Cited by

-44 (Minn. App. 2004) (citations omitted).

The clear-error standard of review “ applies across many 5 contexts,” id., including harassment cases, see, d 331, 337 (Minn. App. 2024) (citing Kenney, d at 221-23); d 841, 843-44 (Minn. App. 2004) (citing Minn. R. Civ.

-44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

This court applies a clear-error standard of review to a district court ’s findings of fact concerning a petitioner’s allegations of harassment, d 841, 843-44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

d 841, 843–44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Harassment is conduct that “goes beyond an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct, and instead causes a substantial adverse effect on another’s safety, security or privacy.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

We review fact findings only for clear error, –44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

- 44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

This court applies a clear-error standard of review to a district court’s findings of fact concerning a petitioner’s allegations of harassment, d 841, 843-44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

But the HRO statute is not concerned with motive; the sole inquiry is whether the respondent’s actions “had, or were intended to have, a substantial adverse effect on the [petitioner’s] safety, security, or privacy.”

-844 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Kush v. Mathison , , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

“A district court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” Kush v. Mathison , -44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

2 (2022); –44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

“A district court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

See, 846 (Minn. App. 2004) (affirming HRO where petitioner alleged harassment in 2001 and 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

In this case, the district court relied upon the second part of the definition, which we will refer to as the “repeated-incidents provision.” To constitute harassment under the repeated-incidents provision, a person’s behavior must go “beyond an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

“[T]his court will reverse the issuance of a restraining order if it is not supported by sufficient evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

1(a)(1) (requiring “repeated incidents”); (“inappropriate or argumentative statements alone cannot be considered harassment”).

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 (deferring to the district court’s implicit credibility determination); -44 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

ve or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target.” To constitute harassment, a person’s behavior must go “beyond an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.