Right to counsel - quarantine
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is discretionary).
Litigation, Quarantine/Inoculation of Individual
In Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661 (W. Va. 1980), a person confined due to TB brought a writ of habeas corpus because he had not been appointed counsel prior to the start of his hearing (at that time, there was no statutory right). The court noted its holding in State ex rel. Hawks v. Lazaro, 202 S.E.2d 109 (W. Va. 1974) (finding right counsel in civil commitment proceedings), then concluded:
Because the Tuberculosis Control Act and the Act for the Involuntary Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill have like rationales, and because involuntary commitment for having communicable tuberculosis impinges upon the right to "liberty, full and complete liberty" no less than involuntary commitment for being mentally ill, we conclude that the procedural safeguards set forth in State ex rel. Hawks v. Lazaro, supra, must, and do, extend to persons charged under W.Va. Code, 26-5A-5. Specifically, persons charged under the act must be afforded: … the right to counsel and, if indigent, the right to appointed counsel.
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: categorical Qualified: yes