In re the Civil Commitment of Navratil
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- In Re BlodgettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- In Re LinehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Matter of LinehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Matter of LinehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- In Re the Civil Commitment of RameyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.