Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gada v. Dedefo, 684 N.W.2d 512.

122 citing documents.

Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sefkow v. Sefkow , , 210 (Minn. 1988) ; Gada v. Dedefo , , 514 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Matter of: Susan Ann Ericson o/b/o Minor, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review the district court’ s findings of fact for clear error.” (citation omitted).
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“We neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the [district court].”).
In the Matter of: Emma Marie Welter, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Gada v. Dedefo , (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to review of a denial of a request to continue OFP hearing).
Aljubailah ex rel. A. M. J. v. James 903 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Aljubailah ex rel. A. M. J. v. James 903 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.”
In the Matter: Nita Maria Hicks, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Claire Lee, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that an appellate court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.”).
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
6a(b )(2) (allowing a court to issue a 5 courts defer to district court credibility determinations, Ketchmark did not testif y that Fruen threatened her.
In the Matter of: Josephine Pearl Paul, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Gada v. Dedefo , (stating, in case in wh ich mother sought order for protection against father, that appellate courts “neither reconc ile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder”).
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child v. John Patrick Schrimsher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Tracy Elizabeth Thompson and o/b/o Minor Child v. John Patrick Schrimsher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Paula Jean Ball, for herself and o/b/o W. v. B. and K. A. R. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Paula Jean Ball, for herself and o/b/o W. v. B. and K. A. R. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” (citation omitted).
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court’s decision to issue an order for protection under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act will be reversed on appeal when it lacks sufficient evidentiary support.”
In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A. v. Jamison Robert Arend Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A. v. Jamison Robert Arend Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant “inflicted physical harm” without addressing whether a present intent to harm was shown); (construing the statute to “require either a showing of
In the Matter of: Colleen Marie Siverling v. Dominic Andrew Bjerke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Colleen Marie Siverling v. Dominic Andrew Bjerke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court has stated that “determinations of weight and credibility are within the province of the jury.” Gulbertson, d at 246
In the Matter of: Laura Kay Ellingsworth, for herself and o/b/o N. R. E. v. Moses Abed Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Laura Kay Ellingsworth, for herself and o/b/o N. R. E. v. Moses Abed Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court’s decision to issue an order for protection under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act will be reversed on appeal when it lacks sufficient evidentiary support.”
In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Carrie Ann Seibert, individually and o/b/o C. A. A. and C. C. A. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We reverse a district court’s findings only when they are “clearly erroneous or manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Schanze v. Daniel Frederick Schanze Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Ashley Elisabeth Boecker o/b/o C. E. L. and M. T. L. v. Correy Michael … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Ashley Elisabeth Boecker o/b/o C. E. L. and M. T. L. v. Correy Michael … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating “[w]e neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder”).
In the Matter of: Stanislav Kopylov v. Tatiana Kopylov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of: Stanislav Kopylov v. Tatiana Kopylov Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 512, 514 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Matter of: Sara Marie Gasper o/b/o A. R. G., A. J. G. and A. L. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Sara Marie Gasper o/b/o A. R. G., A. J. G. and A. L. … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christophe Traore Dit Labarere v. Fatima Lakehal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christophe Traore Dit Labarere v. Fatima Lakehal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On appeal, we will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.”
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Antone, d at 100; (stating that appellate courts “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder”).2 A review of the record reveals that there is “reasonable evidence .