Greene v. Edwards
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
263 S.E.2d 661 (1980)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
William Arthur Greene (plaintiff) contracted tuberculosis and was involuntarily confined to a hospital by a court order pursuant to the West Virginia’s Tuberculosis Control Act (the act). The act allowed medical personnel to report to the state health department the name of anyone who had tuberculosis and was unlikely or unable to abide by quarantine protocols. The act authorized the department to investigate the situation and use its discretion to petition the county court to commit the individual to one of the state’s tuberculosis institutions. The act authorized the court to provide the individual with notice of a hearing at least seven days in advance and, upon finding the facts alleged to be true, order the individual committed. Following Greene’s involuntarily confinement, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Greene argued that the act violated his procedural-due-process rights because it denied him the right to cross-examine, confront, and present witnesses and did not require that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence be provided in support of confinement. Additionally, Greene argued that although he received counsel, his counsel’s appointment was not timely enough to prepare an adequate defense. The court considered the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
