Court Opinion

ID: 9745224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:42:15.879397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.760683
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLS, dissenting: The majority is only tem/pted. I am persuaded. The “interests of comity and of maintaining a consistent body of authority” are noble ones, but they should not prevail in the face of absurd consequences which flow from blind adherence to ill-reasoned dogma. The Code does not expressly prohibit the filing of an involuntary commitment petition against a voluntary patient. Furthermore, the emergency admission by certification procedure — which was followed here — makes no mention whatever of voluntary patients, or in any way excludes voluntary patients from its ambit. I reject the rationale in Clement, Hill, and Meyer and would disregard that body of authority. Dissent I must. To do otherwise is to simply turn the mental institution over to the patients!