DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Noot, 323 N.W.2d 724.

43 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment Minn. 2021
    We have repeatedly stated that clear-error review does not permit an appellate court “to weigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” superseded by statute on other grounds , Enebak v. Noot , .
  • A19-0239 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    see Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 (2018) (describing process for the civil commitment of persons as mentally ill and dangerous); Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd.
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Bruce Eberhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    ” Piotter v. Steffen , (quoting Johnson v. Noot , ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Alvin Edgar Krengel. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Alvin Edgar Krengel. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Krengel asserts that he cannot be found to be mentally ill unless a disorder defined in the statute renders him unable to control his actions, (holding that a character disorder, such as antisocial personality, “substantially impairs mental health and therefore constitutes mental illness only when the disorder takes away the person’s ability to control his conduct”).
  • Rydberg v. Goodno 689 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Rydberg v. Goodno 689 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
  • Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
  • Matter of Knops 536 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1995
  • Distinguished Matter of Knops 536 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1995
    (holding where the pertinent facts are supported by the record as a whole, the evidence is not clearly erroneous).
  • Lidberg v. Steffen 514 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1994
  • Lidberg v. Steffen 514 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1994
    Under a previous version of this statute, the phrase "capable of making an acceptable adjustment in society,” was construed as meaning "that the patient is either no longer mentally ill or no longer dangerous.”
  • Piotter v. Steffen 490 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Piotter v. Steffen 490 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Matter of Clements 440 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Matter of Clements 440 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Matter of Miner 424 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Matter of Miner 424 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • In re El-Rashad 411 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • In re El-Rashad 411 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The trial court also found El-Rashad’s personality disorder “together with his lack of ability to control his actions as evidenced by his repeated suicide gestures or attempts, is a major mental illness.” when concluding persons with antisocial personality disorders may be mentally ill as the term is defined by statute.
  • Linder v. Commissioner of Human Services 394 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Linder v. Commissioner of Human Services 394 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    This court will not weigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo, but must examine the record to determine whether ‘the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings.’ ” ().
  • In Re the Alleged Psychopathic Personality of Joelson 385 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
  • In Re the Alleged Psychopathic Personality of Joelson 385 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
  • Reome v. Levine 379 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Reome v. Levine 379 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    urging this court to consider the definition of a mentally ill and dangerous person in conjunction with the discharge criteria, even though the supreme court explicitly rejected that analysis in Enebak and remanded for reconsideration our decision in Reome I which adopted the Johnson analysis.
  • State v. Ward 369 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Ward 369 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1985
  • Drewes v. Levine 366 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Drewes v. Levine 366 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Jarvis v. Levine 364 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Jarvis v. Levine 364 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    This court will not weigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo, but must examine the record to determine whether “the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings.”
  • Enebak v. Noot 353 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1984
  • Enebak v. Noot 353 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1984
  • Reome v. Levine 350 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Reome v. Levine 350 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    That appellant has not lost “the ability to control his actions”
  • In Re Moll 347 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In Re Moll 347 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • County of Hennepin v. Levine 345 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1984
  • County of Hennepin v. Levine 345 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1984
    7 (1982); (both Cairl and Johnson were decided under the previous civil commitment act, but both illustrate our view of treatment by the least restrictive means).
  • Enberg v. Bonde 331 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
  • Enberg v. Bonde 331 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
    ved in predicting dangerousness, noting that “[m]any psychiatrists themselves admit that their ability to predict future dangerousness is not reliable; to date, no valid clinical experience or statistical evidence reliably describes psychological or physical signs or symptoms that can be reliably used to discriminate between the harmless and the potentially dangerous individual.”