Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem, 742 N.W.2d 422.

103 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3; (“Our state constitution provides a broad grant of subject matter jurisdiction to the district court .
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao 854 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Adam Christopher Robb. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Adam Christopher Robb. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(concluding that the district court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction when statutory deadlines in sexual-psychopathic-personality and sexually-dangerous-person (SPP/SDP) proceedings pass before a hearing is held).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: LyNell Dupree Alexander. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: LyNell Dupree Alexander. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An appellate court reviews questions of law de novo, –26 (Minn. 2007), and findings of fact for clear error
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
403, 407 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (holding that time limit for new-trial motion is claims-processing rule); -22 (Minn.2006) (holding that time limit for post-trial motions is non-jurisdictional procedural rule); -30 (Minn.2007) (holding that failure to meet statutory deadlines in commitment proceeding did not divest district court of jurisdiction).
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
See, (construing a statute to avoid a constitutional confrontation).
Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 842 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
(“In the absence of a clear legislative statement that [a statute] operate[s] to divest the court of jurisdiction, which would require us to squarely confront and decide the separation of powers issue, we hold that the [statute does] not divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.”); see
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
-30 (Minn.2007) (reasoning that, because the state constitution gives the district courts a broad grant of original jurisdiction and statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions if possible, a mandatory statutory deadline for holding a hearing does not divest a court of subject matter jurisdictio
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013
In re the Welfare of J.J.P. 831 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2013
Minn. Const, art. Ill, § 1
In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(holding that the district court did not lose subject-matter jurisdiction when it failed to hold a hearing on the merits of a civil-commitment petition within statutory deadlines).
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Limmer v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Our precedent has also “recognized that where the constitution commits a matter to one branch of government, the constitution prohibits the other branches from interfering with the coordinate branch’s exercise of its authority.” see also State ex rel.
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
2 See In re Civil Commitment of *603 Giem, (examining the language of the statute to determine whether the Legislature intended the time limit in the statute to operate to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction and concluding that where “[t]he legislature did not even mention jurisdiction,” the timing provision would not be c
State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We are required to place a construction on a statute that will render it constitutional, if at all possible
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Citizens Nat’l (emphasizing that waiver “arises from voluntary choice, not mere negligence”).
State v. Barsness 795 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Barsness 795 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
427 n. 6 (Minn.2007) (“[T]he label “jurisdictional” [should be used] ...
State v. Gaiovnik 794 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
State v. Gaiovnik 794 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
In , 427 n. 6 (Minn.2007), we noted that courts should avoid using the term “jurisdictional” when referring to time prescriptions, even rigid ones, because the term “jurisdictional” should be reserved for prescriptions affecting “a court’s adjudicatory authority.” We conclude that the statute of limitations, Minn.Stat.
Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2010
Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2010
see also Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 16 , 126 S.Ct.
In Re Rosckes v. County of Carver 783 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Rosckes v. County of Carver 783 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(holding that a party’s failure to meet a mandatory deadline, though it required the district court to discharge a petition for civil commitment, did not divest the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction).
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
For an analysis of the distinction between jurisdiction and procedural tools that may limit judicial consideration, -28 (Minn.2007) (considering subject matter jurisdiction and non-jurisdictional deadlines).
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc. 764 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009