DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Price v. Sheppard, 239 N.W.2d 905.

75 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leah Christina Graeber Minn. 2026
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leah Christina Graeber Minn. 2026
    which requires a district court to find that an intrusive treatment is both necessary and reasonable before it can be administered to a civilly committed patient, adequately addresses whether the intrusive treatment is a “treatment necess
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Samuel Omwando Nyaboga. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leah Christina Graeber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leah Christina Graeber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Nicholas D. Webster. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Price v. Sheppard , (holding that hospitals must obtain a court order before administering intrusive forms of treatment against patients who are incompe tent or refuse consent); see also Jarvis v. Levine , (holding that the administration of neuroleptic medication is an intrusive tr
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Lee DeRosia. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Rohmiller v. Hart 799 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    in order to protect the general welfare of children”); Olson, d at 549 (holding that “in all matters involving court-established family relationships of children, [courts] begin with reference to [their] paramount commitment to the best interests of the children”); and Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 258-59 , (holding that “[t]he state’s interest in assuming the decision [of whether an involuntarily committed individual undergoes psychiatric treatment] is in acting as par-ens patriae, fulfilli
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Raboin 704 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Raboin 704 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Raboin argues that the district court’s order authorizing the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication violates his rights under Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250 , because (1) the order is unclear regarding the authorized duration of the neuroleptic-medication treatment; (2) the order does not limit the dosage authorized for Raboin’s treatment; and (3) the order allows Raboin to be treated “with any neu-r
  • In Re the Guardianship of Welch 686 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • In Re the Guardianship of Welch 686 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    *57 Price v. Sheppard 307 Minn. 250, 262
  • In Re Conservatorship of Foster 547 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1996
  • In Re Conservatorship of Foster 547 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1996
    Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 258
  • In Re the Welfare of J.A.J. 545 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • In Re Public Conservatorship of Foster 535 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • In Re Public Conservatorship of Foster 535 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    The rights afforded involuntarily committed patients subject to intrusive treatment was first addressed in Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250
  • Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 257
  • Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    nal doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or the willful violation of a known right); -79 (Minn.1988) (bad-faith conduct involves not merely erroneous judgment, but rather malicious intent); Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , (bad-faith conduct involves a willful or malicious wrong); Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 261 , (bad-faith conduct involves acting with malice).
  • Matter of Blilie 494 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1993
  • Matter of Blilie 494 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1993
    The first case to address the proper procedural protections was Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250
  • Matter of Blilie 484 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Matter of Blilie 484 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    We agree with the dissent that in Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250 , 262 n. 11, , 913 n. 11 (1976), the supreme court recognized that the guardian ad li-tem, who is to represent the interests of the patient as well as the guardian, who could otherwise consent to intrusive treatment, should not also be the person responsible for the patient’s commitment.
  • Matter of Muntner 470 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Matter of Muntner 470 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    the supreme court held that certain procedural guidelines set out in Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 262 , must be followed before a court may authorize the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication to an incompetent patient who *719 refused the medication.
  • Matter of Bowers 456 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Matter of Bowers 456 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Respondent argues the Commissioner is a party under the parens patriae theory, citing Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 258-59
  • Matter of Schauer 450 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Matter of Schauer 450 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 262-63
  • Matter of Peterson 446 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Matter of Peterson 446 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Jarvis, d at 144 , quoting Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 262-63
  • Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
  • Matter of Schmidt 443 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
    Appellant, here, as he did below, asserts that because the statute fails to afford to him the right to an adversarial court hearing and the right to counsel, it circumvents the guidelines this court established in Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250 , and Jarvis, .
  • Matter of Lambert 437 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • In Re Steen 437 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Matter of Lambert 437 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    at 144 (citing Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 262 , ).
  • In Re Steen 437 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    ANALYSIS I. In Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250 , the supreme court determined that when an involuntarily committed patient is incompetent to give consent or refuses consent, the following procedures must be followed before “intrusive” forms of treatment are utilized: (1) * * * [T]he medical director of the state hospital ‘must petition
  • Matter of Jarvis 433 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Matter of Jarvis 433 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    The reference is to Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250
  • Jarvis v. Levine 418 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1988
  • Jarvis v. Levine 418 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1988
    Appellant Homer Jarvis seeks review of a decision of the court of appeals which held that involuntary treatment with neuro-leptic drugs was not an intrusive treatment per se and thus did not require court approval to administer under the procedural requirements of Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250
  • State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Gray 413 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1987
    35 , 50 L.Ed.2d 63 ; Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250
  • Matter of Kolodrubetz 411 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Matter of Kolodrubetz 411 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 253-54
  • Matter of Rice 410 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987