Cited by

d 279, 282 (Minn. App. 1989).

at 531 (considering the appellant’s history of violence when concluding that an overt act rose to the level of causing serious physical harm); (concluding that it is proper to consider an individual’s “entire history .

“The question of dangerousness is a factual determination for the [district] court, which should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.”

As indicated above, “[t]he question of dangerousness is a factual determination for the trial court, which should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.”

“The object of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent.” In re Welfare of Hofmaster , see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018).

“The question of dangerousness is a factual determination for the [district] court, which should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.” In re Hofmaster , d 279, 282 (Minn. App. 1989).

(affirming commitment where the district court found only one overt act).

See Carroll, d at 531 (considering patient’s records, which were “replete with documentation of violent outbursts and physical assaults”); (considering patient’s entire history of dangerous acts, including a stabbing assault on his wife).

deration of certain factors, particularly token a large time gap separates the petition for commitment and the last act of sexual misconduct); Pirkl, d at 909 (noting the trial court rejected, in affirming a psychopathic personality commitment, arguments regarding the remoteness of an individual’s action because he had been in prison during the relevant time); (noting, in the context of a mentally ill and dangerous commitment, that good behavior in a hospital does not conclusively determine the