Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94.

236 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jestin Erickson Ledlum Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(noting that district court ’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible).
In re the Guardianship of: Ryan Van Huyen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining that the district court necessarily weighs evidence by resolving factual issues on conflicting evidence); (clarifying that the district court may implicitly weigh conflicting evidence).
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Ella Hoene v. Matthew Arnold Kramar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reconcile conflicting evidence or decide issues of witness credibility because those issues “ar e exclusively the provin ce of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Michelle Antionette Frison, and OBO minor child v. Ermiase Mesfin Asfaw Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-100 (Minn. 10 App. 2009) (reviewing totality of the circum stances to determine whether the record supported the district court’s issuance of an OFP).
In re the Marriage of: John A. Laumann v. Kelly M. Laumann Minn. Ct. App. 2021
9 record or if it misapplies the law.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted).
Mitchell Wilfred Suess v. Wesley W. Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(considering, on appeal from the distric t court’s grant of an order for protection, implicit credibility findings).
In re the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Gaughan v. Patrick Michael Gaughan Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We view the re cord in the light mo st favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reverse unl ess we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistak e has been made.” (quotations omitted).
In the Matter of: Marna Susan Sutphen v. Jeffrey Carlyle Sutphen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To determine whether, using this definition, domestic abuse occurred, we have held that the district court may c onsider “the totality of the circumstances.”
In re the Marriage of: Daniel Raymond Jacobs v. Zdenka Irena Fenikova Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Sefkow, d at 210; d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that “district court’s findings implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Lee Roberts n/k/a Michelle Lee Freitas v. Todd Mykle Roberts, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
f the children.” Freitas presents no legal authority for the proposition that the GAL’s report must be disregarded as biased under these circumstances, d 716, 726 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding that arguments submitted without legal authority are forfeited), and, in any even t, we defer to a district court’s credibility determinations
Khalif Jama, et al v. Saleban Garbiye, Amal Money Wire, LLC d/b/a Amal Express, et al., and Jamal … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On review, this court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , ( quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Brian Eugene Wolf v. Mandy Marie Oestreich Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(citing Kahn v. Griffin , 701 N.W .2d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005) ).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Leigh Brinkman, and Robert Michael Brinkman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sefkow v. Sefkow , (credibility determinations); Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (implicit credibility 8 determinations).
Kristen Glaros Hanson, et al., Midwest Investment Services, LLC v. CBS Construction Services, Inc., et al., Brandon M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: Chelsey Lynn Ness, and On Behalf of the Minor Children v. Hope Michelle Wolfe Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Karolina Perminova, for self and o/b/o minor v. Oleksander Perminov Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Melissa Hall v. Martin Nicholas Jurek Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Margaret Patricia Fagre, and o/b/o minor children v. Adam Lee Fagre Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An OFP 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.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik
In re the Marriage of: Sara Lynn Garcia v. Reuben Jesse Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Knapp, d at 837; cf. Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (deferring to an im plicit credibility determination made by the district court).
In re the Matter of: Chad Michael Offerman v. Irina Petrovna Siruk Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Cf. Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , -100 (Minn. App. 2009) (no abuse of discretion where decision “was a close call”).
In the Matter of: Holly Elizabeth Often, o/b/o Minor Children v. Nathan Marsh Dornquast Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the record in the light most favorable to the findings and will reverse those findings only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik
In re the Marriage of: Samantha Magdalena Hansen v. Richard Bradley Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To the extent that father’s factual assertions differ from mother’s assertions, we do not “reconcile conflicting evidence,” as that role is “exclusively the province of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of Kenneth Alan Hovland, OBO Minor Children v. Ryan Richard Jazdzewski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Kimberly Ann Sobiech, and o/b/o Minor Children v. Mark Joseph Sobiech Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Tonia Lynn McRunnel and on behalf of minor children v. Adam Joseph McRunnel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Town of West Lakeland v. Karl E. Auleciems, Susanne M. Auleciems, Ethan Auleciems, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Walter Eidem v. Debra Louise Eidem Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Gaughan v. Patrick Michael Gaughan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reverse unless “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).
Kevin Chouanard, et al v. Oak Lake Construction, Inc., et al., Huepenbecker Construction Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , see also Minn. R. Civ.
Gabrielle Marie Geraci v. Jack Cyril Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (noting that district court ’s findings “implicitly indicate[d] ” that it found certain evidence credible).
In re the Marriage of: Lakmini Yamuna Herath v. Susantha Herath Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Appellate courts decide only actual controversies and avoid advisory opinions.” d 94, 97 (Minn. App. 2009) (quota tion omitted).
In re the Matter of: Sara Ann Zahasky v. Thomas Warren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reverse unless we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
In the Matter of: Naomi Rae Marx v. Matthew Douglas McArthur Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 favorable to the district court’s findings, and reversal is warranted only when this court is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been ma de.”
In the Matter of: Carole Anne Rosemary Dobson v. Ryan Leon Solee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6a(c)(2) (2018) (providing that a court may grant a subsequent OFP for a period of up to 50 years if the court finds that “the petitioner has had two or more orders for protection in effect against the same respondent”); Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (concluding that the appeal of an expired OFP was not moot cons idering the collateral consequences of an OFP, includin g the extension of an OFP and t he issuance of a subsequent OFP).
Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development, LLC v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A case is moot if there is no justiciable controversy for a court to 10 decide.”
In re the Matter of: Susan Ann Ericson o/b/o Minor v. Darryl Wayne Millner, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joel Marvin Munt v. Eddie Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A case is moot if there is no justiciable controversy for a court to decide.”
In Re the Custody of H.M.B. Harrison Wayne Bernier v. Candida Diann Ackerson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Arimitsu, d at 239 (concluding absence was temporary where parents explicitly agreed that the children could remain in Japan temporarily); (Minn. 1 Mother stated in her affidavit that she and father “agree[d] to move to Washington,” and that “[she] was never sure that the move to Minnesota would be good for [H.M.B.]
Angela Mary Frame v. Joseph Battles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing an order for protection 6 (OFP), “we review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and we will reverse those findings only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
James C. Holmes v. Wanda J. Palo, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , 18 (stating a district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law).
Randall Tague and obo Minor v. Bernard Menge Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(affirming the grant of an order for protection, noting the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard used to review the issuance of an order for protection and reasoning that “[t] he evidence was sufficient for the di strict court to infer appellant’s present intent to inflict fear of imminen
Adam James Hockenson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See P -100 (Minn. App. 2009) (holding the district court ’s credibility determination and fact finding could be implicit).
Dean Murray v. Casondra Schaffer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad v. Stephanie Christine Olstad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Matter of: Ayano Eto Baylor for self and o/b/o Minor v. Christopher Gary Baylor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Florkime Sannie-joy Paye v. Abdullah Kiatamba Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(on conflicting testimony, observing that the district court’s OFP findings “implicitly indicat[ed]” that it found certain evidence credible, and deferring to that credibility determination).
In the Matter of: Emma Marie Welter v. Richard Preston Blackwell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See P (“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.”).
In the Matter of Larissa Michele Hansen on behalf of Minor Child v. Timothy Charles Richter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factf inder.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. L. C., S. D. G., and C. … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 An appellate court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).