Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 588.12 (2026)

Imprisonment Until Performance

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When the contempt consists in the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, the person may be imprisoned until the person performs it, and in such case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1957–2014 · leading case: Marriage of Mahady v. Mahady, 448 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marriage of Mahady v. Mahady, 448 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Did the contempt order contain adequate provisions to allow appellant to purge himself of contempt? 2. Does the record contain sufficient evidence to support findings on contempt and arrearages? ANALYSIS 1.”

Marriage of Zaldivar v. Rodriguez, 819 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 588.12 (2010). Consistent with these principles, a district court must find “that the obligor ha[s] the ability to pay the obligations,” that “the contemnor has the ability to meet” certain purge conditions, and that “conditional confinement is ‘reasonably likely…”

In Re Jenison Contempt Proceedings, 120 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1963). · cites it 2× “10 Here relator had it within her power to effect her own release by expressing to the court her willingness to obey its order.”

In Re the Marriage of Engelby v. Engelby, 479 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “2d 733, 741 (1976); see Minn.Stat. § 588.12 (1990). Minnesota courts have statutory authority to enforce maintenance and child support obligations by imposing sanctions in contempt proceedings.”

Clausen v. Clausen, 84 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 1957). “On appeal defendant contends there is no finding that there was an omission to perform an act which was yet in his power to perform *300 as required by § 588.12. In fact he contends the court found in effect that it was not in his power to make payments when it found he had…”

In Re the Welfare of K.E.H., 542 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “1989) (citing Minn.Stat. § 588.12 (1988); Minnesota State Bar Ass’n, 311 Minn.”

In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “3(3) (2012) (providing that a court may find a person in civil contempt of court for “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court”); Minn. Stat. § 588.12 (2012) (providing that “[w]hen the contempt consists in the omission to perform an act which is yet…”

Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer, 492 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “1989); see also Minn.Stat. § 588.12 (1990). In Mahady we further noted that civil contempt provides contemnors “the keys to the jail cell because compliance with the order allows [them] to purge [themselves] and end the sanction.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.