Cited by

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error based on the record as a whole, and defer to the court’s credibility determinations , Knops, d at 620.

15 (requiring proof that the person has “an utter lack of power to control the person’s sexual impulses ” for SPP commitment), 16(3) (requiring proof that the person is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct” for SDP commitment); -21 (Minn. 2014) ( discussing the difficulty of defining and proving this predictive element).

The supreme 12 court has held that the term “lik ely” as used in the determinat ion of whether a person is likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct, means “high ly likely.”

“We review the district court’s factual findings under a clear error standard to determine whether they are supported by the record as a whole,” and view the record in the light most favorable to the findings

1 (Minn. 1976) (stating that findings of fact addressing the relevant criteria “(1) assure consideration of the statutory factors by the family court; (2) facilitate appellate review of the family court’s [decision on the question at issue]; (3) satisfy the parties that this important decision was carefully and fairly considered by the fa mily court”); (citing this aspect of Rosenfeld); Dick v. Dick , 10 The 2001 Harley Davidson is encumbered by the FSA loan.

decision; and (3) satisfy the parties that this important decision was carefully and fairly considered by the [district] court.” (child- custody case); see also In re Civil Commitment of Ince , (citing Rosenfeld and noting that, while “[t]he evidence in the record may be sufficient t o support [the district court’s] conclusion, .

“As the trier of fact, the district court will be in the best position to determine the weight to be attributed to each factor [supporting civil commitment], as well as to evaluate the credibility of witnesses—a critical function in these cases that rely so heavily on the opinions of experts.” -24 (Minn. 2014).

3 (2016); –22 (Minn. 2014).

In re Civil Commitment of Ince

[and] satisfy 9 the parties that this important decision was carefully and fairly considered”); (citing this aspect of Rosenfeld and noting that, while “[t]he evidence in the record may be sufficient to support [the district court’s] conclusion, .

“We review the district court’s factual findings under a clear-error standard to determine whether they are supported by the record as a whole.” In re Civil Commitment of Ince

In re Civil Commitment of Ince , (citing Linehan, d at 614).

DECISION To commit a person as an SDP, a district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “the person: (1) has engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct; (2) has manifested a sexual, personality, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; and (3) as a result, is likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct.” see Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.02, subd.

In that context, “stare decisis requires that we not overturn our previous construction, now ‘part of the statute as though written therein.’” (quoting Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., ).

to evaluate the credibility of witnesses--a critical function in these cases that rely so heavily on the opinions of experts.” -24 (Minn. 2014) 4 (addressing commitment as SDP).

Cf. In re Civil 6 Commitment of Ince, -24 (Minn. 2014).

Generally, the trier of fact “will be in the best position to determine the weight to be attributed to each factor, as well as to evaluate the credibility of witnesses—a critical function in [commitment] cases that rely so heavily on the opinions of experts.” -24 (Minn. 2014).

(“[Appellate courts] will not add words to a statute that the Legislature has purposely omitted or inadvertently overlooked.” (quotation omitted)).

d 13, 25-26 (Minn. 2014).

“We review the district court’s factual findings under a clear error standard to determine whether they are supported by the record as a whole.”

6 -24 (Minn. 2014) (“As the trier of fact, the district court will be in the best position to determine the weight 6 By referring to the “district court,” we do not suggest that state district courts must resolve all disputes over requests for defense and indemnification.

3 (Supp. 2013); –26 (Minn. 2014).