holding further objection unnecessary where the court “clearly indicat[ed] that he rejected the arguments raised by the objections”
How later courts described this case
- holding further objection unnecessary where the court “clearly indicat[ed] that he rejected the arguments raised by the objections”
- characterizing as “pyrrhic” legal victories that established the right for a mentally ill person not to be required to take medication essential to his or her mental health
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MACK, Associate Judge, Retired,
concurring:
For the reasons implicit in my concerns expressed in my opinion (but not embraced by the other panel members) in In the Matter of Gwendolyn Stokes, 546 A.2d 356 (D.C.1988), I am concurring in Judge Fer-ren’s opinion.