Zinermon v. Burch
- Decided
- February 27, 1990
- Docket
- 87-1965
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,290 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the state process is inadequate where a committed mental patient had no systemic opportunity to contest commitment because he lacked the capacity to voluntarily consent to treatment — Bruce Collyer v. Gregory Darling (1997)
- holding that the Parratt-Hudson doctrine does not apply where the denial of predeprivation process resulted from the state-sanctioned discretion of the official to decide what process is necessary — Hadfield v. McDonough (2005)
- holding that the Due Process Clause only protects against deprivations of constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty or property without due process of law — Carter v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF OCEAN BEACH (2010)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
I
Respondent Darrell Burch brought this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 (1982 ed.)[1] against the 11 petitioners, who are physicians, administrators, and staff members at Florida State Hospital (FSH) in Chattahoochee, and others. Re [*115] spondent alleges that petitioners deprived him of his liberty, without due process of law, by admitting him to FSH as a “voluntary” mental patient when he was incompetent to give informed consent to his admission. Burch contends that in his case petitioners should have afforded him procedural safeguards required by the Constitution before involuntary commitment of a mentally ill person, and that petitioners’ failure to do so violated his due process rights.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.