Cited by

P. 61; (applying rule 61 to an appeal of a custody-modification order).

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous [when] an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation and citations omitted).

(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

The word “or” “is a disjunctive term, requiring that only one of the possible factual situations linked by the ‘or’ be present.” Thompson, d at 499 (quotation omitted); (stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored)

P. 52.01; (applying rule 52.01 in family-law appeal).

Woolsey, d at 507 (citations omitted)

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); 8 Second, Valentin contends that, even if the December 2022 order was enforceable under Povarchuk I, the district court abused its discretion when it found him in contempt because he plausibly understood Povarchuk I to only require him to comply with the specific terms in the June 2022 order.

(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

not whether the child may be endangered by future events.” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted).

11 in which a parent sought to relocate to New York City because it would be a better place to practice the family’s Orthodox Jewish faith.

d 288, 294 (Minn. 2015) (“When the Legislature uses different words [in a statute], we normally presume that those words have different meanings.”); (stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022) (“Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”).

“Determination of the applicable statutory standard and the interpretation of statutes are questions of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” (citations omitted).

(emphasis added); (“[W]e normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive.”).

P. 52.01; (stating that appellate courts give “deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d).

P. 52.01; (applying rule 52.01 in family-law appeal).

(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

See G (stating, in context of statutory interpretation, that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive, rather than conjunctive”); Broadway Child Care Ctr., Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum.

P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

“The concept of endangerment is unusually imprecise, but a party must demonstrate a significant degree of danger to satisfy the endangerment element of section 518.18(d)(iv).” (quotation omitted).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family law appeal); (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reasons).

(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

Findings of fact are clearly errone ous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations and citations omitted).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

A reviewing court will “set aside a district court’s findings of fact only if clearly erroneous, giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.” .

d 279, 283 (Minn. 2008) (stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

B. Endangerment To obtain a modification of custody, “a party must demonstrate a significant degree of danger to satisfy the endangerment element of section 518.18(d)(iv).” (quotation omitted).

“[A] party must demonstrate a significant degree of danger to satisfy 19 the endangerment element.” (quotation omitted).