§ 526.09

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Benson · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re Linehan · 1999 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Linehan · 1996 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Call v. Gomez · 1995 3 citations

At the time Call was committed, the psychopathic personality statute, Minn. Stat. § 526.09.115 (1992) (repealed, ch. 1, art. 1, § 6, 1st spec. sess. 1994), provided for the commitment of any person determined to be a “psychopathic personality.” The term “psychopathic personality” referred to:

At the time Call was committed, the psychopathic personality statute, Minn. Stat. § 526.09.115 (1992) (repealed, ch. 1, art. 1, § 6, 1st spec. sess. 1994), provided for the commitment of any person determined to be a “psychopathic personality.” The term “psychopathic personality” referred to:

. In 1994, during a special session, the Minnesota legislature repealed Minn. Stat. §§ 526.09-.115, amending and recodifying section 526.09 in the Civil Commitment Act, at Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18a (1994). The definition of "Sexual psychopathic personality” now reads, with the new language emphasized:

Matter of Linehan · 1994 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Rickmyer · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Matter of Buckhalton · 1994 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Walton · 1994 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Blodgett · 1994 24 citations

+ 24 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Alleged Psychopathic Personality of Joelson · 1986 2 citations

Two years ago we affirmed the decision of a district court appeal panel adjudicating John Anton Joelson as a psychopathic personality under Minn. Stat. § 526.09 (1980). In re Joelson, 344 N.W.2d 613 (Minn.1984). In that proceeding Joelson had also contended that his indeterminate commitment to the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH) at St. Peter violated his rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Although we concluded that the evidence adequately supported the determination that Joelson is a psychopathic personality, we remanded the case to the probate court for an eviden-tiary hearing on the treatment available at MSH and Joelson’s participation in it. We retained jurisdiction and, after the hearing and entry of findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, reinstated the appeal for further consideration. We concur with the probate court’s determination that the treatment afforded Joelson at MSH is adequate to meet Joelson’s constitutional challenge. We affirm the order of that court continuing Joelson’s commitment.

Two years ago we affirmed the decision of a district court appeal panel adjudicating John Anton Joelson as a psychopathic personality under Minn. Stat. § 526.09 (1980). In re Joelson, 344 N.W.2d 613 (Minn.1984). In that proceeding Joelson had also contended that his indeterminate commitment to the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH) at St. Peter violated his rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Although we concluded that the evidence adequately supported the determination that Joelson is a psychopathic personality, we remanded the case to the probate court for an eviden-tiary hearing on the treatment available at MSH and Joelson’s participation in it. We retained jurisdiction and, after the hearing and entry of findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, reinstated the appeal for further consideration. We concur with the probate court’s determination that the treatment afforded Joelson at MSH is adequate to meet Joelson’s constitutional challenge. We affirm the order of that court continuing Joelson’s commitment.

Enebak v. Noot · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re the Alleged Psychopathic Personality of Joelson · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Bailey v. Noot · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Partlow · 1982 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Johnson v. Noot · 1982 1 citation

Authority in both the statutory and the common law in Minnesota supports the conclusion that a person with an antisocial personality disorder is not mentally ill under section 253A.02, subd. 3, unless he has lost the ability to control his actions. See Minn. Stat. §§ 526.09-.il (1980); State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297 (1939). A psychopathic personality, as defined by section 526.09, is a special type of antisocial personality disorder characterized by irresponsibility toward sexual matters. Persons having a psychopathic personality are subject to the same provisions of chapter 253A as are persons deemed to be mentally ill and dangerous. See Minn. Stat. § 526.10 (1980). In interpreting the scope of the sexual psychopath statutes in Pearson, we held that—

In re Duvall · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Irwin v. Goodno · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re Robb · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Joelson v. O'KEEFE · 1999 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Linehan · 1996 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Irwin · 1995 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Kunshier · 1994 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Bieganowski · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Matter of Schweninger · 1994 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Rodriguez · 1993 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Linehan · 1993 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Buckhalton · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Koelln v. Nexus Residential Treatment Facility · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re Blodgett · 1992 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Stilinovich · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Matter of Monson · 1991 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Matter of Clements · 1989 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Brown · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Stone · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Matter of Martenies · 1984 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Kruger v. Erickson · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Kruger v. Erickson · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Vickerman v. Hennepin County Probate Court · 1982 2 citations

Excluded from the class were persons committed as inebriate (pursuant to Minn. Stat. 253A.07(17)(d)), mentally deficient (pursuant to 253A.07(17)(b)), mentally ill and dangerous (pursuant to 253A.07(17)(c)), and psychopathic personalities (pursuant to Minn. Stat. 526.09); also excluded were persons subject to proceedings under Rule 20 of Minn.R.Crim.P. and under Minn. Stat. 253A.23 for mental evaluations. See August 26, 1980, Stipulation (hereinafter “Stipulation”) Section III.B. at 6; December 29, 1980, Consent Decree (hereinafter “Consent Decree”) at 8.

Excluded from the class were persons committed as inebriate (pursuant to Minn. Stat. 253A.07(17)(d)), mentally deficient (pursuant to 253A.07(17)(b)), mentally ill and dangerous (pursuant to 253A.07(17)(c)), and psychopathic personalities (pursuant to Minn. Stat. 526.09); also excluded were persons subject to proceedings under Rule 20 of Minn.R.Crim.P. and under Minn. Stat. 253A.23 for mental evaluations. See August 26, 1980, Stipulation (hereinafter “Stipulation”) Section III.B. at 6; December 29, 1980, Consent Decree (hereinafter “Consent Decree”) at 8.