Cited by

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous where this “court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

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

Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (iv) (2016); (describing elements of prima facie case for modification) .

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

is limited to considering whether the trial c ourt abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the eviden ce or by improperly applying the law.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).

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

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

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

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 4 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).

(reviewing child custody decision).

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the “appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

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

“A district court is required under [Minn. Stat. §] 518.18 (d) to conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification.”

(quotation omitted) (discussing child endangerment in context of custody modification).

Aberle v. Faribault Fire Dep’t Relief Ass'n, 230 Minn. 353, 359 , State v. Croatt, 227 Minn. 185, 191

In reviewing a district court’s relocation decision, we are “limited to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).

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

(“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”).

(reasoning that modifying a locale restriction falls “within the ambit” of the custody modification statute); Schisel, d at 269 (granting district courts the authority to impose in- state locale restrictions after analyzing section 518.17, subdivision 3, which governs custody orders).

In reviewing a district court’s relocation decision we are “limited to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotations omitted).