that we are not persuaded by Rob's reliance on In re R.K. , 338 Ill. App. 3d 514, 271 Ill.Dec. 954, 786 N.E.2d 212 (2003), which reversed an involuntary medication order but was decided before section 2-107.1 included the "currently exhibits" phrase. The applicable version of the statute in In re R.K. required a showing that due to mental illness, respondent "exhibits any one of the following: (i) deterioration of his ability to function, (ii) suffering, (iii) threatening behavior, or (iv) disruptive behavior"; that the illness "has existed for a period marked by the continuing presence of the symptoms *** or the repeated episodic occurrence of these symptoms" and that the respondent "lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision about the treatment."

  2. People v. Rob W. (In re Rob W.)

    2021 Ill. App. 200149 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 73 In reaching this conclusion, we note that we are not persuaded by Rob's reliance on In re R.K., 338 Ill.App.3d 514 (2003), which reversed an involuntary medication order but was decided before section 2-107.1 included the "currently exhibits" phrase. The applicable version of the statute in In re R.K. required a showing that due to mental illness, respondent "exhibits any one of the following: (i) deterioration of his ability to function, (ii) suffering, (iii) threatening behavior, or (iv) disruptive behavior"; that the illness "has existed for a

  3. In re R.C

    788 N.E.2d 99 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding the trial court had no discretion to deny the respondent his statutory right to an independent psychological examination at a hearing for involuntary treatment

    Even if moot, we may consider this case under the exception recognized in In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482, 702 N.E.2d 555 (1998), and In re Jennifer H., 333 Ill. App. 3d 427, 775 N.E.2d 616 (2002). In re R.K., 338 Ill. App. 3d 514, 520 (2003). Where a case involves "an event of short duration that is capable of repetition, yet evading review," it may qualify for review even if it otherwise would be moot. Jennifer H., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 430.

  4. People v. Cathleen E. (In re Cathleen E.)

    2022 Ill. App. 3d 170415 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    The errors committed in this case recur continually in cases involving involuntary commitment and medication under the Code. See, e.g., In re Amanda H., 2017 IL App (3d) 150164, ¶¶ 42-46 (the State failed to present a written predisposition report or testimony providing the information required to be included in such a report); In re Lance H., 402 Ill.App.3d 382, 387-88 (2010) (the State failed to include the names and addresses of family or friends in its involuntary commitment petition, as required by the Code); In re R.K., 338 Ill.App.3d 514, 521-22 (2003) (State did not present any evidence that respondent lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about her treatment); In re Richard C, 329 Ill.App.3d 1090, 1094-95 (2011) (the respondent was provided no written information about the risks and benefits of the medications at issue or any alternatives to medication). Accordingly, the "capable of repetition" exception applies here.

  5. People v. Angela C (In re Angela C)

    2022 Ill. App. 3d 170154 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    The errors committed in this case recur continually in mental health cases. See, e.g., In re Amanda H., 2017 IL App (3d) 150164, ¶¶ 42-46 (State failed to present a written predisposition report or testimony providing the information required to be included in such a report); In re Lance H., 402 Ill.App.3d 382, 387-88 (2010) (State failed to include the names and addresses of family or friends in its involuntary commitment petition, as required by the Code); In re R.K., 338 Ill.App.3d 514, 521-22 (2003) (State did not present any evidence that respondent lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about her treatment); In re Richard C, 329 Ill.App.3d 1090, 1094-95 (2011) (respondent was provided no written information about the risks and benefits of the medications at issue or any alternatives to medication). Accordingly, the "capable of repetition" exception applies here.

  6. People v. Anthony G. (In re Anthony G.)

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 150123 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    See, e.g., In re Robert S., 213 Ill. 2d 30, 36, 40-41, 53-54 (2004) (evidence that a respondent threatened to kill another patient and made multiple telephone calls to an assistant state's attorney telling her that they were "supposed to be together" was sufficient to establish threatening behavior); In re R.K., 338 Ill. App. 3d 514, 516-17, 521 (2003) (evidence that the respondent struck two staff members, threw a paper bag on the floor and kicked its contents across the floor, and experienced periodic episodes of agitated and aggressive behavior was sufficient to prove that she exhibited threatening behavior). He argues, however, that while the State may have proven that he has exhibited threatening behavior in the past, it failed to prove that he was currently exhibiting threatening behavior at the time of the hearing. We disagree.

  7. People v. V.V. (In re V.V.)

    2016 Ill. App. 5th 130409 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Where a respondent's history of mental illness makes it likely that he or she will be subjected to involuntary treatment again, a reviewing court has authority to consider the respondent's appeal under this exception to the mootness doctrine. In re R.K., 338 Ill. App. 3d 514, 520, 786 N.E.2d 212, 216 (2003).¶ 19 The record in this case indicates respondent has a lengthy and ongoing medical history that dates back to his admission to the Health Center in November 2008.