In re Ashman (Minn. Ct. App. 2021)
Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion holding that, under state law, the commitment appeal panel has authority to review a revocation of transfer made by the special review board.
Jones v. Cuomo (2nd Cir. 2021)
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that, for purposes of IFP status, a civil committee does not qualify as a “prisoner” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Garcia v. Butler (Az. 2021)
Arizona Supreme Court opinion holding that, under state law, trial courts have discretion whether or not to order a SVP screening when requested by the government.
In re Millikin (Iowa Ct. App. 2021)
Iowa Court of Appeals opinion holding that a subsequent SVP petition is not barred, on claim preclusion grounds, by the dismissal of a prior SVP petition.
In re McHatton (Wash. 2021)
Washington Supreme Court affirming decision of Court of Appeals finding that an order revoking civil detainee’s release to a less restrictive alternative is not appealable as a matter of right.
People v. Hoffman (Cal. Ct. App. 2nd 2021)
California Court of Appeal opinion holding that old age, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for overturning a SVP commitment.
In re Quillen (Kan. 2021)
Kansas Supreme Court opinion reversing a lower court holding that jury instructions in a SVP transitional release trial were not sufficient to comport with Due Process.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of W.W. (N.J. 2021)
New Jersey Supreme Court opinion reversing the civil commitment of an individual where the state did not produce psychiatric testimony supporting the commitment in adherence with state law.
State v. Jendusa (Wis. 2021)
Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion holding that a database maintained by the state DOC of recidivism rates is discoverable under state discovery statutes in a SVP proceeding.
Farrara v. Commonwealth (Va. 2021)
Virginia Supreme Court opinion holding that a trial court in a SVP commitment proceeding committed harmless error when it excluded proposed evidence from a respondent where the respondent failed to cooperate with a state examiner in the proceeding.
Karsjens v. Lourey (8th Cir. 2021)
8th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that, on remand from Karsjens I, the trial court applied the wrong standard in evaluating the remaining claims related to conditions of confinement at MSOP.
Brown v. Tarrant County (5th Cir. 2021)
5th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that denial of treatment during twenty-day convinement in a jail cell to individual civilly confined as a SVP did not violate clearly established law, and thus defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
In re Commitment of Stephenson (Wis. 2020)
Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion holding that expert evidence was not required in order to continue to find that a petitioner met the criteria for indefinite civil detention, and that the evidence was sufficient at trial.
In re Stoddard (Tex. 2020)
Texas Supreme Court opinion reversing a lower court on the correct standard of review for factual insufficiency claims in SVP commitment proceedings.
Bilal v. Geo Care (11th Cir. 2020)
11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing in part a lower court dismissal of a civil detainee who brought a lawsuit alleging violation of his Due Process rights in connection with his transport to a court hearing and detention in a jail.
In re Bilton (S.C. Ct. App. 2020)
South Carolina Court of Appeals reversing the civil commitment of an individual who was committed based, at least in part, on the testimony of an expert witness discussing the results of a PPG test administered on that individual that the expert did not perform themselves.
Tilley v. United States (D.C. Ct. App. 2020)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals opinion striking down as facially unconstitituional the District’s first-generation sexual psychopath law.
In re Butler (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
California Court of Appeal opinion finding that a 12 year trial delay in a SVP proceeding violates Due Process.
Benitez v. Hutchens (9th Cir. 2020)
9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the dismissal of a civil rights complaint, alleging that confinement in a jail as a civil committee violated constitutional rights.
In re Bluitt (Tex. 2020)
Texas Supreme Court decision holding that in a SVP proceeding, the right to appear at trial means physical presence.
In re Jones (Tex. 2020)
Texas Supreme Court opinion finding that, while it was error not to submit a jury instruction in a SVP trial informing the jury that they did not need to reach a unanimous verdict to find for the Petitioner, this error was harmless.
In re Jones (Kan. Ct. App. 2020)
Kansas Court of Appeals opinion reversing the dismissal of an SVP petition where expert evaluators disagreed as to whether the Appellee met the statutory criteria for commitment.
People v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)
California Court of Appeal affirming the dismissal of an SVP petition, where the state relied on inadmissible hearsay in the form of expert evaluator reports to meet their burden of proof.
Meyer v. Stacken (D. Minn. 2019)
Federal trial court in Minnesota refusing to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations stemming from MSOP officials refusing to allow family visitations with civilly committed individual.
Van Orden v. Stringer (8th Cir. 2019)
8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of class-action litigation concerning Missouri’s sex offense civil commitment program in light of Karsjens.
In re Sigler (Kan. 2019)
Kansas Supreme Court affirming the commitment of an individual who was the subject of a second SVP petition in the wake of technical violations of his supervision, rejecting res judicata, collateral estoppel and Due Process arguments.
Pesci v. Budz (11th Cir. 2019)
11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion finding that civil commitment center’s ban on committee’s publication and subsequent page-limitations did not offend First Amendment rights.
United States v. White (4th Cir. 2019)
4th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that district court lacked the authority to dismiss a commitment proceeding against someone who was not competent to stand trial, and that furthermore such a commitment proceeding would not offend Due Process protections.
Thomas v. Commonwealth (Va. 2019)
Virginia Supreme Court holding that Due Process does not require the state appoint expert witnesses for indigent respondents in the context of SVP hearings.
Taft et al. v. Branstad (8th Cir. 2019)
8th Circuit Opinion affirming the dismissal of an equal protection and gender discrimination claim brought by a group of civilly committed individuals in Iowa’s SOCC facility.