In re Hamil’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(C) If, upon completion of the hearing, the court finds clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order, the court shall order the respondent, for a period not to exceed ninety days to: "(1) A hospital operated by the department of mental health if the respondent is committed pursuant to division (D) of section 2945.38 or section 2945.40, 5120.17, or 5139.08 of the Revised Code; "(2) A nonpublic hospital; "(3) The veterans' administration or other agency of the United States government; "(4) A board of alcohol, drug addiction, and mental health services or agency the board designates; "(5) Receive private psychiatric or psychological care and treatment; or "(6) Any other suitable facility or person consistent with the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment needs of the respondent. "*** "(E) In determining the place to which, or the person with whom, the respondent is to be committed, the court shall consider the diagnosis, prognosis, preferences of the respondent, and projected treatment plan for the respondent and order the implementation of the least restrictive alternative available and consistent with treatment goals and, in the case of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity, with public safety. If the court determines that the least restrictive alternative available that is consistent with treatment goals is inpatient hospitalization, the court's order shall so state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Hays

2. “From this section [R.C. 2151.23(A)(4)] Jeffrey's parents conclude a Juvenile Court which has jurisdiction over a mentally-ill juvenile subject to hospitalization by court order, is invested with all powers inherent in the Probate Court, including the grant of plenary power found in R.C. 2101.24. Jeffrey's parents contend that this grant of plenary power enables the court to fully dispose of any matter properly before it, including resolving any financial aspects necessary to implement their disposition. In order to reach this conclusion one must ignore the language of R.C. 2151.23(A)(4), which only grants the Juvenile Court those powers found in R.C. Chapters 5122 and 5123, and does not bestow upon it those powers found in R.C. Chapter 2101. Consequently, unless another statute exists which affirmatively grants the Juvenile Court authority to order ODMH to pay for Jeffrey's care in a private psychiatric facility, the courts below were acting beyond the scope of their jurisdiction when they made such orders. Jeffrey's parents contend R.C. 5122.15 authorizes the action taken by the lower courts. We disagree.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hays

3. ““The Juvenile Court acts beyond the scope of its jurisdiction when it orders the Ohio Department of Mental Health to pay the cost of care of a child placed in a private, non-public psychiatric hospital.” Id. at syllabus.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 66 Ohio App. 3d 583 - In Re Lozano