Cited by

On appeal from an order of indetermin ate commitment, this court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and “[t]he record is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision.”

See In re Knops , (recognizing deference appellate courts give to district court judges evaluating credibility especially where findings a re based on expert testimony).

On appeal, review is “limited to an examination of the [district] court’s compliance with the statute, and the commitment must be justified by findings based upon evi dence at the hearing.” In re Knops

18, 2018); see also In re Knops , (stating that “[w]here the findings of fact rest a lmost entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance”).

On review, we are “limited to an examination of the [district] court’s compliance with the statute, and the commitment must be justified by the findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

“Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [panel]’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”

“Where the findings of fact rest almos t entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’s evaluation of credibil ity is of particular 5 significance.”

“Where the findings of fact rest almos t entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”

D E C I S I O N Our review of an involuntary civil commitment is limited to examining whether the district court complied with statutory requirements and whether the commitment is “justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

When reviewing a civil commitment, we are “limited to an examination of the [district] court’s compliance with the statute, and the commitment must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

Our review of an involuntary civil commitment is limited to examining whether the district court complied with statutory requirements and whether the commitment is “justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

Fugelseth , d at 256 (quotation omitted); see also In re Knops , , 620 (Minn. 1995) ("Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court's evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.").

“This court generally will defer to a district court’s evaluation of expert testimony.” Fugelseth, d at 256 (quotation omitted); 620 (Minn. 1995) (“Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’ s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”).

On appeal, we are “limited to an examination of the [district] court’s compliance with the statute, and the commitment 5 must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.” d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995).

Our review of an involuntary civil commitment is limited to examining whether the district court complied with statutory requirements and whether the commitment is “justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

Our review of an involuntary civil commitment is limited to examining whether the district court complied with these statutory requirements and whether the commitment is “justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

“Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [judicial appeal panel’s] evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”

7 evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”

“Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”

“Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”