Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Teubner v. State, 216 Minn. 553.

19 citing documents.

Matter of Harhut 385 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1986
1430 , 43 L.Ed.2d 674 (1975); In re Restoration of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , see also Janus & Wolfson, The Minnesota Commitment Act of 1982, Summary and Analysis, 6 Hamline L.Rev.
Drewes v. Levine 352 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The Lausche court concluded that the burden is by a preponderance of evidence quoting the following language from In re Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , : That she should assume the burden of proof to establish her restoration to capacity is perfectly proper, for the law rightfully presumes that a condition of feeble-mindedness or insanity once shown to exist will thereafter continue.
State v. Waldon 287 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1979
3 Under the facts of this case, such a rule does not necessarily conflict with our decisions in In re Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 562 , and Lausche v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 302 Minn. 65, 70
Lausche v. Commissioner of Public Welfare 225 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1974
Lausche v. Commissioner of Public Welfare 225 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1974
*70 Rather, we must reaffirm our holding in the case of In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , where this court was faced with an appeal from a denial of a petition for restoration to capacity.
State Ex Rel. Hartmann v. Lund 152 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1967
State Ex Rel. Hartmann v. Lund 152 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1967
As to the nature of commitment proceedings, this court in In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 556 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487, 489 , 158 A. L. R. 1210, had this to say: *411 “Notice in commitment, proceedings is not always practicable where the person sought to be committed is violently and dangerously insane.
Walker v. Leary 136 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1965
In In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 560 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487, 491 , 158 A. L. R. 1210, 1216, we said: “* * * proceedings of this nature are not adversary in nature, that they are conducted by the state in its character of parens patriae, and that ‘the manner and method of determining the facts, when jurisdiction has once vested in the court as required
In Re Leary's Appeal 136 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1965
In In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 560 , , 158 A.L.R.
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans Hospital 128 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1964
mless symptoms lend themselves to the orderly processes of a formal hearing and adjudication; and in such cases the constitutional mandates must be strictly observed by giving the person under inquiry not only adequate notice of the fact of a hearing and the purpose thereof, but also every opportunity to be heard before the order of commitment is issued.” In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 556 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487, 489 .
State Ex Rel. Hussman v. Hursh 92 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1958
In construing statutes similar to § 525.752, which confers jurisdiction upon the probate court in incompetency proceedings, this court has stated (In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 556 , 13 N. W. [2d] 487, 489, 158 A. L. R. 1210): “Though Minn. St.
Doren ex rel. Doren v. Northwestern Baptist Hospital Ass'n 60 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1953
Cade v. Hoff 54 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1952
See, Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524 , 31 N. W. (2d) 439 ; In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487 , 158 *319 A. L. R. 1210; Bird v. Johnson, 199 Minn. 252 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
Wolff v. Lerum 44 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1950
In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487 ; In re Guardianship of Hudson, 220 Minn. 493 , 20 N. W. (2d) 330 .
In Re Wretlind 32 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1948
Thus, in In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , 556 , , 489 , 158 A.L.R.
Hatton v. State 32 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1948
Thus, in In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 556 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487, 489 , 158 A. L. R. 1210, which involved interpretation of a statutory provision similar to § 525.752, we stated : “* “ * such notice must satisfy the constitutional requirement of ‘due process of law.’ This prerequisite to a valid commitment cannot be ignored either by the legislature or by a
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
See, In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487 , 158 A. L. R. 1210; Restatement, Judgments, § 33, comments a and T>; Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 109.
Corwin v. Hudson 20 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1945
In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , 13 N. W. (2d) 487 .
In Re Guardianship of Hudson 20 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1945
In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553 , .