Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hampton v. Hampton, 229 N.W.2d 139.

38 citing documents.

In re the Custody of H. T. J. and H. W. J., Minor Children, Tyler Raymond Johnson, Jr., … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The contempt power “must be exercised with great prudence.” -41 (Minn. 1975)
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But the Minnesota Supreme Court has characterized contempt as an extreme remedy, and we have “instructed that civil contempt powers must be exercised with 5 caution.” Newstrand v. Arend , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(d 139, 140 (Minn. 1975)).
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend 869 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend 869 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has characterized contempt as an “extreme remedy,” Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 502, and this court has instructed that civil contempt powers “must be exercised with caution,”
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
at 668; see Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 502, -41 (1975) (“In considering the exercise of contempt power by the court, we have said that the court’s power is arbitrary, born of 5 The state provides examples of other court order violations that have subjected the defendants to contempt-of-court penalties.
State v. Schleicher 672 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2003
State v. Schleicher 672 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2003
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 501
State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
“Where an issue of constitutionality is not raised and acted upon in the court below, a party will not be heard to raise the issue for the first time on appeal to the supreme court.” Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500
Burgardt v. Burgardt 474 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Burgardt v. Burgardt 474 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 502 , -41 (1975).
Morris v. Perpich 421 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Morris v. Perpich 421 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 501
Qualle v. County of Beltrami 420 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Qualle v. County of Beltrami 420 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 501
Marriage of Katz v. Katz 408 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Katz v. Katz 408 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
The trial court’s continuing jurisdiction to modify the child support provisions of a pre-1973 judgment and decree is unaffected by our holding in Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 503 , though appellant argues otherwise.
Rieck v. Lambert 396 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rieck v. Lambert 396 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 501
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
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 502
Marriage of Fairburn v. Fairburn 373 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fairburn v. Fairburn 373 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500
Marriage of Winter v. Winter 375 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Winter v. Winter 375 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court agreed with him and concluded that “[a]ny increase in support for any child of the parties eighteen (18) years of age or older, or to be paid beyond that age, unless the child is under 20 and in secondary school, is beyond the power of the Court.” In support of his argument Dr. Winter cites Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
See Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 501 , Automotive Merchandise, Inc., 297 Minn, at 477, d at 679-80 .
Soutor v. State 342 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Soutor v. State 342 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Citing Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500 , Automotive Merchandise, Inc. v. Smith, 297 Minn. 475
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.
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500 , Automotive Merchandise, Inc. v. Smith, 297 Minn. 475 , Ukkonen v. City of Minneapolis, 280 Minn. 494
Cummins v. Redman 251 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
Cummins v. Redman 251 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
This court in Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500 , which was an action to enforce support payments in a contempt proceedings, said: “* * * [T]he judgment is enforceable by ordinary remedies such as levy, attachment, garnishment, and other proceedings available to judgment creditors under the laws of this state.” Hence the municipal court was

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by