Cited by

P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); see also Hanka v. Pogatchnik , (explaining that, “[w]here a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained”).

And “[w] here a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some 9 other findings are not so sustaine d.” see also King’s Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Com.

P. 61 (“ The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); (“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained.”).

(holding that if the findings necessary for a legal conclusion are adequately supported, a court’s inclusion of other unsupported findings is harmless error).

In drawing this conclusion, we observe that, when “a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained.”

“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained.”

does not require a new trial when independent findings of fact, decisive of the case, are supported by the record.” () (other citation omitted)).

Nevertheless, the Minnesota Supreme Court has analogously held that an erroneous finding does not co mpel reversal “when 14 independent findings of fact, decisive of the case, are supported by the record.” ( (explaining that, “[w]here a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained”)) (other citations omitted).

“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to 9 sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained.”

“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained.”

(explaining that clearly erroneous finding does not require new trial when other independent findings of fact, which are decisive of the case, are supported by the record); see also State ex rel.

See Hanka v. Pogatchnik , (explaining that clearly 8 erroneous finding does not require new trial when other findings of fact, which are decisive of the case, are supported by the record); see also State ex rel.

926, 927 (Minn. 1929); (explaining that “[w]here a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained”); see also State ex rel.

(explaining that where the 15 findings necessary for a legal conclusion are adequately supported, a court’s inclusion of other unsupported findings is harmless error).

“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by suffici ent evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some ot her findings are not so sustained.”

3 See Hanka v. Pogatchnik , (“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is 2 We also note that, unlike in Langteau, R.J.’s testimony was corroborated—her consistent and repeated accounts of the incident corroborate her trial tes timony, and the urg

(holding a court’s inclusion of other unsupported findings is harmless error where the findings necessary for a legal conclusion are adequately supported); see also Rosendahl.

(“Where a decisive finding of fact is supported by sufficient evidence and is adequate to sustain the conclusions of law, it is immaterial whether some other findings are not so sustained.”); Kendall v. Laven, 181 Minn. 570, 572, 233 N.W.

See Bloom v. Hydrotherm, Inc., (“[A]ppellants have the burden on appeal to demonstrate that the [district] court error caused them prejudice.”), review denied (Minn. June 28, 1993); (stating that where the findings 6 necessary for a legal conclusion are adequately supported, a district court’s inclusion of other unsupported findings is harmless error).