Cited by

Commitment of Spicer, 14 (explaining that “dynamic risk factors” are a component of “a statistical prediction of a person’s likelihood of reoffending”).

Commitment of Spicer, (reversing because the district court’s findings were “insufficient to enable an appellate court to determine whether the trial court properly considered the [statutory] requirements”).

Commitment of Spicer , d 803, 8 10–11 (Minn. App. 2014).

Commitment of Spicer, we concluded that a “district court’s order d[id] not make sufficiently particular findings of fact on the key issues,” because the order merely stated that the court considered the Linehan factors without explaining the evidence it “found to be most persuasive or least persuasive.”

Commitment of Spicer, and defer to a district court’s credibility determinations, -23 (Minn. 2021).

Commitment of Spicer, 809, 813 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing and remanding a district court’s grant of a petition for civil commitment because the district court failed to make “findings of fact that are sufficiently particular to permit meaningful appellate review”).

Commitment of Spicer, -12 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing and remanding district court’s order because the order did not contain sufficient information to enable meaningful appellate review).

Commitment of Spicer, (reversing and remanding to the district court because its “order does not make sufficiently particular findings of fact on the key issues”); In re Est. of Nelson , WL 492639, at *4 (Minn. App. Jan.

Commitment of Spicer , , 811 (Minn. App. 2014), rev. denied (Minn. Aug 25, 2015) (holding that a district court’s findings may be inadequate if they are not “meaningfully tied to its conclusions of law”).

Commitment of Spicer, - 11 (Minn. App. 2014).

Commitment of Spicer, d 803, 810-11 (Minn. App. 2014).

Commitment of Spicer, see Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd.

Commitment of Spicer, (quotation omitted).

Commitment of Spicer, 811 (Minn. App. 2014).

Commitment of Spicer, (“An order does not permit meaningful appellate review if it does not identify the 6 facts .

Commitment of Spicer, In re Civ.

Commitment of Spicer, -12 (Minn. App. 2014).

Commitment of Spicer, (explaining that the length of an order is not determinative; rather, the order must “identify the facts that the district court has determined to be true and the facts on which the district court’s decision is based” to permit meaningful appellate review).

Commitment of Spicer, (remanding an order that “[did] not permit meaningful appellate review” because the order did not “identify the facts that the district court ha[d] determined to be true and the facts on which the district court’s decision is based”).

Commitment of Spicer, (quoting M.M.).

Commitment of Spicer, d 803, 810 (Minn. App. 2014); (making the same point in a family-law appeal).

Commitment of Spicer , -12 (Minn. App. 2014).

“On appeal, this court applies a clear-error standard of review to the district court’s findings of fact and reviews the record in the light most favorable to the findings of fact.” In re Civil Commitment of Spicer

6 error and view the record in the light most favorable to those findings, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.