{
  "id": 5474426,
  "name": "In re ALAN WATHAN.-(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ALAN WATHAN, Respondent-Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wathan",
  "decision_date": "1982-03-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 17364",
  "first_page": "64",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 3d 64"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "316 N.E.2d 153",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 3d 889",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5378188
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/21/0889-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "375 N.E.2d 557",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3356617
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/59/0500-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 4529,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.91,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.706089462224021e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8931582497666852
    },
    "sha256": "d54fe52277607fe4ac690fc47b2e779aab40cf196204cdd262f0610649a00f2f",
    "simhash": "1:60748a7fd08c7a74",
    "word_count": 726
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:33.067215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re ALAN WATHAN.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ALAN WATHAN, Respondent-Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WEBBER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal lies from a finding of the circuit court of Macon County that the respondent, Alan Wathan, was a person subject to involuntary admission to the Department of Mental Health on June 16,1981. A notice of appeal was timely filed from the trial court\u2019s writ of hospitalization and subsequently briefs were filed by the State\u2019s Attorney. Following the filing of the briefs a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot was filed by the petitioner. The motion, and the objection thereto, were ordered taken with the case by this court. Since we determine that the appeal should be dismissed as moot, we will not reach the issues raised in the briefs.\nSome factual background is necessary as it forms the basis for our determination that the appeal must be dismissed. On March 31, 1981, the respondent was the subject of a petition for involuntary admission. He was adjudicated a person subject to involuntary admission and was ordered hospitalized in the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.\nOn June 3, 1981, a second petition for involuntary admission was filed. Following a hearing on June 16, 1981, the respondent was again found to be a person subject to involuntary admission and was again ordered hospitalized in the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. It is from this- order that the respondent appeals.\nOn July 2,1981, the circuit clerk was ordered to file notice of appeal for the respondent as the court had been advised that the respondent desired to appeal. The Guardianship and Advocacy Commission was appointed to represent the respondent on appeal. The notice of appeal was filed on July 2, 1981, by the circuit clerk. However, on August 25, 1981, the respondent applied for voluntary admission to the Adolf Meyer Zone Center, the mental health facility into which he had been committed.\nWe recognize that generally the mootness doctrine does not apply to mental health cases. (In re Garcia (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 500, 375 N.E.2d 557.) This general rule was promulgated in recognition of two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when dismissal would eliminate an entire class of cases from appellate review, and (2) where there are collateral legal consequences which survive the expiration of the order under review. In re Sciara (1974), 21 Ill. App. 3d 889, 316 N.E.2d 153.\nAn initial order for hospitalization may not exceed 60 days pursuant to section 3 \u2014 813(a) of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 91M, par. 3 \u2014 813(a).) Thus it is apparent that such orders would normally come within the purview of the mootness doctrine and must be subject to the exception since dismissal would eliminate an entire class of cases from appellate review, i.e., a single 60-day admission.\nMoreover, it has been held that the question of the collateral consequences exception must be considerd on a case-by-case basis. The reviewing court must examine the totality of circumstances as an adjudication could return to plague a respondent in some future proceedings and could affect other aspects of a respondent\u2019s life. Thus, Sciara allows the application of the mootness doctrine only where there are no possible future adverse collateral legal consequences.\nHowever, we find this to be a case where the mootness doctrine should be applied. In the instant case the respondent was twice committed on an involuntary basis. Following the second commitment the respondent applied for voluntary admission to the Department of Mental Health. Respondent\u2019s actions merely confirm the finding of the trial court that he was indeed in need of treatment for mental illness. Consequently, respondent\u2019s own actions eliminate any possibility of future adverse collateral legal consequences. For this reason the mootness doctrine does apply in the instant case, and we find the appeal to be moot.\nFor the foregoing reasons the petitioner\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted.\nDismissed.\nGREEN, P. J., and TRAPP, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WEBBER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Linda Ganski, of Legal Advocacy Services, and Ann Hymowitz, of Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, both of Champaign, for appellant.",
      "Basil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re ALAN WATHAN.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ALAN WATHAN, Respondent-Appellant.)\nFourth District\nNo. 17364\nOpinion filed March 4, 1982.\nLinda Ganski, of Legal Advocacy Services, and Ann Hymowitz, of Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, both of Champaign, for appellant.\nBasil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0064-01",
  "first_page_order": 86,
  "last_page_order": 88
}