Cited by

Commitment of Janckila, (reviewing district court’s mentally-ill determination under Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd.

Commitment of Janckila, (noting experts “testified that appellant’s entrenched delusional thinking prevented him from considering the effectiveness, appropriateness, and benefits of neuroleptic medication”).

“When the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the district court’s evaluation of credibility is particularly significant.”

Minn. Stat. § 253B.09 (2018)

In re Civil Commitment of Janckila

“There must be clear and convincing evidence that a person is mentally ill in order to commit that person.”

In re Civil Commitment of Janckila

(relying only on testimony from three mental-health professionals to support involuntary neuroleptic treatment and stating that “[w]hen the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, th e district court’s evaluation of credibility is particularly significant”).

On appeal, we will not reverse a district court’s “findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

“In reviewing a commitment, we are limited to an examination of whether the district court complied with the requirements of the commitment act.” In re Civil Commitment of Janckila

“In reviewing a commitment, we are limited to an examination of whether the district court complied with the requirements of the commitment act.”