Davis v. Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services

2000 WL 1513752, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4754 (2000)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Davis v. Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services

Ohio Court of Appeals
2000 WL 1513752, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4754 (2000)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Maureen Davis (plaintiff) was the subject of multiple public-health complaints and self-neglect referrals between 1976 and 1999. Social services came to Davis’s home multiple times over the years, offering to help her manage her health and her home, but all offers were refused. In 1999, Cleveland Police Officer Riley observed Davis in the street outside her home, noting that she was dirty, disheveled, and had open sores on her face and arms. Davis refused Riley’s offer of medical aid. Riley also noticed that Davis’s home was filled with garbage and smelled rancid. Riley reported Davis’s condition to his superiors. Shortly after, the City of Cleveland issued a search warrant allowing Environmental Health Department inspectors to enter Davis’s home, accompanied by Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services (CCAPS) (defendant). Davis attempted to bar entry to her home, insisting everything was fine. Upon inspection, the home was found to be filthy, full of garbage and feces from Davis’s 16 pets, and infested with insects and rodents. The electricity was shut off, and there were multiple cans of kerosene buried in the garbage, creating a fire hazard. Davis was immediately transported to the psychiatric ward at St. Vincent’s Charity Hospital. It took a crew of three cleaners in protective gear 10 days to clean Davis’s home. CCAPS petitioned for a guardian to be appointed for Davis, arguing she was mentally incompetent. At a hearing, two doctors who had examined Davis testified that Davis suffered from dementia, delusions, severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, and was mentally incompetent. The probate court held that Davis was incompetent and appointed a guardian. Davis appealed, arguing that (1) the condition of her home was insufficient basis to appoint a guardian and (2) the probate court failed to consider less restrictive alternatives to guardianship.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Spellacy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 824,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership