Coker v. Ludeman
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUDSON, Judge.
On appeal from a judicial appeal panel order denying his petition for transfer, discharge, or provisional discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person, appellant argues that the judicial appeal panel (appeal panel) applied the wrong evidentiary burden under Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d), by requiring him to show that he met the statutory criteria for transfer, discharge, or provisional discharge by a preponderance of the evidence rather than requiring him to simply go forward with evidence. He further argues that he met his burden of going forward…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- In Re BlodgettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. CharltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Braylock v. JessonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Coker v. JessonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Larson v. JessonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- In re the Civil Commitment of KroppCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Bradley Wayne Foster v. Lucinda Jesson, Commissioner of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.