Cited by

(“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (same) (quoting Kucera, d at 183).

d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009) (considering an award of legal fees and stating that “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”) ().

d 672,679 (Minn. App. 2009) (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”) (quoting Kucera d at 183).

(“It is not within 7 Berger’s brief to this court also cites several nonprecedential opinions by this court that rely on Vegemast for their conclusions that a district court has jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions after the nonmoving party has voluntarily dismissed their claims.

The “classification of property as marital and nonmarital is an issue of law” that appellate courts review de novo, though we must still “defer to underlying findings of fact by the [district] court.” Pekarek v. Pekarek , ().

“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

“Findings should assure that the relevant statutory factors have been addressed, satisfy the litigants that their case was fairly resolved, and permit reasoned appellate review.” (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

Additionally, “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

(“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

The district court made no such factual findings and “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

at 375 (stating that the appellate court erroneously “stray[ed] beyond the established standard of review into the fact finding domain of the trial court”); (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

Moreover, “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

(stating that “the trial court has the responsibility of finding the facts and resolving the conflicts in the evidence”); (reversing and remanding where “findings are missing”).

Moreover, whether relator sent an April 20 reconsideration request is a question of fact that the ULJ did not decide, and “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

Wright Elec., (“ [T]his court cannot serve as the fact -finder.” (citing Kucera v. Kucera , ), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

d 181, 183 (Minn. 1966).

(“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

Moreover, mother asks us to engage in fact-finding, which “is not within the province of this court .” Kucera v. Kucera , , 183 (Minn. 1966).

(“It is not within the province of this court to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

Assocs., (“[A]n undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.”); (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appe al.”).

-07 (Minn. 1990) ( reversing and remanding an award of permanent spousal maintenance established by this court after it determined that an award of temporary spousal maintenance should be made permanent so that the district court could consider the parties’ relative financial positions and make the appropriate award) ; (stating that “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”); d 330, 338 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing and remanding because “findin

(“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

We do not reweigh the evidence, and underlying findings of fact based on conflicting evidence will be affirmed unless they are “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.”

See Wright Elec., (stating that “this court cannot serve as the fact-finder” ()), review denied (Minn. Dec.

Additionally, “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

’” Fontaine v. Steen , (quoting Kucera v. Kucera , ) (alteration in original).

(we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations); d 181, 183 (Minn. 1966) (it is not the appellate court’s role to find facts).

The question of whether Francisco freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his urine is a factual question, and “[i]t is not within the province of this court to determine issues of fact on appeal.”

See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55, (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”) .

“It is not within the province of this court to determine issues of fact on appeal.” Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55

.”) ; Fontaine v. Steen , d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating that “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal” (quoting Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, )).

App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal as the record presented to the district court plus any transcript prepared); Kucera v. Kucera , 275 Minn. 252, 254, (“It is not within the province of this court to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, d 181, 183 (1966).

(holding 3 While recognizing that it is outside of our role to make factual findings, Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254-55, we note that the officer’s description of Benavides’s behavior does not approach the extreme nervousness found in Smith: “[Benavides] seemed a little, little bit nervous and jittery, more so when he was in the car though.

While “[i]t is not within the province of this court to determine issues of fact on appeal[,]” Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, a determination of whether a document produced late in discovery should be excluded is a question of law.

See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, (stating that “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”); (reversing and remanding where “findings are missing”).