13 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Malmgreen2 sentences2025At the review hearing, “the court may consider the findings of fact made following the original commitment hearing, and other 3 competent evidence relevant to respondent’s present need for continued commitment.” Malm, 375 N.W.2d at 891 (quotation omitted). 2025At the review hearing, “the court may consider the findings of fact made following the original commitment hearing, and other 3 competent evidence relevant to respondent’s present need for continued commitment.” Malm, 375 N.W.2d at 891 (quotation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
City of Barnum v. Sabrigreen1 sentence2025Under rule 60.02(e)-(f), a district court must “determine whether changed circumstances exist and, if so, whether they render it inequitable for the judgment to have prospective application.” City of Barnum v. Sabri, 657 N.W.2d 201, 207 (Minn. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dirksgreen2 sentences2025“Where the patient is symptom-free while hospitalized and receiving medication, the court may consider precommitment dangerous behavior.” In re Dirks, 530 N.W.2d 207, 211 (Minn. App. 1995) (citing Malm, 375 N.W.2d at 891). 2025“Where the patient is symptom-free while hospitalized and receiving medication, the court may consider precommitment dangerous behavior.” In re Dirks, 530 N.W.2d 207, 211 (Minn. App. 1995) (citing Malm, 375 N.W.2d at 891 ). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Lufskygreen1 sentence2016But a court may rely on past instances of conduct, even if “active psychotic symptoms may have partially subsided during the brief hospitalization prior to the commitment hearing.” In re Lufsky, 379 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Minn. App. 1986); see also In re Malm, 375 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Minn. App. 1985) (noting that despite absence of symptoms during hospitalization, “past behavior indicates that [the patient] does stop taking his medication and return[s] to using alcohol when free to do so [and] symptoms do recur” and that “it is appropriate to consider precommitment behavior”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of S.M.J.green1 sentence2014In the criminal context, “[t]he First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive.” In re Welfare of S.M.J., 556 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Minn. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Linehangreen1 sentence2011Act 23(b) (providing for a range of dispositions after review hearing, including discharge); Linehan III, 557 N.W.2d at 171 (stating that scope of review hearing encompasses the treatment report, evidence of changes in the individual’s condition since the initial commitment hearing, and “such other evidence as in the district court’s discretion enhances its assessment of whether the patient continues to meet statutory criteria for commitment”). | 1 | 1 |
Standal v. Armstrong Cork Co.green1 sentence1994Co. of Am. v. Bode, 247 Minn. 458, 464 , 77 N.W.2d 533, 536 (1956); see also Milliken and Co. v. Eagle Packaging, 295 N.W.2d 377 , 380 n. 1 (Minn.1980); Standal v. Armstrong Cork Co., 356 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1985); see generally Robert A. Leflar et al., American Conflicts Law § 147, at 414-49 (4th ed. 1986) (recognizing trend toward enforcing contractual choice of law provisions and citing case authority). | 1 | 1 |
Milliken and Co. v. Eagle Packaging Co.green1 sentence1994Co. of Am. v. Bode, 247 Minn. 458, 464 , 77 N.W.2d 533, 536 (1956); see also Milliken and Co. v. Eagle Packaging, 295 N.W.2d 377 , 380 n. 1 (Minn.1980); Standal v. Armstrong Cork Co., 356 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1985); see generally Robert A. Leflar et al., American Conflicts Law § 147, at 414-49 (4th ed. 1986) (recognizing trend toward enforcing contractual choice of law provisions and citing case authority). | 1 | 1 |
Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Bodegreen2 sentences1994Co. of Am. v. Bode, 247 Minn. 458, 464 , 77 N.W.2d 533, 536 (1956); see also Milliken and Co. v. Eagle Packaging, 295 N.W.2d 377 , 380 n. 1 (Minn.1980); Standal v. Armstrong Cork Co., 356 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1985); see generally Robert A. Leflar et al., American Conflicts Law § 147, at 414-49 (4th ed. 1986) (recognizing trend toward enforcing contractual choice of law provisions and citing case authority). 1994Co. of Am. v. Bode, 247 Minn. 458, 464 , 77 N.W.2d 533, 536 (1956); see also Milliken and Co. v. Eagle Packaging, 295 N.W.2d 377 , 380 n. 1 (Minn.1980); Standal v. Armstrong Cork Co., 356 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1985); see generally Robert A. Leflar et al., American Conflicts Law § 147, at 414-49 (4th ed. 1986) (recognizing trend toward enforcing contractual choice of law provisions and citing case authority). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Morton
green
1 sentence1986This information is admissible at the commitment hearing, but this court has previously expressed its concern that “private data gathered from medical records not be disclosed to the public.” Id. at 835 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Matter of Knapp
green
1 sentence1985Cf. In re Knapp, 351 N.W.2d 391 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (treatment facility with five-week waiting list properly rejected in favor of state hospital). 2. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State Ex Rel. Doe v. Madonna
green
1 sentence1983Id. at 365-66 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
O'Connor v. Donaldson
green
2 sentences1980O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 *363 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975). 9 Respondents argue that the prehearing confinement order necessarily rests upon the definition of a mentally ill person, Minn.St. 253A.02, subd. 3, 10 which incorporates by reference the standard of proof and elements of dangerousness under Minn.St. 253A.07, subd. 17(a)(1). 11 Appellants, on the other hand, apparently believe that the functions of the probate court, prior to the commitment hearing, are purely ministerial and involve no judicial determination. 1980O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 *363 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975). 9 Respondents argue that the prehearing confinement order necessarily rests upon the definition of a mentally ill person, Minn.St. 253A.02, subd. 3, 10 which incorporates by reference the standard of proof and elements of dangerousness under Minn.St. 253A.07, subd. 17(a)(1). 11 Appellants, on the other hand, apparently believe that the functions of the probate court, prior to the commitment hearing, are purely ministerial and involve no judicial determination. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Jackson v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1980Id. at 730 , 92 S.Ct. at 1854 . 1980Id. at 730 , 92 S.Ct. at 1854 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.