Cited by

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

183 citing documents.

Adrianne Robbennolt and obo minor child v. Sandi Weigum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rebecca Lee Treptow v. Brittany Ann Layland Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” -44 (Minn. App. 2004) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Adrianne Robbennolt and obo minor child v. Sandi Weigum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The determination of what constitutes an adequate factual basis for a harassment order is left to the discretion of the district courts.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Joel Inskeep and Chelsea Inskeep and o/b/o L.I. and E.I. v. Sheila Moore, Harry Walk Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joyce Sammon v. Kim Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joyce Sammon v. Kim Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 52.01; -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Joel Inskeep and Chelsea Inskeep and o/b/o L.I. and E.I. v. Sheila Moore, Harry Walk Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “An appellate court reviews a district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sarah Elizabeth LeBlanc v. Alonzo Marell Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cathie J. Pascavage v. Donald Mackay Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sarah Elizabeth LeBlanc v. Alonzo Marell Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 841, 843-44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Cathie J. Pascavage v. Donald Mackay Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 52.01; -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Jay Thomas Nygard, (A15-1276), Kendall Mae Nygard, (A15-1277) v. Dennis S. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jay Thomas Nygard, (A15-1276), Kendall Mae Nygard, (A15-1277) v. Dennis S. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sharon Anne Johnson v. Paul Jonathan Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sharon Anne Johnson v. Paul Jonathan Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–44 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Christopher Eugene Engelmann v. Ann Christos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Engelmann v. Ann Christos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Joseph F. Johnson v. Glenn Weibel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joseph F. Johnson v. Glenn Weibel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Findings of harassing conduct that give context to an ongoing situation may be used to support the conclusion that a defendant’s 3 conduct constituted “repeated incidents.” (affirming harassment finding when record showed that two specific instances and other general harassing conduct taken together formed repeated incidents), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Tyler VanCamp v. Tracey VanCamp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tyler VanCamp v. Tracey VanCamp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Vickie Williams and o/b/o M. W. v. Phillip A. Rimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Vickie Williams and o/b/o M. W. v. Phillip A. Rimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An appellate court reviews a district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Rachel Marie Davies f/k/a Rachel Marie Mehralian v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rachel Marie Davies f/k/a Rachel Marie Mehralian v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Johnson 755 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“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) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-46 (Minn.App.2004) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a restraining order under section 609.748 but not ruling on the constitutionality of the statute) (citations omitted).