Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841.

183 citing documents.

Lindsay Allyn Yates Plumer v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lindsay Allyn Yates Plumer v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This includes 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.
Natasha Siefker Cook and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Rosa Maria Maldonado Lopez, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Kathleen S. Mosdal and OBO Minor children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Rebecca Lynn Fideldy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Todd Brian Kerber, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Melanie Jane Anderson and obo minor children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We review the district court ’s factual findings for clear error giving due regard “to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” - 44 (Minn. App. 2004) , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Jamie Marie Cambronne, and On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[D]ue regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Tyler Grant Thompson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Catherine E. Jacobson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
28, 2006); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Arctos Wealth Management and Fiduciary LLC, o/b/o Irvin John Cooper, Sr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Brita Springstead, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Kari Anne Visser and on behalf of Desirae Mae McPhail and D.J.M., minor child, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Heidi Lee Wolf, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Objectively unreasonable conduct is conduct that “goes beyond an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Mary Madonna Schlumpberger and on behalf of minor child, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Objectively unreasonable conduct includes conduct that “goes beyond an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Dane Michael Vandervoort, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
–44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We review “a district court’s grant of a[n HRO] under an abuse -of-discretion standard.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Megan Marie Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We also give “due regard” to the “district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Rebecca Sue Nash, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5(b)(3) (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Elizabeth Annette Robyn Wolter, OBO A. R. W., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Two or more instances of harassing conduct constitute “repeated incidents.” Kush v. Mathison , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In re The Robert Preus and Donna Mae Preus Lake Property Family Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-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.
Kallys Albert Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5(b)(3) (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Sarah Anne Trisko, and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This court has stated, “whether certain conduct constitutes harassment may be judged from both an objective standard, when assessing the effect the conduct has on the typical victim, and a subjective standard, to the extent the court may determine the harasser’s intent.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Kadi Beth Jackson, o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, vs. Robert Bradley Daniel, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5(b)(3) (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Sep.
Heather Mary Zigan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review “a district court ’s grant of a [n H RO] under an abuse -of-discretion standard.” Kush v. Mathison , , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Joel Leslie Wells, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kush v. Mathison , 3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
A20-1369 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 52.01; -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Emily Mae Peterson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Objectively unreasonable conduct includes 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.” d 841, 846 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Charity Amber Billings, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Molly Elizabeth Joyce, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court’s findings of fact will not be set asid e unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. 5 Sept.
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Wayne Floyd O’Connor, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In reviewing the district court’s decision to issue an HRO, “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 c redibility of witnesses.” –44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Lindsey Middlecamp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kush v. Mathison , d 841, 843-44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Ronald Regino Altamirano, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-0958 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
28, 2006); see also, (recognizing that HRO proceedings are civil in nature); -44 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure to an HRO proceeding) , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Peter Richard Rickmyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court’s findings of fact will not be se t aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s oppo rtunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Tammy Ann Harris, and on behalf of Margaret M. Banks, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sandra May Schumann, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A20-0072 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kush v. Mathison , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sharon McCrea, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A court may grant a harassment restraining order when the court finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.” Kush v. Mathison , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Derik John Grittner, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Gail Marie Peterson, and o/b/o minor child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A dist rict 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 ju dge the credibility of witnesses.” Kush v. Mathison , -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Jay Thomas Nygard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kush v. Mathison , 3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Annikki Lee Hockert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- 44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Catherine Marie Schaefer, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kush v. Mathison , review denied (Minn. Sept.
John Patrick Becker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Two or more instances of harassing con duct constitute “repeated incidents.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Caleb Samuel Pesola, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Katherine Corrine McClain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Elsayed M. Elsaid Mahmoud, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An appellate court will not set aside a district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but this court will “reverse the issuance of a restraining order if it is not supported by sufficient evidence.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by