Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301.

91 citing documents.

A25-0125 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But the supreme court has stated that the contempt power gives a district court “inherently broad discretion to hold an individual in contempt.” Erickson v. Erickson
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
–54 (Minn. 2002) ( for its statement that the supreme court “cannot stress enough the importance of having findings of fact that demonstrate the [district] court actually did take all relevant factors into consideration” and holding that, “[b]ecause of the inadequacy of the [child support] magistrate’s findings, [
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)
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Richard Otto, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see Minn. Stat. § § 518.175, subd.
In re the Custody of: B. L. F., Cherries Chamberlain, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
by methods which are speedy, efficient, and sufficiently flexible to meet the problem at hand.” d 301, 304 (Minn. 1986) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Erickson v. Erickson , review denied (Minn. Oct.
Adam C. Steele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P. A., f/k/a Mohrman & Kaardal, P. A. v. Gene Rechtzigel, Gene Rechtzigel as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P. A., f/k/a Mohrman & Kaardal, P. A. v. Gene Rechtzigel, Gene Rechtzigel as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
24, 1986); (“The purpose of the contempt power is to provide the [district] court with the means to enforce its orders.
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
“Th[e contempt] power gives the trial court inherently broad discretion to hold an individual in contempt but only where the contemnor has acted ‘contumaciously, in bad faith, and out of disrespect for the judicial process.’” d 301, 304 (Minn. 1986) (quoting Minn. State Bar Ass’n, 311 Minn. at 284, d at 740).
Analog Technologies Corp. v. Edward Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Analog Technologies Corp. v. Edward Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the Nygards still continue to refuse to remove the turbine, we note that the district court has “inherently broad discretion to hold an individual in contempt” when the individual acts “out of disrespect for the judicial process.” (quotation omitted).
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh 775 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, (stating that “[w]e cannot stress enough the importance of having findings of fact that demonstrate the trial court actually did take all relevant factors into consideration”); Putz, d at 353 -54 (quoting and applying Erickson); (remanding when di
Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan 741 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan 741 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, -04 (Minn.1986) (requiring findings adequate to permit review).
In Re Paternity of JMV 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Valento v. Swenson 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Valento v. Swenson 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, -04 (Minn.1986) (remanding support modification where findings were inadequate).
In Re Paternity of JMV 656 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, -04 (Minn.1986) (remanding support modification where findings were inadequate).
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
“[w]e cannot stress enough the importance of having findings of fact that demonstrate the trial court actually did take all relevant factors into consideration.” Id.
Bormann v. Bormann 644 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Bormann v. Bormann 644 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(holding support modification findings inadequate where district court found substantial increase in obligor’s income but did not address whether the increased income rendered existing support obligation unreasonable and unfair); (affirming refus
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Borcherding v. Borcherding 566 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Marriage of Borcherding v. Borcherding 566 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(“[cjhildren by a subsequent marriage, while relevant to a trial court’s decision, are not to be factored into the child support guideline tables * * * ”); -78 (Minn.App.1987) (holding that trial court erred by considering expenses of obligor’s subsequent wife and ch
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 551 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1996
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 551 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1996
Bock v. Bock 506 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bock v. Bock 506 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 450-51 , -25 (1957).
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott 481 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Hayes v. Hayes 473 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Hayes v. Hayes 473 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hennepin County v. Hanneman 472 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hennepin County v. Hanneman 472 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The court also must make “findings of fact that demonstrate [it] actually did take all relevant factors into con *153 sideration.”
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of D'Heilly v. Gunderson 428 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of D'Heilly v. Gunderson 428 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson 421 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1988