§
Subdivision 1. Persons with mental illness or chemical dependency.
(a) If at the conclusion of a review hearing the court finds that the person continues to have mental illness or chemical dependency and need treatment or supervision, the court shall determine the length of continued commitment. No period of commitment shall exceed this length of time or 12 months, whichever is less.
(b) At the conclusion of the prescribed period under paragraph (a), commitment may not be continued unless a new petition is filed pursuant to section 253B.07 and hearing and determination made on it. If the petition was filed before the end of the previous commitment and, for good cause shown, the court has not completed the hearing and the determination by the end of the commitment period, the court may for good cause extend the previous commitment for up to 14 days to allow the completion of the hearing and the issuance of the determination. The standard of proof for the new petition is the standard specified in section 253B.12, subdivision 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 253B.09, subdivision 5, the initial commitment period under the new petition shall be the probable length of commitment necessary or 12 months, whichever is less.
§
Subd. 2.Persons who are developmentally disabled.
If, at the conclusion of a review hearing the court finds that the person continues to be developmentally disabled, the court shall order commitment of the person for an indeterminate period of time, subject to the reviews required by section 253B.03, subdivisions 5 and 7, and subject to the right of the patient to seek judicial review of continued commitment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases, 1984–2016 · leading case:
Matter of Harhut, 385 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1986).
Matter of Harhut, 385 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 27× “The issue raised is the constitutionality of indeterminate commitment for mentally retarded patients under Minn. Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp.1985).”
In Re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. §§ 253B.13, subd. 3, 253B.12, subd.”
Jarvis v. Levine, 418 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “at 309 ; Minn.Stat. § 253B.13 (1986). In many cases then, treatment approval hearings may be consolidated with hearings already required.”
Matter of Fredrickson, 388 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 16× “It raises, among other things, the same constitutional challenge to Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp.1985), recently decided in In re Harhut, 385 N.”
In Re Robledo, 611 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “OPINION LANSING, Judge On appeal from recommitment as a mentally ill person, Manuel Robledo contends that the district court violated Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 1 (1998), by allowing petitioners to use consecutive-recommitment procedures even though his original commitment had…”
Matter of Desmond, 381 N.W.2d 57 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 10× “Appellant seeks review of both orders, and the attorney general intervened to defend the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (1984). We affirm the trial court and certify this case to the supreme court.”
Matter of Harhut, 374 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “At his six-month review hearing, he challenged the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2, requiring commitment of mentally retarded persons for an indeterminate period without annual reviews.”
In Re the Alleged Mental Illness Of: Cordie, 372 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 1. Appellants were provisionally discharged on November 27, 1984, when they left the state hospital, and fully discharged from their commitment on March 29, 1985, so modification of the term of continued commitment is not necessary in this case.”
Matter of Wicks, 364 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2. The trial court did not state the term of Wicks’ initial commitment, but under the statute it is six months.”
Cnty. of Hennepin v. Levine, 345 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 2× “5 (1982) (duration of initial commitment period for mentally ill, mentally retarded, or chemically dependent patients); section 253B.13 (duration of continued treatment for all committed individuals except MID patients); section 253B.”
Matter of Colbert, 461 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “5, and the 12-month commitment limit under Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 1, together impose an 18-month limit.”
Matter of King, 476 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 1. The commitment was premised on the risk appellant might harm himself, not others.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.