This case concerns the conservatorship of a Frederick Bradshaw Turner III in 1976. Conservatorships are means by which the state takes control of a person who is otherwise unable to care for themself, for various reasons. They usually require a unanimous jury vote, they expire after one year, and they are the means by which the State frequently deals with homeless people.

The case state notes that he "...appeals from a judgment declaring him to be gravely disabled within the meaning of section 5350 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and appointing the Public Guardian of San Mateo County to act as the conservator of his person and estate." It also states: "Under the provisions of section 5361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a conservatorship automatically terminates at the end of one year following its creation unless the conservator petitions for a one-year extension and the court grants same." In Turner's case, for unknown reasons, the jury requirement was waived, and only 9 of 12 jurors were needed to prove that Turner was "gravely disabled" and in need of care.

The ACLU represented Turner, who argued that his rights were violated when he was placed into the conservatorship. The case states: "He contends that the requirements of a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and a nonunanimous verdict violate his rights of due process and equal protection of the laws." He also argues that "gravely disabled" is unconstitutionally vague, and overbroad, which the court disagrees with. He contends that the two medical experts consulted did not have sufficient knowledge of his situation, which was outweighed by the testimony of three non-experts who decided that he was, in fact, "gravely disabled."