Cited by

(explaining that appellate courts neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the fact-finder).

We must view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and we will not reconcile conflicting evidence or weigh witness credibility

This court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations and does not “reconcile conflicting evidence.” (quotation omitted); Kush, d at 843-44.

20 Pechovnik, (noting a district court’s findings of fact can be implicit).

“A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quotation omitted).

“An overt physical act is not necessary to support the issuance of an OFP.”

To determine whether sufficient evidence supports the district court’s decision to grant an OFP, we “review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings” and we reverse “only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

See, (affirming the district court’s implicit credibility determination).

“An overt physical act is not necessary to support the issuance of an OFP.”

(noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” it found certain evidence credible); (stating that “[w]e may treat statutory factors as addressed when they are implicit in the findings”).

(deferring to the district court’s implicit credibility determination).

By basing its decision in part on the examiners’ reports, the district court “implicitly indicate[d]” that it found the reports credible.”

As to Simpson’s assertion that the district court erred in its credibility determinations, we do not “decide issues of witness credibility” because such issues “are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.

(stating that a district court’s factual findings may “implicitly indicate” that it found testimony credible).

We do not “decide issues of witness credibility” because such issues “are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted) ; see Minn. R. Civ.

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” it found certain evidence credible).

We consider “the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings,” and will not disturb those findings absent a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

(noting that appellate courts defer to the district court’s explicit and implicit credibility determinations).

(noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” it found certain evidence credible); d 698, 703 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that “[w]e may treat statutory factors as addressed when they are implicit in the findings”).

(evaluating district court’s implicit findings under same standard as explicit findings); Madden, d at 696 (“[W]e apply a clear-error standard of review to .

“Present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including a history of past abusive behavior.”

(stating that it is not the appellate court’s function to reweigh evidence, find facts, or assess credibility); (deferring to a district court’s implicit credibility determination).

(recognizing the district court’s implicit finding that the petitioner was credible).

(deferring to district court’s “implicit[]” credibility determination).

(reviewing district court’s implicit findings of fact).

(providing that an appellate court may infer credibility findings when they are not explicit and defer to those findings).

(considering implicit credibility findings on appeal from district court’s grant of an order for protection).

“A district court abuses its discretion if its [factual] findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quotation omitted).

An OFP issued under the second definition of domestic abuse—infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily 10 injury, or assault—“is justified if a person manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on the person’s spouse.”

This court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness 10 credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).

(observing that, in issuing an OFP, the district court implicitly found one party to be more credible than another).