Legal Opinion
In re the Civil Commitment of Johnson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 20, 2011No. Nos. A09-2225, A09-2226PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILDEA, Chief Justice.
The question in this case is whether Minnesota’s civil commitment statute, Minn.Stat. ch. 253B (2010), can be enforced to commit appellants, who are enrolled tribal members, as sexually dangerous persons. Because we conclude that Minnesota has jurisdiction to commit appellants, we affirm.
Appellant Johnson
Appellant Jeremiah Jerome Johnson is an enrolled member of the Bois Forte Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. In 2008, respondent Cass County sought to commit Johnson under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 253B. Johnson was…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian ReservationSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Civil Commitment of LonerganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
- State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson and its Commissioner of Commerce, Michael Rothman v. CashCall, Inc., a California corporationCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014