Cited by

“We review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.”

DECISION We review de novo “whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.”

n a course of harmful sexual conduct”; (2) “ has manifested a sexual, personality, or other mental disorder or dysfunction”; or (3) is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct.” Appellate courts “review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.”

“We review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that [an individual] meets the standards for commitment.”

Appellate courts review de novo “whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.”

(affirming appellant’s civil commitment as mentally ill).

“We review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.”

“We review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that [an individual] meets the standards for commitment.”

“We review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that an [individual] meets the standards for commitment.”

8 appellant meets the standards for commitment.”

But “[w]e review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.” (addressing continued commitment as mentally ill).

Nor do they articulate how the cases they cite, and support their assertion that permitting USAA to deposit the funds would create a “legal mess.” To the contrary, the two cases support USAA’s argument that its motion involved a “new set of facts”—pertaining only to its tender of the judgment and interest accrual—and did not require consideration

d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 2003).

This is not appropriate when the consequences of an erroneous decision are grave and imminent, such as with the 3 In In re Thulin, we affirmed a district court’s finding of incapacity, stating that the finding was supported by “ clear and c onvincing evidence.”

DECISION “We review de novo whether there is clear and convincing eviden ce in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment.” In re Thulin

( “The record provides clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s finding that appellant lacked the capacity to make determinations concerning neuroleptic medications.”); d 669, 672 (Minn. App. 1989) (“[T]he legislature intended that persons seeking

d 717, 719 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Aug.

In re Thulin , see also Minn. Stat. § 253B.092, subd.

5 D E C I S I O N When reviewing a district court’s order to administer neuroleptic medication, “[w]e review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision” and “affirm the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (affirming the district court’s incapacity determination because the finding of incapacity was not clearly erroneous ).