Cited by

The clear-and-convincing standard requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “is met when the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” 654 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

The clear- and-convincing-evidence standard requires “m ore than a preponderan ce of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “is met when the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , (quotations and citation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

Knops, d at 620; rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

The clear -and-convincing-evidence standard requires more than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and “is met when the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation and citations omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

Commitment of Kropp, (stating that the appellate court does not “reweigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo” because “it is 14 immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary”), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).4 In sum, the role of an ap

(noting that executive direct or cannot unilaterally prevent provisional discharge pending an appeal despite CAP’s grant), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997); (applying Wintz in a civil-commitment matter), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

E.g., In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , review denie d (Minn. June 20, 2017); review denied (Minn. Nov.

(quoting Minn. Stat. § 253D.30, subd.

See In re Commitment of Kropp , (“Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issu e in the absence of adequate briefing.”), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

See In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , d 647, 653 (Minn. App. 2017) (“ Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issue in the absence of adequate briefing.”), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

1 “[T]his court reviews de novo questions of statutory construction and the application of statutory criteria to the facts found.” review denied (June 20, 2017).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

In re Civil Commitment of Knopp , review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 7 Hunt acknowledges that permission to drive a vehicle on a public road is a pri vilege that the state may regulate and that provisions of Minnesota’s motor vehicle code continually have been held constitutional.

review denied (June 20, 3 2017).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

“If the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings, it is immaterial that the 3 record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary.”

The clear -and- convincing-evidence standard requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” d 647, 654 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

The clear- and-convincing evidence standard requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Civil Commit ment of Kropp , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

2(d) (2018); -86 (Minn. 2013); -51 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , ; see In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , (applying Wintz in a civil -commitment matter), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

We review for clear error a judicial appeal panel’s findings of fact by “examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings.” rehearing denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

2(d); -86 (Minn. 2013) ; -51 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

6 This court reviews a judicial appeal panel’s decision for clear error and examines the record “to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings.” In re Civil Commitment of Duvall , (quoting In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017)), review denied (Minn. Sept.

2(d) (2016); see also Coker, d at 485-86; -51 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

2(d) (2016); -86 (Minn. 2013); -51 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , , 650 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

” review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

review denied (Minn. Jun e 20, 2017) .

D E C I S I O N “This court reviews a judicial appeal panel’s decision for clear error, examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings.” Matter of Civil Commitment of Kropp , review denied (June 20, 2017) ( (M inn.

We review a judicial appeal panel’s deci sion for clear error to “determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings.” review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

“[T]his court reviews de novo questions of statutory construc tion and the application of st atutory criteria to the facts found.” In re Civil Commitment of Kropp , review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).