Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. Peterson, 153 N.W.2d 825.

51 citing documents.

Kevin James Kleinschmidt v. Angela Rose Farkash Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kevin James Kleinschmidt v. Angela Rose Farkash Minn. Ct. App. 2024
John P. Norusis v. City of Marine on Saint Croix Minn. Ct. App. 2024
John P. Norusis v. City of Marine on Saint Croix Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, by Dr. Brooke Cunningham, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 825, 828 n.5 (Minn. 1967) (stating that section 588.10 applies to constructive criminal contempt sanctions); see also Minn. Stat. § 588.02 (2022) (authorizing court to “ punish a contempt by fine or imprisonment, or both” (emphasis added)) ; Minn. Stat. § 588.09 (2022) (requiring a hearing after arrest on contempt char
Town of West Lakeland, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In this sense, criminal contempt is an “offense[] against the dign ity of the state as a whole.” Peterson v. Peterson , 10
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. S. A. W., E. E. A., J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In this sense, criminal 8 contempts are “offenses against the dignity of the state as a whole.”
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1477 , 1487, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968) ); Peterson v. Peterson , 278 Minn. 275 , 279-80, , 829 (1967) (explaining that jury trials are required only for constructive criminal contempt).
, A17-1301 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 496, 94 S. Ct. 2697, 2702 (1974) (explaining in a direct-criminal-contempt-case that jury trials are required for contempt that result s in punishment longer than six months) (citing Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 211, 88 S. Ct. 1477, 1487 (1968)); Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 279–80, (explaining that jury trials are required only for constructive criminal contempt).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 279, (noting that, with respect to conduct committed outside the presence of the court, “formal proceed ings are needed .
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
Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 279
Lynne A. Torgerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynne A. Torgerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
13, 1987); Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 279, (justifying summary disposition of direct contempt due to the “urgent and immediate necessity of maintaining order in the courtroom”).
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Coco's Heart Dog Rescue v. Ann Marie Hawthorne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In a proposed order, presumably submitted by Hawthorne’s attorney, there is a finding that Coco’s Heart “appeared to be seeking a criminal sanction” for contempt, and also a conclusion of law stating that “when a party faces criminal sanctions for constructive contempt, her case ‘should not be prosecuted by attorneys other than those representing the state,’” quoting Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 281
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
/punitive contempt orders is generally to punish offensive conduct directed against the dignity and authority of the court, Minn. State Bar Ass’n v. Divorce Assistance Ass’n, Inc., 311 Minn. 276, 285, and to “preserve the authority of the court by punishing past misconduct.” (citing Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, ).
State v. Martin 555 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1996
State v. Tatum 556 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
State v. Tatum 556 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
at 847 ; Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 281 , State v. Binder, 190 Minn. 305, 311 , 251 N.W.
State v. Martin 555 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1996
See, e.g., Tatum, d at 545 *901 n. 3; Knajdek, 278 Minn. at 284 , d at 847 ; Peterson v. Pederson, 278 Minn. 275, 281
State v. Garcia 481 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Garcia 481 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , Knajdek, 278 Minn. at 284 , d at 847 ; d at 770 .
In Re the Welfare of E.J.B. 466 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of E.J.B. 466 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“Criminal contempt is to preserve the authority of the court by punishing past misconduct.” Welfare of A. W., d at 225 (citing Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 280-81 , -29 (1967)).
In Re the Marriage of Nelson 408 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Marriage of Nelson 408 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 281
In Re Welfare of A.W. 399 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re Welfare of A.W. 399 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275
Emery Air Freight Corp. v. Local 544, International Brotherhood of Teamsters 379 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Emery Air Freight Corp. v. Local 544, International Brotherhood of Teamsters 379 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , 276 n. 1, , 826 n. 1 (1967).
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi 294 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1980
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi 294 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1980
See Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , Hopp v. Hopp, supra.
Layton v. Legislative Audit Commission 283 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1979
Layton v. Legislative Audit Commission 283 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1979
4; Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , .
STATE EX REL. LaMERE v. Young 192 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1971
STATE EX REL. LaMERE v. Young 192 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1971
Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275
In Re Discipline of Drexler 188 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1971
In Re Discipline of Drexler 188 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1971
278 Minn. 275 , 153 N. W. (2d) 825 ; Id.
Petterson v. Bartels 170 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1969
Petterson v. Bartels 170 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1969
(2d) 597 ; Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , 153 N. W. (2d) 825 ; Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 432 , 153 N. W. (2d) 830 ; Peterson v. Peterson (8 Cir.) 400 F. (2d) 336.
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.
Knajdek v. West 153 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1967
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1967
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1967
Knajdek v. West 153 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1967
Our recent decision in Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , 153 N. W. (2d) 825 , compels a reversal of appellant’s conviction.
Peterson v. Peterson 153 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1967
The judgment accordingly must be reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275 , 153 N. W. (2d) 825 .