In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Mark v. — Stowers, J., Dissenting

Summary

Stowers, joined by Maassen, dissented from declining to reach the merits of an otherwise moot involuntary-commitment appeal. The dissent argued that every commitment order should be reviewable because the statutory right to appeal and the liberty interests involved outweigh the traditional mootness concerns, and because deciding whether collateral consequences exist can itself require burdensome quasi-substantive review. The dissent alternatively proposed a rebuttable presumption that involuntary commitment orders produce collateral consequences. The opinion contains no separate opinions.