Cited by

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

233 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Yusuf Haji-Ismail Ali v. Myrna Wati Ali, County of Scott, intervenor 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).
Thomas M. Fafinski, P.A., as successor in interest for and f/k/a BenePartum Law Group, P.A. v. Melrose Community, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
10 (quotations and citations omitted).
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al v. Herbert Azubuike Igbanugo, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But as a reviewing court, we are not p ermitted “to engage in fact-finding anew.” see also In re Welfare of M.D.O.
McKraut Holdings, LLC v. Cynthia Tomenes, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lawrence Paul St. Marie v. Leslie Boedigheimer, dba Tony B’s Car Care Center LLC, Ryan Bridge, dba Bridges … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
Michelle Beeuwsaert, et al v. Shah & Co. Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mary K. Strauss, on behalf of her minor child, Finley Strauss v. Michelle Kitsmiller, on behalf of her … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reviewing the district court’s factual findings, this court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
Assata Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
dilutes any inference of causation”); (stating that the court has “relied on federal law” in interpreting the MHRA and will “continue to do so”).
Shogun Mankato Inc. (A18-0483), Shogun Burnsville, Inc. (A18-0707) v. Commissioner of Revenue Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co.
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry v. Michael David Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Maxim Kenneth Rhone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. R. T. and B. M. K., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (quotations and citations omitted).
Judy E. Adams v. Melrose Community, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And when determining whether a finding of fact is clearly erroneous, we view the evidence in the ligh t most favorable to the verdict.” Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (quotations and citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Marie Causton v. Paul Ronald Causton Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Mathew Amaro Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This kind of review requires us to “examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).
Joseph C. Honrud, et al v. D. Peter LaCount, Laurie Baukol Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dean Murray v. Casondra Schaffer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
In the Matter of the Application of J. M. M. o/b/o Minors for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad v. Stephanie Christine Olstad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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 and ellipsis omitted) .
Glen M. Palecek, et al v. Rushford-Peterson, Independent School District No. 239, third party plaintiff, Moonyeen Claire Holle, … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Barry McReynolds v. West St. Paul Police Department Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co.
Timothy Aadland, et al v. Joseph Ranweiler, et al., B-Dirt, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Berg, Debele, DeSmidt & Rabuse, P.A., f/d/b/a Walling, Berg & Debele, P. A v. Robert I. Burns, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (quotations and citations omitted).
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
See Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , , 797 (Minn. 2013).
In re the Estate of: Donald H. Richter, deceased Gerald Donald Richter v. Larry A. Richter, Trustee of … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (Mi nn.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. R. B. and D. T. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
John Aydt, et al v. Steven A. Hensel, et al., City of St. Michael Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And we will not identify a clear error unless our review leaves us “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Ricky Johnson, d/b/a Rick Johnson’s Deer and Beaver, Inc. v. Anoka County Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A finding is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , (quotation omitted).
Linda King v. 2003 Silverado 1500, VIN *****6662 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, examining the record for “reasonable evidence” that would “support the court’s findings.” (quotations omitted).
James Michael Olsen, Krisann Jeanne Olsen v. James Robert Greger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Bradley Jude Domagala v. Laura Lynn Domagala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if a reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mis take has been made.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Estate of Anna McMullen, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2017
That is, we examine th e record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the court’s findings.” (quotations and citations omitted).
Busad Kheyre, et al v. M & S Properties LLC, Mohammad Sabri d/b/a J&S Services Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 52.01; Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013).
Hearing Associates, Inc. v. Dr. Sara Downs, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasminde, LLC v. Hutchinson Properties, LLC, Citizens Bank & Trust Co., Hutchinson, MN Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotations and citations omitted).
Joseph Roach, et al v. County of Becker, Thomas Alinder, et al., Gary Heitkamp Construction, Inc., et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
The result in Hasnudeen is consistent with our recognition that the proper standard of review “does not permit us to engage in fact-finding anew.” (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282, 288 , (“It is not within the province of this court to determine issues of fact....
The Valspar Corporation v. Douglas T. Mueller, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mansoor Akhtar v. Anila Dairkee Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013)
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts review district courts’ findings of fact for clear error and will reverse a district court’s findings only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lowell V. Plooster, et al v. Julie M. Nelson and third party plaintiffs, vs. Mark Plooster, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lowell V. Plooster, et al v. Julie M. Nelson and third party plaintiffs, vs. Mark Plooster, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When determining whether a fact-finding is clearly erroneous, this court must “examine the record to see if there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the [district] court’s findings.” (quotation 2 The Nelsons also brought claims of tortious interference with prospective contractual relationships, unjust enrichment, and trespass.