Cited by

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

187 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Leonard E. Erlandson and Marion L. Erlandson Irrevocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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.
In the Matter of: Casey McDougall v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Allison Marie Wolf v. John Roman Schmainda Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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.
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 v. Tobin Jack Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Rosa Maria Maldonado Lopez v. Brooke Lea Simpson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Kathleen S. Mosdal and OBO Minor children v. Jarred Isaac Mosdal Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Rebecca Lynn Fideldy v. Rose Marie Schumacher Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Todd Brian Kerber v. Anna Renee McKinnon Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Melanie Jane Anderson and obo minor children v. Nicholas Anton Banyai 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 v. Jake Chapp 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 v. Arlen Britton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Catherine E. Jacobson v. Francesco Parisi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
28, 2006); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Arctos Wealth Management and Fiduciary LLC, o/b/o Irvin John Cooper, Sr. v. Kathy Jeno, aka Kathy Brown, aka … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Brita Springstead v. Allen Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Kari Anne Visser and on behalf of Desirae Mae McPhail and D.J.M., minor child v. Blair E. Willprecht Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Heidi Lee Wolf v. Bradley Athmann 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 v. Renee Anita Vasko 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 v. Anthony Pietrzak Minn. Ct. App. 2022
–44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes v. Augustus Conrade Thomas 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 v. Richard Preston Blackwell 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 v. James Allen Piens Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5(b)(3) (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Elizabeth Annette Robyn Wolter, OBO A. R. W v. Nicholas John Wolter 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. v. Allen Eduardo Diaz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5(b)(3) (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Sarah Anne Trisko, and o/b/o Minor Children v. Karen Mary Hartung 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 v. Robert Bradley Daniel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5(b)(3) (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Sep.
Heather Mary Zigan v. Louis Leroy Gray 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 v. Jeffrey Fischbach Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kush v. Mathison , 3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Amanda Marie Van Ryswyk v. Joshua Thomas Van Ryswyk, and Joshua Thomas Van Ryswyk, vs. Amanda Marie Van … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 52.01; -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Emily Mae Peterson v. Scott Howard Meyer 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 v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Molly Elizabeth Joyce v. Randy Clement 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 v. Wesley W. Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Wayne Floyd O’Connor v. Byron Thomas O’Connor 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 v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kush v. Mathison , d 841, 843-44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Ronald Regino Altamirano v. Katherine Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Matthew James Beland v. Heidi Hamre-Rylander (A20-0957), Kurtis Rylander (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 v. Mimmie Woodall 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 v. Richard Mark Gellerman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sandra May Schumann v. Dana Scott Wiberg Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Judith Ann Rossel v. Shane Olson (A20-0069), Rhonda Spreeman (A20-0072) Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kush v. Mathison , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sharon McCrea v. Eric Maurice Smith 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 v. Mark Steven Buhr Minn. Ct. App. 2020
3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Gail Marie Peterson, and o/b/o minor child v. Preston David Vaughn 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 v. Patrick Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kush v. Mathison , 3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Annikki Lee Hockert v. Andrew John Towle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- 44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Catherine Marie Schaefer v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kush v. Mathison , review denied (Minn. Sept.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by