Legal Opinion

Coker v. Ludeman

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 8, 2009No. A09-1104PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  2. In Re BlodgettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  3. Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  4. State v. CharltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. 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

  1. Braylock v. JessonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Coker v. JessonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  3. Larson v. JessonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
  4. In re the Civil Commitment of KroppCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API