Cited by

Finally, in In re Civ il Commitment of Travis , we held that “[r]ight -to-treatment arguments are not ripe until after a person has been committed and deprived of treatment.”

Commitment of Travis, – 8 59 (Minn. App. 2009).

15, 2013); -59 (Minn. App. 2009) (discussing available legal avenues).

d 52, 67 (Minn. App. 2009).

(stating that “[i]f an issue involves only a hypothetical possibility, then the issue is not justiciable”).

(summarizing caselaw establishing that right-to-treatment arguments are premature at the time of a commitment proceeding).

(“If an issue involves only a hypothetical possibility, then the issue is not justiciable because neither the ripe nor the ripening seeds of a controversy are present.” (Quotation omitted.)); (“Appellate courts decide only actual cont

24, 2011); (summarizing caselaw establishing that right-to-treatment arguments are premature at the time of a commitment proceeding).

24, 2011); d 12 844, 847 (Minn. App. 1985) (noting that “right-to-treatment issue is not reviewed on appeal from a commitment order”), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1985).

“If an issue involves only a hypothetical possibility, then the issue is not justiciable because neither the ripe nor the ripening seeds of a controversy are present.” (quotation and alteration omitted).

(applying Thiele in civil commitment context).

-59 (Minn.App.2009) (available legal avenues include habeas corpus, declaratory or injunctive relief, or a special review board); Pope, d at 683 (stating that “treatment of patients is properly raised before a hospital review board”); see also Minn.Stat.

-59 (Minn.App.2009) (citing Minn.Stat.