Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 253D.01 (2026)
Citation
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter may be cited as the "Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: Friend v. Johnson Piper, No. 0:17-cv-04356 (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2018).
Friend v. Johnson Piper, No. 0:17-cv-04356 (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2018). “) He claims that his confinement violates due process and the separation of powers, constitutes double jeopardy, and violates the requirements of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01- 36. (Id. at 7–8.) Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that…”
Rud v. Johnston, No. 0:23-cv-00486, 2023 WL 2600206 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2023). “FACTS The Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01–.36, provides grounds for individuals to be civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”).”
Rud v. Johnston, No. 0:23-cv-00486, 2023 WL 6318615 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2023). “FACTS The Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01–.36, provides grounds for individuals to be civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”).”
Rud v. Johnston, No. 0:23-cv-00486 (D. Minn. May 23, 2024). “Plaintiffs are individuals who have been civilly committed to the MSOP pursuant to the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01–.36. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–8, 13, Oct.”
Rud v. Johnston, No. 0:23-cv-00486 (D. Minn. May 23, 2024). “Plaintiffs are individuals who have been civilly committed to the MSOP pursuant to the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01–.36. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–8, 13, Oct.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Charles Walter Bathel., No. A14-720 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2014). “Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01, .07, subd. 3 (Supp.”
Patten v. Schultz, No. 0:19-cv-01210 (D. Minn. Oct. 3, 2022). “§ 253D.01 et seq.—is unconstitutional on its face because, for example, it does not allow for periodic, independent assessments to determine whether the committed person still qualifies for commitment; (2) The Act is unconstitutional as applied to him; (3) He is being denied…”
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.