Interest of Powers, In re, S-90-206
| Decision Date | 11 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S-90-206,S-90-206 |
| Citation | 242 Neb. 19,493 N.W.2d 166 |
| Parties | In re Interest of Lawrence J. POWERS, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Dangerous Person. STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Lawrence J. POWERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the trial court.
2. Statutes. A court will construe statutes relating to the same subject matter together so as to maintain a consistent and sensible scheme.
3. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. When considering a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter which are in pari materia, they may be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions of the act are consistent and sensible.
4. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. When asked to interpret a statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense; it is the court's duty, if possible, to discover the Legislature's intent from the language of the statute itself.
5. Words and Phrases. In popular parlance, the word "any" usually means all or every.
6. Words and Phrases. An issue is a disputed point or question which the parties to a proceeding desire the tribunal to decide.
Dennis R. Keefe, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Michael D. Gooch for appellant.
Sara Fullerton, Deputy Lancaster County Atty., for appellee.
Rebecca M. Peterson and A. Jocelyn Ritchie for amicus curiae Nebraska Advocacy Services, Inc.
The movant, Lawrence J. Powers, appeals the district court's affirmance of the Lancaster County Mental Health Board's denial of a due process hearing on his motion for a review of his status. He asserts that the district court erred in that, among other things, the relevant statutory scheme provides for such a hearing. That assignment of error having merit, we reverse, and remand with direction.
On January 13, 1986, the State filed a petition under the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 83-1001 through 83-1078 (Reissue 1987 & Cum.Supp.1992), alleging that Powers was mentally ill, dangerous to others, and unable to meet his basic human needs. More specifically, the State alleged that Powers was psychotic and assaultive and had, on January 11, 1986, assaulted and seriously injured his wife.
Powers admitted the foregoing allegations at a hearing held before the board on January 23, 1986. The board, finding that neither voluntary hospitalization nor other less restrictive treatment alternatives were available, thereafter ordered Powers committed to the care and custody of the Department of Public Institutions for treatment, where he has remained under a variety of treatment plans.
On July 18, 1989, Powers filed a motion asking that the board review the matter at a hearing, asserting that he was no longer mentally ill and dangerous, that he no longer posed a danger of assaultive behavior, and that a less restrictive plan was now available, as he could benefit from outpatient treatment. On the following day, the board denied the motion, ruling that it lacked statutory authority to grant a hearing upon the request of the committed individual, otherwise referred to in the relevant statutes as the subject.
Powers contends, among other things, that contrary to the determination of the district court, § 83-1046 grants the board authority to hold a review hearing upon the subject's motion.
On the other hand, the State urges that while § 83-1046 empowers the board to terminate or change a subject's treatment plan whenever it is shown that cause for doing so exists, the means by which cause is to be shown is by providing the board the periodic progress reports contemplated by § 83-1045, and that neither statute authorizes, much less requires, the board to conduct a hearing on a subject's own motion for a change.
Section 83-1045 reads:
The official, agency or other person designated by the mental health board ... to be responsible for the subject's individualized treatment plan shall submit periodic progress reports to the board, which board shall distribute copies to other interested parties. Each progress report shall summarize progress which has been made under the plan and shall state whether the treatment plan has been modified. Such progress reports shall be filed with the board for review and inclusion in the subject's board file, and served upon the county attorney, the subject and his or her counsel, if he or she has counsel, and his or her parent or legal guardian, if he or she is a minor or legally incompetent, within ten days of the submission of the individualized treatment plan of a subject whose order of final disposition requires full-time inpatient hospitalization or custody. Such progress reports shall be so filed and served, in the cases of all subjects undergoing board-ordered treatment ... no less frequently than every ninety days following the filing of their initial individualized treatment plans for a period of one year from the date of such filing and every six months thereafter.
Section 83-1046 provides:
Whenever it shall be shown, by any person, to the satisfaction of the mental health board that either cause no longer exists for the care or treatment or a less restrictive alternative exists for a person committed as a mentally ill dangerous person, the mental health board shall order the immediate discharge of that person or change the treatment disposition. When a change in disposition is in issue, due process protections afforded under this act shall attach to the subject.
In the State's view, an aggrieved subject's remedy is through § 83-1066, which provides, in relevant part, that subjects
We begin our analysis by noting that statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the trial court. See, Young v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 242 Neb. 1, 493...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Susan W. v. Tara W. (In re Eliza W.)
... ... See, 25 U.S.C. 1903(1)(i) ; 43-1502(3)(a) ; In re Interest of Powers , 242 Neb. 19, 23, 493 N.W.2d 166, 169 (1992) ("in popular parlance, the word any ... ...
-
Beaty v. McGraw
... ... Beaty $25,000 plus prejudgment interest but also found that Mr. Beaty had wrongfully detained the drilling rig. Accordingly, the court ... 1940); Muller v. Muller, 45 Cal. Rptr. 182, 184 (Ct. App. 1965); In re Powers, 493 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Neb. 1992); Commonwealth v. Willow Grove Veterans Home Ass'n, Inc., 509 A.2d ... ...
-
City of Lincoln, Application of
... ... State ex rel. Stenberg, 242 Neb. 695, 496 N.W.2d 512 (1993); In re Interest of Powers, 242 Neb. 19, 493 N.W.2d 166 (1992). In the absence of anything indicating to the ... ...
-
Adoption of Kassandra B., In re
... ... In re Interest of J.T.B. and H.J.T., 245 Neb. 624, 514 N.W.2d 635 (1994); Scherbak v. Kissler, 245 Neb. 10, 510 ... In re Interest of Powers, 242 Neb. 19, 493 N.W.2d 166 (1992). With the plain language of §§ 43-102, 43-105, and 43-104.04 ... ...