Cited by

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

In re Guardianship of Pates

(explaining that the district court necessarily weighs evidence by resolving factual issues on conflicting evidence); (clarifying that the district court may implicitly weigh conflicting evidence).

“The appointment of a conservator is a matter within the district court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).

Respondents who do not file a notice of related appeal are “not entitled to affirmative relief from this court.” -85 (Minn. App. 2012).

2 (stating that a party may seek review of a judgment or order in the same action that another party has appealed “by serving and filing a notice of related appeal”); -85 (Minn. App. 2012) (holding that, because respondent failed to file a notice of related appeal, she was not entitled to affirmative relief from this court).

“A reviewing court will not set aside the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, giving due regard for the [district] court’s determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses.” In re Guardianship of Pates , (quotation omitted).

is expected to be at least $10,000.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-416(a)(5) (2016)

-88 (Minn. App. 2012) (noting that the district court’s action “implies that the district 7 court found [one person] to be more credible” and deferring to this determination).

review denied (Minn. May 28, 2002)