stating JRC and department had “settlement agreement concerning . . . authorization, by way of substituted judg ment, of the use of aversive procedures on clients at [JRC]”
How later courts described this case
- stating JRC and department had “settlement agreement concerning . . . authorization, by way of substituted judg ment, of the use of aversive procedures on clients at [JRC]”
- stating JRC and department had “settlement agreement concerning . . . authorization, by way of substituted judg *444 ment, of the use of aversive procedures on clients at [JRC]”
- “A court. . . may not properly exercise the functions of the executive branch of State government”
- "[w]here the means of fulfilling [a legal] obligation is within the discretion of a public agency, the courts normally have no right to tell that agency how to fulfil its obligation.... Only when ... there is but one way in which that obligation may properly be fulfilled, is a judge warranted in telling a public agency precisely how it must fulfil its legal obligations"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Lynch, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result. I write separately, however, to reject any suggestion that the State Constitution may provide an affirmative entitlement to social welfare services not provided by the Federal Constitution. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 109 S. Ct 998 (1989).