Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hopp v. Hopp, 156 N.W.2d 212.

152 citing documents.

Marriage of Knutson v. Zenk 413 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Knutson v. Zenk 413 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173 , (emphasis in original)
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173 , (emphasis in original).
Walz v. Walz 409 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Walz v. Walz 409 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174-75 , -17 (1968).
In Re the Marriage of Larson 408 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
In Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , the supreme court specifically delineated the requirements of a proper exercise of civil contempt powers.
In Re the Marriage of Larson 408 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 177
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich 400 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175-177 , -218 (1968); Meisner v. Meisner, 220 Minn 559, 560-61, -88 (1945)
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
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174 , (civil contempt).
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Tatro v. Tatro 390 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tatro v. Tatro 390 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173 , -16 (1968).
Marriage of Goff v. Goff 388 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Goff v. Goff 388 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The Minnesota Supreme Court has analogized this situation to contempt cases, applying the rule that there is no defense if the obligor: “has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unexercised capacities.” -20 (Minn.1982) (quoting Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , ).
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 385 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1986
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 385 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1986
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Tell v. Tell 383 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1986
Marriage of Tell v. Tell 383 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1986
Wilbern also contends that the trial court’s immediate imposition of incarceration is not consistent with our reasoning in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170
Marriage of Resch v. Resch 381 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Resch v. Resch 381 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175-177 , -218 (1968); Meisner v. Meisner, 220 Minn. 559, 560-561 , 20 N.W.’2d 486, 487-488 (1945).
Eichinger v. Wicker Enterprises, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Eichinger v. Wicker Enterprises, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 367 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 367 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , Meisner v. Meisner, 220 Minn. 559
Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , Fruen v. Fruen, 228 Minn. 391
Marriage of Ferguson v. Ferguson 357 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Ferguson v. Ferguson 357 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See also Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 177 , (it is proper for a trial court to consider a party’s earning capacity and earnings history to determine his ability to comply with a child support order).
Giesner v. Giesner 319 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1982
Giesner v. Giesner 319 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1982
Our rule is that there is no defense if the party directed to pay “has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unex- *720 ercised capacities.” Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , State v. Fuerst, 283 Minn. 391
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, Weinand v. Weinand, 286 Minn. 303 , which distinguishes the two; Cummins v. Redman, 312 Minn. 237 , citing Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500 , to state that all remedies available to other creditors are available to a spouse trying to collect accrued child support payments; and Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , which designates the elements of a case for contempt.
Minnesota State Bar Ass'n v. Divorce Assistance Ass'n 248 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1976
Minnesota State Bar Ass'n v. Divorce Assistance Ass'n 248 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1976
However, a properly drawn civil contempt order — the elements of which we delineated in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , — would be an appropriate method for effecting compliance with an order to respond.
Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc. 245 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1976
Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc. 245 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1976
In Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , we discussed the limited and essential purpose of civil contempt pro *411 ceedings in divorce litigation specifically authorized by Minn. St.
Weinand v. Weinand 175 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1970
Weinand v. Weinand 175 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1970
In Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , 156 N. W. (2d) 212 , this court stated that in civil contempt proceedings the trial court could not order defendant to work at a specific job or to conduct his business in-a specific manner.
State v. Fuerst 168 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1969
State v. Fuerst 168 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1969
The legal principles involved in determining whether the district court was justified in rejecting defendant’s claim of inability to comply with the order of October 27, 1967, have been recently reviewed in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , 156 N. W. (2d) 212 , and, need not be repeated.
Davis v. Davis 158 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1968
Davis v. Davis 158 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1968
We have examined the contentions of the defendant in light of our recent decision in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , 156 N. W. (2d) 212 , and have concluded that the order finding him in contempt should be affirmed and that the order directing his confinement (if supplemented by a provision granting defendant freedom upon compliance either before or after his immurement begins) is within the power of the district court in the prop