Legal Opinion
State v. Tatum
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 21, 1996No. C9-96-30PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KEITH, Chief Justice.
In this case we are asked to address the operation of certain penalty provisions in the contempts statute, Minn.Stat. §§ 588.01-21 (1994). The district court found respondent Dywon C. Tatum in direct criminal contempt of court for refusing to testify and summarily sentenced him to 6 months in the workhouse under section 588.10. The court of appeals issued a writ of prohibition, reducing Tatum’s sentence to 90 days pursuant to the misdemeanor penalty limitation in section 588.20. The State petitioned for further review. We reverse the court of appeals and remand to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- International Union, United Mine Workers v. BagwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Bloom v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. FeiockSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Muniz v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- In re Clerk of Lyon County Courts' CompensationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. LingwallCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- State v. SmootCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun MasonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.