Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 253D. CIVIL COMMITMENT AND TREATMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 253D.01 (2026)

Citation

✓ current as of May 2026
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 (D. Minnesota 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friend v. Johnson Piper (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 2× “) 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 (D. Minnesota 2023). · cites it 2× “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 (D. Minnesota 2023). · cites it 2× “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 (D. Minnesota 2024). · cites it 2× “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 (D. Minnesota 2024). · cites it 2× “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. (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01, .07, subd. 3 (Supp.”
Patten v. Schultz (D. Minnesota 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.