C. H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C. H. v. State

170 So. 3d 912

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 22, 2015·No. No. 3D14-1932·Published

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

The trial court correctly entered the order for involuntary inpatient placement in an effort to provide the Appellant with the care he needed. See Burley v. State, 59 So.3d 131, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding “that there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings and involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act,” but “revers[ing] the order under review and remand[ing] to allow the parties’ attorneys to make closing arguments.”). The trial court’s judgment of commitment is accordingly affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LOGUE, J.

The trial court correctly entered the order for involuntary inpatient placement in an effort to provide the Appellant with the care he needed. See Burley v. State, 59 So.3d 131, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding “that there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings and involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act,” but “revers[ing] the order under review and remand[ing] to allow the parties’ attorneys to make closing arguments.”). The trial court’s judgment of commitment is accordingly affirmed.

C. H. v. State, 170 So. 3d 912 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

170 So. 3d 912 (C. H. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related