Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hince v. O'KEEFE, 632 N.W.2d 577.

32 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application of Anthony Allen Jessie Garnett for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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
See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 82-83 (1992) (concluding that “indefinite detention of insanity acquittees who are not mentally ill but who do not prove they would not be dangerous to others” violates due process); Hince v. O’Keefe, (“Without the mental disorder component, commitment would be based on dangerousness alone, which does not satisfy due process.”).
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jesse James Adams. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hince v. O’Keefe, Carufel, d at 542.
A17-1552 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
Bearder v. State 806 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2011
Bearder v. State 806 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2011
Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (2010); Hince v. O’Keefe
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finally, in Hince v. O’Keefe, Hince and his fellow appellants, who were civilly committed under the SDP Act, sought a determination that the DHS commissioner must establish a review board for MSOP facilities under Minn.Stat.
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
See Hince v. O’Keefe, (separate provisions within the same statute are to be interpreted in light of each other).
Toth v. Arason 722 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2006
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 699 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis-Miller v. Ross 699 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rydberg v. Goodno 689 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rydberg v. Goodno 689 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
§ 645.16; Hince v. O’Keefe
State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Hince v. O’Keefe, Sorenson v. St.
In Re Brown 640 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
In Re Brown 640 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
See Hince v. O’Keefe, (explaining that we are under an obligation to interpret our statutes to avoid constitutional defects).