Cited by

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007); see also Whitehead, d at 352 (noting that appellate courts “must defer to the [ULJ’s] ability to weigh” conflicting evidence and will not reweigh evidence on appeal).

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc .

1a(a) (2024); see also Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -32 (Minn. App. 2007).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -30 (Minn. App. 2007); see also Minn. R. 3310.2921 (noting that the proceeding is an “evidence gathering inquiry” during which the parties may examine and cross-examine witnesses, offer documents and exhibits, and raise objections).

Grp., (quotation omitted); see also Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., –33 (Minn. App. 2007) (addressing a relator’s argument that a “ULJ failed to make statutorily required credibility findings in a case that hinged on the credibility of the parties” and concluding that a “ULJ’s findings [were] supported by substantial evidence and provide[d] the statutorily required reason for

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., - 33 (Minn. App. 2007) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.

Grp., Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

Grp., (quotation omitted); see also Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., –33 (Minn. App. 2007) (explaining that we defer to the credibility determination made by the ULJ when it is supported by substantial evidence and provides adequate reasons for the determination).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., .

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., d 525, 530 (Minn. App. 2007).

White also asserted that if jobs became available, her mother “would become full time at her day program.” On a request for reconsideration, “the ULJ may modify the findings and decision, set aside the findings and decision and direct that an additional evidentiary hearing be conducted, or affirm the findings and decision.” Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

“ A reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing and will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus, d at 345; Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., d 525, 530 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding relator was not entitled to relief where ULJ’s failure to admit a document was harmless error).

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., 31–33 (Minn. App. 2007); Wichmann v. Travalia

Ywswf v. Telepan Wireless Servs, Inc.

See Icenhower v. Total Auto., Inc., 531 (Minn. App. 2007); Skarhus, d at 344; see also In re Civ.

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , –33 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that ULJs may rely on a variety of factors when assessing witness credibility, including the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, the believability of the facts asserted by the witness, and the ULJ’s own good judgment, and common sense).

We defer to a ULJ’s credibility determination so long as it is “su pported by substantial evidence.” Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

7(d); Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., (rejecting the relator’s argument of an unfair hearing because the asserted error was harmless).

To support this argument, Pool cites the factors listed in Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc., which are part of a standard jury instruction for evaluating witness credibility.

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., (“This court will defer to [a ULJ’s] credibility determinations .

Ywswf v. Teleplan 5 Wireless Servs., Inc. , 30 (Minn. App. 2007) (rejecting the relator ’s argument of an unfair hearing in the absence of prejudice).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc, (affirming ULJ’s credibility determination when findings were supported by substantial evidence); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (deferring to ULJ’s determination that applicant’s testimony was not credible).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach an inadequately briefed issue); Schoepke v. Alexander Sm ith & Sons Carpet Co. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argu ment or authorities in appella nt’s brief is waived.”); Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , (rejecting the relator’s argument of an unfair hearing in the absence of prejudice).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007).

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., (setting forth factors to consider in making credibility determinations , such as “ Is the testimony reasonable compared with other evidence?”).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , (stating that the ULJ has an obligation to conduct a hearing that clearly and fully develops the relevant facts and preserves the parties’ rights to a fair hearing).

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., ; Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.

P. 61 ( stating that the court must disregard harmless error ); Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , (affirming ULJ’s decision because relator could not show that her substantial rights were prejudiced).

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (M inn.

The ULJ may also take into account whether a witness’s testimony is “reasonable compared with other evidence” and “corroborated by other testimony and evidence.” Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , -33 (Minn. App. 2007).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007) (considering reasonableness of testimony as compared to other evidence when making credibility determinations).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

This court will affirm if “[t]he ULJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and provide the statutorily required reason for her credibility determination.” Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., (setting out factors to consider in making credibility determinations).

Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007).

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc.

Inc. , -33 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that the ULJ may consider whether the testimony is reasonable when compared to other evidence and any other factors that bear on believability when evaluating the credibility of witnesses).

Inc., -33 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that the ULJ may consider whether the testimony is reasonable when compared to other evidence and any other factors that bear on believability when evaluating the credibility of witnesses).

“Each party may examine witnesses, cross -examine the other party’s witnesses, and offer and object to exhibits .” Ywswf v. Telepla n Wireless Servs., Inc. , see also Minn. R. 3310.2921.

See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.