Landmark etc Flashcards
Addington vs Texas
Burden of proof in civil hospitalization is clear and convincing. Supreme court case.
Jackson vs Indiana
Cannot be confined longer than the crime charged to restore competency. Supreme court case.
Lake vs Cameron
Least restrictive alternative. DC Circuit. Not federalized.
Zinermon vs Burch
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.
Lessard v Schmidt
Civil commitment must have certain due process minimums. Wisconsin Supreme Court.
CRIPA
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
PAIMI
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.
Olmstead vs LC
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.”
In re: Lifschutz
Patient waives privilege, not doctor.
Doe vs Roe
Cannot publish information without informed consent.
HIPPA
Passed in 1996. Contains several exceptions.
Jaffee vs Redmont
“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.
State vs Andring
Group therapy covered by privilege, though there are exceptions. Circuit court.
People vs Strizringer
There is no duty to duplicate reporting of child abuse when the allegation has already been made.
O Connor vs Donaldson
Dangerousness is required for civil commitment of mentally ill patients. Also aright to treatment case.
Youngberg vs Romeo
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.
Wyatt vs Stickney
“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.
Rogers vs Commissioner
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.
Washington vs Harper
1983 suit. State permitted to treat in mate if he is dangerous to self and others.
Tarasoff 1 vs 2
Duty to warn vs duty to protect
Lipari vs Sears
Duty to protect extends to third parties who are not known
Jablonski vs US
A psychiatrist must protect a foreseeable victim even if no specific threat has been entered. Similar to Lipari vs Sears.
Canterbury vs Spence
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.
Natanson vs Kline
Informed consent necessary for non-negligent physician care. Reasonable person vs reasonable physician standard.
Kaimowitz vs Michigan Dept of Mental Health
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.
Cruzan vs Missouri
Clear and convincing evidence standard for withdrawal of life sustaining treatment
NPDB
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.
Glucksberg vs Washington
Due Process Clause does not protect the right to assistance in committing suicide. Supreme Court.
42 CFR Part 6
42 CFR Part 6 is a regulation protecting research subjects
Res ipsa loquiter
Certain acts automatically indicate negligence
Contributory negligence
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.
Roy vs Hartogs
Sexual intercourse is malpractice
Clites vs Iowa
Must warn of Tardive Dyskinesia
Dillon vs Legg
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.
Meritor vs Vinson
Sexual harassment case does not require Quid Pro Quo, but a hostile work environment.
Harris v Forklift
Hostile work environment need not cause serious emotional distress
Oncale vs Sundowner
Same sex discrimination qualifies as sexual harassment.
Bragdon vs Abott
Discriminate against HIV positive patient is a violation of the 14th amendment and coveted under ADA as reproduction.
US vs Georgia
ADA extends to prisons can be sued under title 2
Dusky Standard
Basic knowledge not enough, need rational as well as factual understanding. Supreme Court competency standard.
Godinez vs Moran
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.
Cooper vs Arizona
Preponderence of the evidence standard for competency
Riggins vs Nevada
State must be careful in administering medication to restore competency. Could sometimes be appropriate but also must be least restrictive option.
Sell vs US
Building on Riggins: Drugs to make defendant competent to stand trial may be administered involuntarily under very limited circumstances.
Colorado Vs Connelly
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.
Alford Plea
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.
Montana vs Egelhof
Voluntary intoxication can be excluded from evidence.
Clark vs Arizona
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.
Durham
Product rule. Bazelon. DC Circuit.
Indiana vs Edwards
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.
Jones vs US
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
Foucha vs Arizona
Patient must have a mental illness after he has been adjudicated as not guilty by reason of insanity.
Robinson vs California
Punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Track marks on arm.
Powell vs US
Contra Robinson, actual intoxication punishment not a violation of due process.
Panetti vs Quarterman
Criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, Updated Ford vs Wainwright
Ford vs Wainwright
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.
Perry vs Lousiana
The state cannot give medications to restore competency to be executed
Atkins vs Virginia
The state can not execute a mentally retarded inmate. Similar to Ford v Wainwright.
Hall vs Florida
It is a violation of the 14th amendment to rely only on IQ scores for determining ID for execution. Related to Atkins vs Virginia.
Roper vs Simmons
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.
Barefoot vs Estelle
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.
Estelle vs Smith
“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.”
Ake vs Oklahoma
The state is obligated to provide a competency eval to defendents.
Payne vs Tennessee
The admission of a victim impact statement does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment
Vitek vs Jones
“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.
Baxstrom vs Herald
Civil commitment following a prison term does not constitute an unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Estelle vs Gamble
also
Farmer vs Brennan
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.
Brown vs Plata
A court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights.
Allen vs Illinois
- A stubbornly defiant criminal defendant may forfeit, by his conduct, the right to be present at his trial.
Specht vs Patterson*
“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.
Kansas vs Hendrinks 1970
Kansas vs Crane
Supported Kansas’ sex offender law but says there must be a demonstration of lack of control.
US vs Comstock
The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence.
Frye vs US
General acceptance standard for expert testimony
Daubert vs US
Kumho vs Carmicheal
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.
De Shaney vs Winnebago
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.
Santosky vs Kramer
Clear and convincing is the appropriate standard for termination of parental rights.
Parham vs JR
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.
In re Gault
In re Gault (1967) established that juveniles have the right to due process, including legal representation, during delinquency proceedings.
Graham vs Florida
Graham v. Florida (2010) ruled that juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Miller vs Alabama
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.
Board of Educators v Rowley
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.
Rock vs Arkansas
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.
Federal Rules of Civil Disclosure Part 26
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.
