Cited by

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

232 citing documents.

The Townhomes of Raspberry Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
JanOne Inc., formerly known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Andrew Crisman, et al., Respondents, 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”).
A21-1320 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
Keith D. Bexell, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Amanda Emele, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Richard Kurtis Traugott, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(d iscussing the clear-error standard).
Candi Lemarr, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Gloria Fritz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Trust of Lawrence B. Schwagerl Trust Under Agreement Dated April 9, 1999. Minn. 2021
Ellis Evans, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment Minn. 2021
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors F ish Co. , .
Jermaine Smith, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aaron Reimringer, Minn. 2021
Joseph D. Roach, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotations and citations omitted).
Sandra D’Antonio, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Respondent, 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: 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. Stat. § 363A.04 (2018); see also
Lariat Companies, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” .
Ben Tahja, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Megan Guetzkow, as mother and natural guardian of E.I., a minor, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
D-4 interpretation of the MHRA.”
Larry E. Reed, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court reviews “the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
David Thompson, et al., Appellants, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co .
Jon Dennis LaRoque, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
Highland Management Group Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish 6 Co.
Lyle Batton, et al., Appellants, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (M inn.
Michael Noel, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Aaron Di Luong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Glacial Plains Cooperative, a cooperative association, formerly known as United Farmers Elevator, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
The Jonathan Association, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co.
Michael Gavigan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
Michael Norman Andersen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotations and citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Yusuf Haji-Ismail Ali, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and will only reverse when this court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been m ade.” (quotation omitted).