Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 253B. CIVIL COMMITMENT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 253B.14 (2026)

Transfer Of Committed Persons

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The executive board may transfer any committed person, other than a person committed as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public, a sexually dangerous person, or a sexual psychopathic personality, from one state-operated treatment program to any other state-operated treatment program capable of providing proper care and treatment. When a committed person is transferred from one state-operated treatment program to another, written notice shall be given to the committing court, the county attorney, the patient's counsel, and to the person's parent, health care agent, or spouse or, if none is known, to an interested person, and the designated agency.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1986–2013 · leading case: In re the Civil Commitment of Moen, 837 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen, 837 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “at 642 (quotation omitted). The supreme court reasoned that rule 60.”
Matter of King, 476 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “His transfer to the security hospital was evidently pursuant to authority of the Commissioner of Human Services under Minn. Stat. § 253B.14 (1990) (authority to transfer committed patients between state institutions).”
In Re Lufsky, 379 N.W.2d 255 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 253B.14 (1984). On the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in rejecting less restrictive alternatives and committing Lufsky to the Minnesota Security Hospital.”
Matter of Smith, 392 N.W.2d 582 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 253B.14. All patients have “the right to receive proper care and treatment, best adapted, according to contemporary professional standards, to rendering further custody, institutionalization, or other services unnecessary.”
State v. Cogswell, 402 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “§§ 253B.14, 253B.15, subd. 1, and 253B.16, subd.”
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.