Legal Opinion

In re the Civil Commitment of Lonergan

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 4, 2011No. A10-1269PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

Appellant, who is indeterminately committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), challenges the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the indeterminate-commitment order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. Appellant argues that the district court’s failure to discharge him, or, in the alternative, to order appropriate treatment in the Minnesota Sex-Offender Treatment Program (MSOP), violated his substantive due-process rights under the United States and Minnesota constitutions. Because the statutory framework governing commitment as an SDP does not authorize a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Matter of WicksCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  2. In Re the Civil Commitment of TravisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  3. Matter of PopeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  4. Coker v. LudemanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  5. In Re the Civil Commitment of BeaulieuCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re Civil Commitment of LonerganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
  3. In re the Civil Commitment of MoenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API