comparable federal rule in Minnesota

2019It does not authorize enforcement of a civil money judgment by methods other than a writ of execution, except where well established principles [so] warrant." (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)); Combs v. Ryan's Coal Co. , 785 F.2d 970 , 980 (11th Cir. 1986) (same); see also Markarian , 114 F.3d at 349 n.4 (describing "the types of extraordinary circumstances which warrant departure from the general rule that money judgments are enforced by means of writs of execution rather than by resort to the contempt power of the courts").

2019Co. v. Markarian , 114 F.3d 346 , 349 (1st Cir. 1997) ("The 'otherwise' clause [in the comparable federal rule] is narrowly construed.

2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule.

2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule.

2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule.

2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W. 2d 722, 726-27 (Minn. 1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W. 2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule.

2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Minn.1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn.1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule.

2014However, in contrast to parallel constitutional provisions, in which the United States Constitution provides a floor with respect to those rights that are incorporated against the states, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988); State v. Fuller, 374 N.W. 2d 722, 726-27 (Minn. 1985); O’Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W. 2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979), nothing prevents a state court from adopting a procedural rule that provides less protection to criminal defendants than a comparable federal rule.

2001United States v. Holmes, 822 F.2d 802, 805 (8th Cir.1987) (upholding admission, under the comparable federal rule, of a conviction more than 10 years old, where the matter was briefed and orally argued).

2001United States v. Holmes, 822 F.2d 802, 805 (8th Cir.1987) (upholding admission, under the comparable federal rule, of a conviction more than 10 years old, where the matter was briefed and orally argued).

1999In Women of Minnesota, we extended the right of privacy to cover the right to abortion funding for those on public assistance — a protection not available under federal law, 6 but one we determined should *800 be accorded in Minnesota because of this state’s “long tradition of affording persons on the periphery of society a greater measure of government protection and support than may be available elsewhere.” Id. at 30 .

1999We have characterized it as “a significant undertaking for any state court to hold that a state constitution offers broader protection than similar federal provisions, and it is certainly not sufficient ‘to reject a [U.S.] Supreme Court opinion on the comparable federal clause merely because one prefers the opposite result.’ ” Women of the State of Minn, by Doe v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 30 (Minn.1995) (quoting Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States’ Bills of Rights, 9 U.Balt.L.Rev. 379, 392 (1980)).