In re Boyles

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re Boyles

247 S.E.2d 785, 38 N.C. App. 389, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2194

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 17, 1978

DocketNo. 7821DC473

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 S.E.2d 785 (In re Boyles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Boyles, 247 S.E.2d 785, 38 N.C. App. 389, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2194 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

N.C. G.S. § 122-58.11 sets out the procedures for involuntary commitment rehearings. As this was not the first rehearing, subsection (e) applies: “Fifteen days before the end of the . . . commitment period . . . the chief of medical services of the facility [390]*390shall . . . evaluate the condition of each respondent, and if he determines that a respondent is in continued need of hospitalization . . . shall so notify the respondent, his counsel, and the clerk of superior court. . . Respondent contends that this 15-day period has the effect of a statute of limitations, so that a proceeding brought on less notice must be dismissed. We disagree. Dismissal is too drastic, and unless respondent can show some prejudice the proper action would be to continue the proceeding until ample notice has been given.

Affirmed.

Judges VAUGHN and WEBB concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

N.C. G.S. § 122-58.11 sets out the procedures for involuntary commitment rehearings. As this was not the first rehearing, subsection (e) applies: “Fifteen days before the end of the . . . commitment period . . . the chief of medical services of the facility [390]*390shall . . . evaluate the condition of each respondent, and if he determines that a respondent is in continued need of hospitalization . . . shall so notify the respondent, his counsel, and the clerk of superior court. . . Respondent contends that this 15-day period has the effect of a statute of limitations, so that a proceeding brought on less notice must be dismissed. We disagree. Dismissal is too drastic, and unless respondent can show some prejudice the proper action would be to continue the proceeding until ample notice has been given.

Affirmed.

Judges VAUGHN and WEBB concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.E.2d 785, 38 N.C. App. 389, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-boyles-ncctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack