Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790.

233 citing documents.

EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
The Townhomes of Raspberry Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Charles Stuurop Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Signature Select Contracting, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
JanOne Inc., formerly known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. v. Skybridge Americas, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Andrew Crisman, et al v. Hillman Township, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (stating a finding of fact is clearly erroneous unless there is “r easonable evidence in the record to support the court’s findings”).
Wayne O’Connor (A21-1313) (A21-1320) v. Byron O’Connor (A21-1313) (A21-1320) Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
Keith D. Bexell, et al v. Jonathan Brand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Amanda Emele v. Felix Emele Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Richard Kurtis Traugott v. Sherry Louise Traugott Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(d iscussing the clear-error standard).
Candi Lemarr v. Brown County Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Gloria Fritz v. Daphne Elaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Trust of Lawrence B. Schwagerl Trust Under Agreement Dated April 9, 1999 Minn. 2021
Ellis Evans v. Ian Niklas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment Minn. 2021
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors F ish Co. , .
Jermaine Smith v. Broadway Flats LLLP Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“To conclude that findings of fact are clearly erroneous [appe llate courts] must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
Michelle A. Krawczyk v. Gregory Scott Aberle, f/k/a Gregory Scott Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aaron Reimringer, Minn. 2021
Joseph D. Roach v. Lapp, Libra, Thomson, Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2021
There is plenty of “reasonable evidence” within this record to support the di strict court’s conclusion that the offenses were “inextricably interwoven.” Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
In re the Marriage of: Tiffany Elizabeth Jean Banerjee v. Animesh Banerjee Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotations and citations omitted).
Sandra D’Antonio, et al v. Jennifer Lynn Martinez, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Progressive Direct Insurance Company v. Elizabeth Namarra, Issiaka Traore Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (holding a factual finding is clearly erroneous when, after viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,” the appellate court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” (quotations omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Daniel Raymond Jacobs v. Zdenka Irena Fenikova Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A court’s finding is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co. , (quotations and citations omitted).
In the Matter of: The Year 2019 Salary of Freeborn County Sheriff Minn. 2021
When we review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, we “examine the record to see ‘[i]f there is reasonable evidence’ in the record to support 9 the court’s findings.” (quoting Fletcher v. St.
GGG, Incorporation v. Jon T. Samuelson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
N.H., and Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights-intervenor v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. Stat. § 363A.04 (2018); see also
Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Barbara Wigley, Michael Wigley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” .
Ben Tahja, et al v. Vanessa Autio, Daniel Autio, Autio Homes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Megan Guetzkow, as mother and natural guardian of E.I., a minor, et al v. Brian John Irgens Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
D-4 interpretation of the MHRA.”
Larry E. Reed v. The Highlands of Edinburgh Sixth Association, ACI Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court reviews “the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
David Thompson, et al v. City of Kasson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
in order to accomplish its purpose of ‘ secur[ing] for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination.’ ” (quoting Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.02, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Tiesha Monique Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co .
Jon Dennis LaRoque v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
Highland Management Group Inc. v. Joyce Moeller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp. v. Rose Marie Rojas, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish 6 Co.
Lyle Batton, et al v. Terry Hawk, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Before such a finding will be deemed clearly erroneous, this court “must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 Poehler also argues that he was in fact wearing a seat belt when Officer Giese passed him, rendering the stop invalid .
Denise M. Tessman v. Blaine P. Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (M inn.
Michael Noel v. Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that the “aiding and abetting liability” theory under the MHRA does not apply to employees acting as agents of their employers).
Travis Dean Schneider v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Aaron Di Luong v. Julie Ho Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Glacial Plains Cooperative, a cooperative association, formerly known as United Farmers Elevator v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLLP, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, Minn. 2019
are clearly erroneous’ we must be ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (quoting In re Stisser Grantor Trust , ).
Cynthia Padilla v. Minneapolis Police Department Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
The Jonathan Association, and S3 Holdings, LLC, its assignee v. Chase Wirth, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co.
Michael Gavigan v. Import Auto Sales LLC d/b/a Import Auto Sales, Quality Imports, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
Michael Norman Andersen v. Robert James Buehler, et al., Concord Township Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotations and citations omitted).