Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Forensics > Landmark etc > Flashcards

Landmark etc Flashcards

1
Q

Addington vs Texas

A

Burden of proof in civil hospitalization is clear and convincing. Supreme court case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Jackson vs Indiana

A

Cannot be confined longer than the crime charged to restore competency. Supreme court case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Lake vs Cameron

A

Least restrictive alternative. DC Circuit. Not federalized.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Zinermon vs Burch

A

In “Zinermon v. Burch,” a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that a mentally ill patient’s consent to voluntary commitment at a mental health facility may not be valid if the patient’s decision was influenced by misrepresentations or inadequate information provided by state officials. This case emphasized the importance of ensuring that individuals voluntarily commit themselves to mental health facilities based on accurate and truthful information, especially when they may lack the capacity to make fully informed decisions due to mental illness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Lessard v Schmidt

A

Civil commitment must have certain due process minimums. Wisconsin Supreme Court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

CRIPA

A

The law allows for the attorney general to intervene on behalf of institutionalized people whose rights may have been repressed or violated. This law was enacted to give statutory authority to the Department of Justice to protect the civil rights cases of institutionalized people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

PAIMI

A

The PAIMI grant program is intended to protect and advocate for the rights of adults with Significant (Serious) Mental Illness (SMI) and children with Significant (Serious) Impairment or Emotional Disturbances (SED) through activities to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution, and Federal and State statutes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Olmstead vs LC

A

The Supreme Court held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with intellectual disabilities have the right to live in the community rather than in institutions if, in the words of the opinion of the Court, “the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In re: Lifschutz

A

Patient waives privilege, not doctor.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Doe vs Roe

A

Cannot publish information without informed consent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

HIPPA

A

Passed in 1996. Contains several exceptions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Jaffee vs Redmont

A

“Jaffee v. Redmond” is a U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized the attorney-client privilege in the context of confidential communications between clients and psychotherapists. The case established that such communications, made for the purpose of obtaining treatment or legal advice, are protected from disclosure. This ruling emphasized the importance of preserving trust and confidentiality in psychotherapist-client relationships. Section 501 federal rules of evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

State vs Andring

A

Group therapy covered by privilege, though there are exceptions. Circuit court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

People vs Strizringer

A

There is no duty to duplicate reporting of child abuse when the allegation has already been made.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

O Connor vs Donaldson

A

Dangerousness is required for civil commitment of mentally ill patients. Also aright to treatment case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Youngberg vs Romeo

A

In “Youngberg v. Romeo” (1982), a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, a limited right to treatment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in state institutions was established. This ruling recognized that these individuals have a constitutional right to receive minimally adequate care and treatment while institutionalized. It emphasized the need to balance their rights with appropriate care, including protection from harm, individualized treatment plans, and adherence to professional standards. While it recognized the right to treatment, it did not specify treatment details, serving as a framework for evaluating constitutional standards in disability rights cases. This decision has had a lasting impact on disability rights law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wyatt vs Stickney

A

“Wyatt v. Stickney” was a landmark case in 1971 that resulted in significant changes in the treatment and rights of individuals with mental disabilities. It established that individuals with mental disabilities have the right to receive treatment in the least restrictive environment, access to adequate treatment, qualified staff, and appropriate living conditions. This case had a profound impact on mental health policy, treatment standards, and the deinstitutionalization movement in the United States, promoting community-based care for individuals with mental disabilities.
In summary, while both cases are significant in the context of disability rights, they differ in their focus and scope, with “Wyatt v. Stickney” addressing specific conditions in an institution and “Youngberg v. Romeo” emphasizing the broader principles of balancing individual rights with the necessity of care and treatment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Rogers vs Commissioner

A

In the case of “Rogers v. Commissioner of Mental Health” in 1983, heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, landmark legal standards were established for the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to mental health patients. This case outlined specific criteria that must be met before administering such medications, including determining the patient’s incompetence to make decisions, demonstrating medical necessity, selecting the least intrusive means of treatment, and requiring judicial review to safeguard the patient’s rights and well-being. Rights driven med model.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Washington vs Harper

A

1983 suit. State permitted to treat in mate if he is dangerous to self and others.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Tarasoff 1 vs 2

A

Duty to warn vs duty to protect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Lipari vs Sears

A

Duty to protect extends to third parties who are not known

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Jablonski vs US

A

A psychiatrist must protect a foreseeable victim even if no specific threat has been entered. Similar to Lipari vs Sears.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Canterbury vs Spence

A

Canterbury v. Spence (1972) established the principle that patients must be informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a medical procedure before giving consent. This landmark case emphasized the duty of healthcare providers to provide transparent information for informed decision-making by patients.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Natanson vs Kline

A

Informed consent necessary for non-negligent physician care. Reasonable person vs reasonable physician standard.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Kaimowitz vs Michigan Dept of Mental Health

A

In “Kaimowitz v. Department of Mental Health,” the Court ruled that the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to institutionalized individuals, without their informed consent or a court order, violated the individuals’ constitutional rights. The decision emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of individuals with mental illness, including the right to refuse medication and the need for proper procedures and safeguards when administering such treatment in mental health institutions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Cruzan vs Missouri

A

Clear and convincing evidence standard for withdrawal of life sustaining treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

NPDB

A

The National Practitioner Data Bank (“the NPDB”) is a database operated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that contains medical malpractice payment and adverse action reports on health care professionals.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Glucksberg vs Washington

A

Due Process Clause does not protect the right to assistance in committing suicide. Supreme Court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

42 CFR Part 6

A

42 CFR Part 6 is a regulation protecting research subjects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Res ipsa loquiter

A

Certain acts automatically indicate negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Contributory negligence

A

Contributory negligence is a legal concept where if an injured person is found to have contributed even slightly to their own injury, they may be unable to recover damages from the party at fault.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Roy vs Hartogs

A

Sexual intercourse is malpractice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Clites vs Iowa

A

Must warn of Tardive Dyskinesia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Dillon vs Legg

A

A bystander that suffers damages by the conduct of a negligent tortfeasor can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress even if they are outside zone of danger.

34
Q

Meritor vs Vinson

A

Sexual harassment case does not require Quid Pro Quo, but a hostile work environment.

35
Q

Harris v Forklift

A

Hostile work environment need not cause serious emotional distress

36
Q

Oncale vs Sundowner

A

Same sex discrimination qualifies as sexual harassment.

37
Q

Bragdon vs Abott

A

Discriminate against HIV positive patient is a violation of the 14th amendment and coveted under ADA as reproduction.

38
Q

US vs Georgia

A

ADA extends to prisons can be sued under title 2

39
Q

Dusky Standard

A

Basic knowledge not enough, need rational as well as factual understanding. Supreme Court competency standard.

40
Q

Godinez vs Moran

A

In “Godinez v. Moran” (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant must be declared competent in a separate hearing before pleading guilty. The Court ruled that a separate competency hearing is not required for pleading guilty. It distinguished between the competency to stand trial and the capacity to plead guilty, stating that a defendant can plead guilty if they have a rational understanding of the proceedings, the consequences of their plea, and the rights they are waiving. The decision emphasized the importance of ensuring that a defendant’s guilty plea is made voluntarily and with a clear understanding of its implications.

41
Q

Cooper vs Arizona

A

Preponderence of the evidence standard for competency

42
Q

Riggins vs Nevada

A

State must be careful in administering medication to restore competency. Could sometimes be appropriate but also must be least restrictive option.

43
Q

Sell vs US

A

Building on Riggins: Drugs to make defendant competent to stand trial may be administered involuntarily under very limited circumstances.

44
Q

Colorado Vs Connelly

A

In “Colorado v. Connelly” (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that a mentally ill defendant’s involuntary confession could be admitted as evidence if it was not coerced by law enforcement.

45
Q

Alford Plea

A

An Alford plea is when a defendant, while not admitting guilt, acknowledges there’s enough evidence for a likely conviction. It allows them to accept a plea deal or reduced sentence to resolve the case without admitting to the crime.

46
Q

Montana vs Egelhof

A

Voluntary intoxication can be excluded from evidence.

47
Q

Clark vs Arizona

A

Due process does not prohibit Arizona’s use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant’s evidence of mental defect to only what is relevant to that insanity test, even when mens rea is an element of the charged crime. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.

48
Q

Durham

A

Product rule. Bazelon. DC Circuit.

49
Q

Indiana vs Edwards

A

Holding
A criminal defendant who is competent to stand trial may nevertheless be found incompetent to represent himself at that trial. Requires separate evaluation. Still preponderance.

50
Q

Jones vs US

A

The Court held that when an individual proves by preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, the Government is permitted by the Constitution, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental institution until he has regained his sanity and is no longer a danger to himself

51
Q

Foucha vs Arizona

A

Patient must have a mental illness after he has been adjudicated as not guilty by reason of insanity.

52
Q

Robinson vs California

A

Punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Track marks on arm.

53
Q

Powell vs US

A

Contra Robinson, actual intoxication punishment not a violation of due process.

54
Q

Panetti vs Quarterman

A

Criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, Updated Ford vs Wainwright

55
Q

Ford vs Wainwright

A

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the insane. Standard is knows what they did and what is happening. Panetti updated but did not set strict criteria. Atkins vs Virginia is for intellectually disabled.

56
Q

Perry vs Lousiana

A

The state cannot give medications to restore competency to be executed

57
Q

Atkins vs Virginia

A

The state can not execute a mentally retarded inmate. Similar to Ford v Wainwright.

58
Q

Hall vs Florida

A

It is a violation of the 14th amendment to rely only on IQ scores for determining ID for execution. Related to Atkins vs Virginia.

59
Q

Roper vs Simmons

A

Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18, similar to Graham vs Florida and Miller vs Alabama but for death penalty, not life sentences.

60
Q

Barefoot vs Estelle

A

There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that psychiatrists, individually and as a group, are incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community. The APA said the defendant was right! So ridiculous.

61
Q

Estelle vs Smith

A

“An accused who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding.”

62
Q

Ake vs Oklahoma

A

The state is obligated to provide a competency eval to defendents.

63
Q

Payne vs Tennessee

A

The admission of a victim impact statement does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment

64
Q

Vitek vs Jones

A

“Vitek v. Jones” was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1980. In this case, the Court ruled that transferring a prison inmate to a mental institution against their will implicates a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision emphasized that inmates facing such transfers are entitled to certain procedural safeguards, including written notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to contest the transfer. This case clarified the rights of prisoners when facing involuntary transfers to mental health institutions.

65
Q

Baxstrom vs Herald

A

Civil commitment following a prison term does not constitute an unconstitutional double jeopardy.

66
Q

Estelle vs Gamble

also

Farmer vs Brennan

A

8th amendment violations in prison must involve deliberate indifference rather than just medical malpractice. Estelle held that medical malpractice did not rise to the standard of deliberate indifference.

67
Q

Brown vs Plata

A

A court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights.

68
Q

Allen vs Illinois

A
  1. A stubbornly defiant criminal defendant may forfeit, by his conduct, the right to be present at his trial.
69
Q

Specht vs Patterson*

A

“Specht v. Patterson” was a U.S. Supreme Court case that focused on due process and notice in administrative proceedings. The case involved individuals convicted of sexual offenses in Colorado who were subject to civil commitment. The plaintiffs argued they were not adequately informed about the proceedings, and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, emphasizing the need for clear notice and an opportunity to be heard in such cases. This case set important precedents for due process rights in civil commitment proceedings.

70
Q

Kansas vs Hendrinks 1970

Kansas vs Crane

A

Supported Kansas’ sex offender law but says there must be a demonstration of lack of control.

71
Q

US vs Comstock

A

The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence.

72
Q

Frye vs US

A

General acceptance standard for expert testimony

73
Q

Daubert vs US

Kumho vs Carmicheal

A

The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admission of scientific evidence in a trial held in federal court. They require the trial judge to act as a gatekeeper before admitting the evidence, determining that the evidence is scientifically valid and relevant to the case at hand.

74
Q

De Shaney vs Winnebago

A

A state or county agency does not have an obligation under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to prevent child abuse when the child is 1) in parental, not agency custody, and 2) the state did not create the danger of abuse or increase the child’s vulnerability to abuse.

75
Q

Santosky vs Kramer

A

Clear and convincing is the appropriate standard for termination of parental rights.

76
Q

Parham vs JR

A

In Parham v. J.R. (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents or legal guardians could decide to commit their minor children to mental health facilities without a judicial hearing, emphasizing family privacy and trust in parental decision-making. Certain due process safeguards were outlined.

77
Q

In re Gault

A

In re Gault (1967) established that juveniles have the right to due process, including legal representation, during delinquency proceedings.

78
Q

Graham vs Florida

A

Graham v. Florida (2010) ruled that juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

79
Q

Miller vs Alabama

A

Miller v. Alabama (2012) held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional, requiring individualized sentencing consideration for juvenile offenders. Builds on Graham vs Florida.

80
Q

Board of Educators v Rowley

A

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) established the standard for special education services, emphasizing that schools must provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) but not necessarily the best possible education for students with disabilities.

81
Q

Rock vs Arkansas

A

In Rock v. Arkansas (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot impose a per se ban on a criminal defendant’s use of hypnotically refreshed testimony, affirming the importance of allowing such evidence when it meets reliability standards.

82
Q

Federal Rules of Civil Disclosure Part 26

A

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Part 26 covers the disclosure and discovery process in federal civil litigation. It outlines rules for initial disclosures, defines the scope of discovery, sets limits on discovery to ensure proportionality, and addresses expert witnesses. The rules aim to streamline the process, protect against undue burden, and provide consequences for non-compliance.

Forensics (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions