Legal Opinion · Dissent

Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 26, 2011No. A10-1350Published

1DissentKlaphake, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I do not agree that the law of habeas corpus is as narrowly limited as the majority’s interpretation of relevant case law suggests. Relying on a long line of authority, the United States Supreme Court stated that “habeas relief in cases involving Executive detention” is not limited to claims of “constitutional error.” Immigr. & Nat. Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 302-03, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 2280, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). Likewise, Minnesota law does not draw this distinction as closely as my colleagues suggest. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “[pjossible grounds…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. State v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Kelsey v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  5. Loyd v. FabianCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API