Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tatum, 556 N.W.2d 541.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Specifically, a contempt order is reviewed “for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and oppressiveness.”
Peter Richard Rickmyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The purpose of a civil contempt order is “remedial–in general, vindicating the rights of a party by imposing a sanction that will be removed upon compliance with a court order that has been defied.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Blair Benedict Oberton Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Blair Benedict Oberton Minn. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Valentin Arkadievich Povarchuk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 588.01-.21 (2022) (governing contempt of court); -45 (Minn. 1996) (explaining the classification 15 of contempt as criminal or civil and direct or constructive); d 212, 216-17 (Minn. 1968) (setting forth minimum requirements for civil-contempt proceedings).
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Specifically, a contempt order is reviewed “for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and oppressiveness.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In Minnesota, contempt powers arise from two sources: Minnesota’s contempt statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 588.01-.21 (2022), and the judiciary’s “inherent authority .” State 6 v. Tatum, -47 (Minn. 1996).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court’s contempt order “can be either remedial or punitive.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Id.; see also Minn. Stat. §§ 588.01-.21 (2020) (governing contempt of court).
A20-0639 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court may enforce its prior order by issuing a civil contempt order, which “impos[es] a sanction that w ill be removed upon compliance with a court order that has been defied.”
Town of West Lakeland, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 541, 544 (Minn. 1996); see also D.D.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Specifically, a contempt order is reviewed “for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and oppressiveness.” (), review denied (Minn. July 17, 2018).
Samuel Zean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Civil contempt is appropriate to “vindicat[e] the rights of a party by imposing a sanction that will be removed upon compliance with a court ord er that has been defied.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. S. A. W., E. E. A., J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Tatum , d 541, 544 (Minn. 1996); see also D.D.
In re the Marriage of: Nader Charles Kazeminy, Petitioner Below, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Tatum , , 547 (Minn. 1996).
, A17-1301 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We review contempt orders “for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and oppressiveness.” State v. Tatum
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
The statute is divided into two classifications: “one judicially crafted and the other statutorily mandated.”
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
There are two kinds of criminal contempt in chapter 588: one encompassed by sections 588.01-.15 that is punishable at the discretion of the judiciary, and the other in section 588.20 that is “prosecutable by the state like any other crime.”
Lynne A. Torgerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynne A. Torgerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
545 (Minn. 1996) (applying misdemeanor penalty limitations articulated in Minn. Stat. § 588.20).
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
(“While [chapter] 588 declares the court’s power, that contempt power exists independent of the statute.
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
§ 609.09 was held before trial, without defendant and his attorney, despite objections); (noting that hearing under Minn.Stat.
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
548 n. 7 (Minn.1996) (inviting legislature to reconsider effects of statute).
State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Martin 555 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1996
State v. Martin 555 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1996