Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Civil Commitment of Navratil

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 13, 2011No. A10-2289Published

1Dissent

RANDALL, Judge.

I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the district court did not err in finding that there is clear and convincing evidence that appellant has a disorder or dysfunction within the meaning of the SDP statute. I would also reverse the indeterminate commitment order and address the denial of treatment to appellant since the initial commitment order.

As I have noted in past concurrences and dissents, the SDP statute and its twin, the SPP statute, have, in the words of Justice Wahl, “creatfed] a system of wholesale preventive detention, a concept foreign to our…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re BlodgettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  2. In Re LinehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  3. Matter of LinehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  4. Matter of LinehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  5. In Re the Civil Commitment of RameyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API