330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11664654)
1. Constitutional law--due process--civil commitment--absent treatment, a nondangerous mentally ill person able to survive safely in society has a constitutional right to release.
Burnstin SM
Wash Law Rev; 1976 Jul; 51(3):764-90. PubMed ID: 11664654
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Constitutional law--confinement of nondangerous mentally ill capable of surviving safely in freedom held to violate patient's right to "liberty".
Hancock GC
Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1976; 10(2):402-9. PubMed ID: 11664793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Constitutional law--right to liberty--involuntary confinement of mental patients.
Tenn Law Rev; 1976; 43(2):366-73. PubMed ID: 11664691
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. o'Connor v. Donaldson: a right to liberty for the nondangerous mentally ill.
Muller MJ
Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1975; 3(2):550-62. PubMed ID: 11664550
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Constitutional law--involuntary commitment of nondangerous persons.
Hakes PJ
Tulane Law Rev; 1976 Mar; 50(3):699-705. PubMed ID: 11664608
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. O'Connor v. Donaldson: constitutional law--mental health--a state cannot constitutionally confine without more, a nondangerous individual adjudged to be mentally ill.
Fields JD
Hofstra Law Rev; 1976; 4(2):511-30. PubMed ID: 11664626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The Supreme Court sidesteps the right to treatment question.
Univ Colo Law Rev; 1976; 47(2):299-323. PubMed ID: 11664633
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Donaldson, dangerousness, and the right to treatment.
Grant GM
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1976; 3(2):599-627. PubMed ID: 11664729
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. o'Connor v. Donaldson: the death of the quid pro quo argument for a right to treatment?
Bliss TP
Clevel State Law Rev; 1975; 24(3):557-71. PubMed ID: 11661275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Constitutional law--simple custodial confinement of civilly committed nondangerous mentally ill violates constitutional right to freedom.
Concemi M
Suffolk Univ Law Rev; 1975; 10(1):76-99. PubMed ID: 11664545
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Constitutional law--due process--involuntarily civilly committed mental patients have a constitutional right to treatment.
Johnson RM; Wehrle-Einhorn RJ
Univ Kans Law Rev; 1974; 23(1):188-205. PubMed ID: 11664536
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. o'Connor v. Donaldson: due process rights of mental patients in state hospitals.
Anderson K
Rev Law Soc Change; 1976; 6(1):65-82. PubMed ID: 11664777
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Supreme Court rules against involuntary custodial confinement of the nondangerous mentally ill.
Hosp Community Psychiatry; 1975 Sep; 26(9):616+. PubMed ID: 11643281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Civil commitment of mentally ill--right to treatment--parens patriae power--right to liberty.
Cooper GG
Akron Law Rev; 1975; 9(2):374-82. PubMed ID: 11664558
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Donaldson v. O'Connor: constitutional right to treatment for the involuntary civilly committed.
Jernigan LT
North Carol Centr Law J; 1975; 7(1):174-86. PubMed ID: 11664561
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A review of the Burger Court: Part I.
Parry J
Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1984; 8(6):502-8. PubMed ID: 11658589
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Due process--involuntary civil confinement: a right to rehabilitative treatment?
Vermillion LJ
ISL Law Rev; 1976; 1(1):13-23. PubMed ID: 11664678
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Constitutional law--Fourteenth Amendment--due process--a state cannot constitutionally confine a nondangerous mentally ill individual,
Blakely WD
J Urban Law; 1975; 53(2):305-15. PubMed ID: 11664557
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Constitutional law--due process--right to treatment for nondangerous involuntarily civilly committed persons.
Currie EJ
Miss Law J; 1975; 46(2):345-59. PubMed ID: 11664483
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Constitutional law--the rights of involuntarily committed mentally retarded persons under the Fourteenth Amendment: Youngberg v. Romeo.
Smith GG
Univ Kans Law Rev; 1983; 31(3):451-66. PubMed ID: 12083080
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
