Cited by

“That is, we examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).

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

Instead, an appellate court “examine[s] the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the [district] court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).

We grant great deference to the district court’s credibility determinations, see, and will not set aside its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous

That is, we examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the court’s findings.” (citation and quotation omitted).

Pechovnik, d at 99; see also 11 (stating that this court reviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error).

Appellate courts review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and its application of law de novo, Harlow v. State, Dep’t of Hum.

“To conclude that findings of fact are clearly erroneous we must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

In conducting clear-error review, “we examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the [district] court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).

“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” see also Minn. R. Civ.

The threshold argument requires us to interpret a contractual agreement, a task we undertake de novo, while we review the district court’s related factual findings for clear error

We review factual findings for clear error, and we see no error here.

“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”

Commitment of Kenney, -23 (Minn. 2021); Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co .

When reviewing factual findings for clear error, “we examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the court ’s findings.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” accord Minn. R. Civ.

(quotations and citations omitted).

Badeaux asserts that he is the “only alleged discriminator” and that, based on the supreme court’s he cannot be liable for aiding and abetting.

Commitment of Ince, -26 (Minn. 2014) (analyzing whether the evidence supported the district court’s finding on the availability of a less-restrictive alternative to MSOP); (“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for 15 clear error.”).

(quotations and citations omitted).

See Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.

(analyzing whether appeal presented question of law or fact).

See, e.g., Kenneh, d at 231–32; d 790, 798–99 (Minn. 2013); Frieler, d at 565.

“To conclude that findings of fact are clearly erroneous we must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and “examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the court’s findings.” (quotations and citations omitted).