DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910.

135 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gordon Emil Miles. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gordon Emil Miles. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    See, (listing certain relevant factors).
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Ince 847 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
    without requiring foundation witnesses.”); Linehan III, d at 178, 189 (stating the district court used a “mul-ti-factor analysis” including statistics and “other factors it believed were sound indicators of future conduct,” and concluding the court did not err in “considering] evidence not specifically listed in Linehan I ”); (noting that district court could consider, under predecessor test, “other factors that bear on the predatory sex impulse and the lack of power to control it”).
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    The supreme court has recognized that the viability of such a claim may depend on the adequacy of treatment provided by the MSOP: “So long as civil commitment is programmed to provide treatment and periodic review, due process is provided.”
  • Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
  • Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
    2(d); In re Blodgett (noting that in “a proceeding where a committed person is seeking a discharge from commitment ...
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Crosby 824 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Crosby 824 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
  • League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
    See, , 912 n. 2 (Minn.1994); State by Clark v. Applebaums Food Mkts., Inc., 259 Minn. 209 , 216 & n. 5, , 901 & n. 5 (1960) (declining to decide the constitutionality of a statute where the issue was raised only by an amicus).
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 800 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 800 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
    Safety, -17 (Minn.2007) (holding that the “state has a compelling interest” in protecting “the citizens of Minnesota” from those who “pose a severe threat to the[ir] health and safety” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (finding that the State has a “compelling interest in protecting the public from violent sexual assaults”); (finding that the strength of the State’s interests in protecting the public “cannot be disputed”).
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Navratil 799 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • In re the Civil Commitment of Navratil 799 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    7 (2010) (declaring that a committed individual has “the right to receive proper care and treatment, best adapted, according to contemporary professional standards, to rendering further supervision unnecessary”); (stating that “[s]o long as civil commitment is programmed to provide treatment and periodic review, due *651 process is provided”).
  • Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    1804, 1809 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979)
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 782 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Johnson 782 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    First, “[i]t is undeniable that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of the public, including persons both on and off tribal land, from dangerous and repeat sex offenders.” Beaulieu, d at 240 ; (stating that the government has a compelling interest in protecting the public from “persons who have an uncontrollable impulse to sexually assault”).
  • In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Coker v. Ludeman 775 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Coker v. Ludeman 775 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    1 But in 1994, the Minnesota Supreme Court, after upholding the constitutionality of the psychopathic-personality statute against equal-protection and substantive due-process challenges, noted that when a committed person seeks a discharge from commitment, “the burden of proof should be on the state to show by clear and convincing evidence that commitment should continue.” cert.
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Minnesota Cases The cornerstone of Minnesota’s recent jurisprudence on the constitutional validity of the SDP/SPP statutes is the 15-year-old holding of the supreme court in
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
    We have previously recognized that the government has a compelling interest in the “protection of members of the public from persons who have an uncontrollable impulse to sexually assault.”
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Beaulieu 737 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Beaulieu 737 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that there is a compelling governmental interest in “the protection of members of the public from persons who have an uncontrollable impulse to sexually assault.” cf. Jones, d at 15 (Anderson, J., concurring) (concluding that the state’s interest in tracking the whereabouts of convicted kidnappers on *241 Indian reservations and in protecting potential kidnapping victims so as to justify enforcement of state predatory-offender registration statute i
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Stone 711 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Civil Commitment of Stone 711 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (considering frequency and similarity of incidents to determine whether party should be committed as SPP).
  • State v. Fingal 666 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re Kindschy 634 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re Kindschy 634 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Hince v. O'KEEFE 632 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2001
  • Hince v. O'KEEFE 632 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2001
    History of the SPP and SDP Acts The current civil commitment statutes for SPP and SDP are the product of a delicate balancing between the “legitimate public concern over the danger posed by predatory sex offenders” and the fundamental right of those persons committed to live their lives “free of physical restraint by the state.” 914 (Minn.1994).
  • In Re Preston 629 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re Preston 629 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    While excluding “mere sexual promiscuity,” and “other forms of sexual delinquency,” a psychopathic personality “is an identifiable and documentable violent sexually deviant condition or disorder.” (footnotes omitted).
  • In Re Robb 622 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re Robb 622 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    and Robb argues that the trial court erred when it committed him as a sexual psychopathic personality and as a sexually dangerous person because neither the trial court record nor his history of sex offenses includes a single instance of violent sexual behavior.
  • Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re Robledo 611 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re Robledo 611 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    587 , 145 L.Ed.2d 488 (1999)
  • In Re Linehan 594 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1999
  • 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