Cited by

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

232 citing documents.

A18-1870 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
10 (quotations and citations omitted).
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al., Respondents, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lawrence Paul St. Marie, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.”
Michelle Beeuwsaert, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mary K. Strauss, on behalf of her minor child, Finley Strauss, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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”).
A18-0707 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co.
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dean Murray, petitioner, Respondent, 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
Glen M. Palecek, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, 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) .
Barry McReynolds, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co.
Timothy Aadland, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Berg, Debele, DeSmidt & Rabuse, P.A., f/d/b/a Walling, Berg & Debele, P. A., Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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., Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Bradley Jude Domagala, petitioner, Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 52.01; Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. , d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013).
Hearing Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasminde, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotations and citations omitted).
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mansoor Akhtar, Appellant, 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 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 v. Julie M. Nelson, and third party v. 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 v. Julie M. Nelson, and third party v. 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.
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017