This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P's admission to D was preceded by an 'intervention.' D was confronted and told him that he needed to go through an inpatient treatment at D for alcohol abuse. P was told that if he did not voluntarily admit himself, they would have him committed to the hospital and have him brought in wearing handcuffs. While at D, P made several requests for a 'pass' permitting him to leave the facility. His initial requests were denied on the ground that he was not 'eligible' for a pass until he was further into his stay. Later P was granted passes for a few hours at a time, and always returned to D voluntarily and on time. P explained that he had vowed to follow all of the rules at D only because he hoped that obedient behavior might speed his release. P sued D for false imprisonment. Ds argued that P had voluntarily admitted himself to its hospital, had been permitted to leave and had returned voluntarily and that the doors leading out of the hospital were never locked. D argued that P's consent to his stay at D negated any possibility that he was detained without authority of law. Ds moved for summary judgment, and it was granted. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.