Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zieman v. Zieman, 121 N.W.2d 77.

30 citing documents.

Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 192, (“‘Unreasonable and unfair’ are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burden of proof more than cursory.”); (stating that a party who does not submit evi
In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason 871 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason 871 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Jones, d at 29 (citing Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 193 n.5, n.5 (1963), which stated the object of criminal contempt “is to punish an individual because of his demonstrated disrespect for the court’s orders”).
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
The object of the contempt statutes is to vindicate the authority of the court.3 See Tatum, d at 544; see also Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 193 n.5, 121 3 The State argues that this purpose of contempt relates only to judicial criminal contempt, Minn. Stat. §§ 588.01-.15 (2014), not misdemeanor criminal contempt under section 588.20.
Marriage of Wildtraut v. Wildtraut 391 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wildtraut v. Wildtraut 391 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 192 , -80 (1963) (alimony obligation did not end following obligor’s remarriage but extenuating circumstances found); see also Ramsay v. Ramsay, 305 Minn. 321, 323 , (involving alimony only).
Marriage of Ellefson v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Ellefson v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 192 , -80 (1963) (citations omitted).
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 370 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 370 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See further principles set forth in Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 ; .
Barth v. Barth 356 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Barth v. Barth 356 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190
In Re Welfare of R. L. W. 245 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1976
In Re Welfare of R. L. W. 245 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1976
Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190
Hampton v. Hampton 229 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1975
Hampton v. Hampton 229 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1975
See, also, Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 , Annotation, 32 A. L. R. 3d 888.
In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
In Re LaBelle's Trust 223 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1974
See, Posselt v. Posselt, 271 Minn. 575 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374 , Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190
Dent Ex Rel. Dent v. Casaga 208 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1973
Dent Ex Rel. Dent v. Casaga 208 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1973
In support of this position, plaintiff cites Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190
Hopp v. Hopp 156 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1968
Hopp v. Hopp 156 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1968
Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , 153 N. W. (2d) 825 ; Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 , 121 N. W. (2d) 77 ; 17 C. J. S., Contempt, §§ 5(2) to 7.
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1967
Knajdek v. West 153 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1967
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 1967
See, Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 , 121 N. W. (2d) 77 ; State ex rel.
Knajdek v. West 153 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1967
4 Cf. Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 , 121 N. W. (2d) 77 ; 17 Am.
Posch v. Posch 135 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1965
Posch v. Posch 135 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1965
See, Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , 77 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190 , 121 N. W. (2d) 77 ; Druck v. Druck, 258 Minn. 114 , 103 N. W. (2d) 123 .