Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Civil Commitment of Navratil, 799 N.W.2d 643.

58 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alex Mathew Lafountaine. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Commitment of Navratil, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Commitment of Navratil, -51 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that “the commitment process is not the proper avenue for asserting a right-to-treatment argument,” and “a committed person has adequate avenues outside the commitment process for asserting a right-to-treatment issue”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ryan Paul Petro. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Commitment of Navratil, rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. 2025
The court of appeals cited to support its conclusion that a proceeding resolving a dispute over a patient’s right to treatment is not a proceeding specifically mentioned in the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act and is therefore not a proceeding “under” the Act.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Rodger Dean Robb II Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Rodger Dean Robb II Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Commitment of Navratil, (concluding the district court did not clearly err by finding patient was diagnosed with sexual disorder after patient was diagnosed with paraphilia and expert witnesses testified he would meet criteria for hebephilia).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This plain-reading conclusion finds support in rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 2011).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joseph Harvey Bellanger. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Commitment of Navratil, rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Allan. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We rejected this argument in rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jacquet Deon Munn. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 643, 649 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Eric Matthew Flanders. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A committed individual has a statutory and constitutional right to treatment.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Commitment of Navratil , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Thomas Steven Allen Snook. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Commitment of Navratil , rev. denied 9 (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Richard Allen Smuda. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Civil Commitment of Navratil , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeffrey Thomas Pendzimas. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 52.01; review denied (Minn. Aug.
A20-0560 A20-0562 A20-0565 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See also In re Civil Commitment of Navratil , (recognizing that “the commitment process is not the proper avenue for asserting a right - to-treatment argument” and that “a committed person has adequate avenues outside the commitment process for asserting a right-to-treatment issue”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Charles Jeremy Epperson. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But we have previously recognized that “the commitment process is not the proper avenue for asserting a right -to-treatment argument” and that “a committed person has adequate avenues outside the commitmen t process for asserting a right-to-treatment issue.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Scott Malz. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Ince court affirmed the district court’s decision to consider mo re than just actuarial and risk -assessment tools by stating that “‘highly likely’ cannot be defined by a numeric value.” Ince, d at 21, 23; (affirming a district court’s discounting of risk-assessment tools in favor of other factors), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Chester Lee Grauberger. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Daniel Leroy Patten. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alan Joseph Schiller. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jose Luis Gutierrez. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joe Nathaniel Givens. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We view the record “in a light most favorable to the findings.” d 643, 647 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kirk Alan Fugelseth Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court generally will “defer to a district court’s evaluation of expert testimony.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Tyler Paul Gephart. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Navratil’s sex-offending behavior as a juvenile in its affirmance of his indeterminate commitment as an SDP) , review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Aaron Michael Hayes. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Aaron Michael Hayes. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“No single factor is determinative of this complex issue.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jamie Allen Andrews. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jamie Allen Andrews. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian Lee Wilbur. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian Lee Wilbur. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(Linehan IV); review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Milton Thomas. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Milton Thomas. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Arguments addressing the adequacy of treatment are “outside the scope of the commitment process.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: John Joseph Kotowski. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: John Joseph Kotowski. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gary George Spicer. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gary George Spicer. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremy Michael Bilder. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremy Michael Bilder. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Charles Walter Bathel. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Charles Walter Bathel. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 643, 650 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
At trial, Dr. Zwecker reviewed review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Alan Radke. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Alan Radke. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Aug.