Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Call v. Gomez, 535 N.W.2d 312.

59 citing documents.

In Re Ashman 608 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2000
we held that civil commitment is remedial because it is for treatment purposes, not for preventive detention and in -89 (Minn.1996), we held that the purpose of Minn.Stat.
Joelson v. O'KEEFE 594 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Joelson v. O'KEEFE 594 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
(holding that PP Act patients may be confined so long as they are dangerous and need treatment, despite no longer meeting the inability-to-control requirement for initial commitment); State v. Randall, 192 Wis.2d 800, 806-07 , (holding that dangerous but sane insanity acquitte
Caprice v. Gomez 552 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Caprice v. Gomez 552 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1 (1994) (unless otherwise specified, provisions relating to commitment as mentally ill and dangerous apply to commitment as a psychopathic personality); (discharge criteria in Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd.
In Re Linehan 544 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Linehan 544 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
318 n. 4, 319 (Minn.1995) (recognizing that mental illness is a constitutional requirement for civil commitment, but rejecting “an utter lack of control” as the dividing line between acceptable confinement and mandatory release); see also Blodgett, d at 914-15 (reject *318 ing the argument that the United S