Cited by

-20, 121 n.2 (Minn. 2013).

2, 2024).2 In other words, appellate courts do not disturb findings of fact based on conflicting evidence unless the findings are “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that Minn. Stat § 259.57, subd.

-26 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

She contends that the supreme court’s decision in d 118, 124 (Minn. 2013), requires a district court “to think carefully and form an opinion about the grandparents’ petition before considering the petition of the foster parents.” We disagree.

unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted); (holding that determination of a child’s best interests is not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of the record because the district court is best placed to make cred

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the language of this statute in

We will not disturb findings of fact based on conflicting evidence unless the findings are “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” d 118, 127 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

ony on the values of the vehicles was more credible because he is “one of the founders of the Tesla club and active nationally in electric vehicles and ha[s] personal relationships with executives at Tesla.” This court, however, does not disturb findings of fact based on conflicting evidence unless the findings are “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

-27 (Minn. 2013) (finding that the district court’s “detailed findings and analysis demonstrat[ed] .

(affirming placement with foster family as “important friend” after analyzing identical terminology in Minn. Stat. § 259.57, subd.

The district court’s valuation of the truck scale is a finding of fact, and we do not disturb findings of fact unless the findings are “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has explained that, despite the statutory prohibition on delaying or denying placement based on race or color, the cultural-needs factor “demonstrates that those aspects of one’s identity that are informed by racial and ethnic heritage, cultural values, and traditions passed across generations are relevant factors in determining the child’s best interests.” n.7 (Minn. 2013).

We review a district court’s balancing of the best-interest factors for abuse of discretion and accord a district court “a substantial degree of latitude.” -26 (Minn. 2013).

“We do not disturb findings of fact based on conflicting evidence unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

unless [the findings are] manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

unless [the findings are] manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

unless [the findings are] manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “do not disturb findings of fact based on conflicting evidence unless the findings are manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotations omitted).

unless [the findings are] manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.’” ().

& n.6 (Minn. 2013) (discussing the relative-placement preference in the adoption context).

We will not disturb a district court’s findings of fact unless they are “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.” (quotations omitted).

1(h), (f); (defining to “consider” as “to think carefully and form an opinion about,” and “preference,” as “[the] select[ion of] .

(“Only if the statutory language is ambiguous may we look beyond the language of the statute to such things as the legislative history of the law.”).