Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Alam v. Chowdhury, 764 N.W.2d 86.

35 citing documents.

Brian Thomas Hunter v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We acknowledge that conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing, but “the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Stephen Sawyer, et al v. Trustee(s) of the Patricia A. Boland Revocable Trust Agreement Dated June 4, 2012, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”
In re the Marriage of: Kyle Ryan Johnson A v. Danielle Marie Gilbert B Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Kyle Ryan Johnson A v. Danielle Marie Gilbert B Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“A district court’s decision to reopen the judgment and decree based on fraud 5 will be sustained absent an abuse of discretion.”).
In Re: R.A. Morin Trust, U/A/D, April 1, 2014, As Amended, and Mark C. Morin, et al v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
see also Alam v. Chowdhury , (“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court ’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); Vangsness v. Vangsness , (noting “[
In re the Marriage of: Daniel Chaim Tennebaum v. Tara Ajit Deshpande Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Custody of: C. W. P.; William James Peck v. Jodie Sue Simonette, and County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
While mother also provided testimony that “[son] wanted to be with his friends,” the district court also found son “made friends at Le Sueur- Henderson.” “When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm v. Joseph Clark Solinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Further, “when evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”
In re the Marriage of: Brad Allen Friesz v. Elizabeth Farr Friesz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court’s decision to reopen the judgment and decree based on fraud on the court will be sustained absent an abuse of discretion.” 7 Alam v. Chowdhury
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Lowe Billett v. RuthAnne Billett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness cred ibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”).
In re the Estate of Vernon G. Engelkes, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court's decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); see also Sefkow, d at 210 (stating that appellate courts defer t
In re the Estate of: Stanley George Zych, Deceased, and In the Matter of the Revocable Trust Agreement … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Herman Goldenberg v. Karen Lisa Yashar Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.” Alam v. Chowdhury
In re the Estate of: Norman Sebert Larson, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Marriage of: Debra Lynn Ober v. Randall Lane Ober Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp. v. Rose Marie Rojas, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimon y, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we 10 accord great deference on appeal.”
In Re the Welfare of the Children of: M. J. K. and J. O., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determinat ion of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”
Paul Thomas Hesse v. Toni Renee Wingrove Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Father’s testimony contradicts this finding, but “[w]hen evidence rele vant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.” (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
County of Ramsey, Pakou Lee v. Eric J. Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The statute also expressly allows a district court to “set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.” Id.; d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009) (affirming the reopening of a judgment after a showing of fraud upon the court).
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathy Ann Hockenson, n/k/a Kathy Ann Lockhart v. Galen Jay Hockenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathy Ann Hockenson, n/k/a Kathy Ann Lockhart v. Galen Jay Hockenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Generally, “when a district court uses a valuation date other than the date of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, the date usually bears a rational relationship to the facts of the dissolution in question.” d 86, 92 (Minn. App. 2009).
Mark G. Warrington, et al v. Donald E. Falk, et al., Robert A. Schmaltz, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark G. Warrington, et al v. Donald E. Falk, et al., Robert A. Schmaltz, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Rogers, d at 658.
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Megan Nicole Arnold v. John Wesley Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We accord “great deference” to the district court’s credibility determination, and on appeal we will not re-weigh the evidence or make additional credibility determinations, which are left to the sound discretion of the district court.
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[W]hen a district court uses a valuation date other than the date of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, the date usually bears a rational relationship to the facts of the dissolution in question.”
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011