Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Welfare of R. L. W., 245 N.W.2d 204.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Blair Benedict Oberton Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Blair Benedict Oberton Minn. 2024
at 547; –06 (Minn. 1976) (“Contempt historically has been regarded as part of the court’s inherent power to punish summarily offenses committed in its presence.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Contempt historically has been regarded as part of the court’s inherent power to punish summarily offenses committed in its presence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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 In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491- 92, -06 (1976) (discussing chapter 588).
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
“Contempt historically has been regarded as part of the court’s inherent power to punish summarily offenses committed in its presence.” In re Welfare of R. L. W., 309 Minn. 489, 491
Peter Wells Fischer v. Gene A. Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Peter Wells Fischer v. Gene A. Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
24, 1986); see also In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491 n.1, d 204, 205 n.1 (1976) (noting that the purpose of civil contempt “is to coerce performance by the contemnor so as to effectuate a remedy given to a private party, whereas criminal contempt’s purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court”).
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Johnston v. Johnston, 280 Minn. 81, 86 , see also In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491 , (contempt is part of court’s inherent power, independent of statute).
State v. Tatum 556 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
State v. Tatum 556 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
The power is essential to the effectiveness of all other court powers.” In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491-93 , -06 (1976) (citations omitted).
In Re the Welfare of K.E.H. 542 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of K.E.H. 542 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489 , see also State ex.
State v. Whitcomb 399 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Whitcomb 399 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491-93 , -06 (1976).
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
In Re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489, 491
In re the Welfare of G.S. 352 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re the Welfare of G.S. 352 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Efforts for enforcement of court orders should utilize “the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489 , quoting United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 319 , 95 S.Ct.
State Ex Rel. L.E.A. v. Hammergren 294 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1980
State Ex Rel. L.E.A. v. Hammergren 294 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1980
3 (1978), the court has the power to find status offenders in constructive contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders and that In re Welfare of R.L.W., 309 Minn. 489 , permits confinement in any center authorized by the Juvenile Court Act.