Cited by

5 Two cases guide our analysis: Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld , , 170 -72 (Minn. 1976) and In re Civil Commitment of Spicer

See In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , d 803, 807 (Minn. App. 2014); Clemons, d at 520.

We review the district court’s factual findings fo r clear error, considering “the record in the light most favorable to the findings of fact.” In re Civil Commitment of Spicer

He relies on this court’s opinion in in which we concluded that a district court’s findings of fact were inadequate because they merely recited the evidence, were conclusory, and were not tied to the conclusions of law.

In re Civil Commitment of Spicer

An order must be based on “sufficiently particular findings of fact on the key issues.” In re Civil Commitment of Spicer

To support its claim, appellants cite In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , , for the proposition that “a court must explain its reasons for determining which witnesses are credible and which witnesses are not.” In that case, this court held that the district court’s findings in Spicer’s commitment proceedings were insufficient because this court was unable to determine

“We review the district court’s factual findings under a clear error standard to determine whether they are supported by the record as a whole,” and view the record in the light most favorable to the findings

d 803, 810 (Minn. App. 2014).

“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” (quotation omitted).

“On appeal, this court applies a clear- error standard of review to the district court’s findings of fact and reviews the record in the light most favorable to the findings of fact.” d 803, 807 (Minn. App. 2014).

See In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , (noting that the district court’s order containing 317 paragraphs of findings of fact was insufficient where the findings were merely a recitation of evidence presented at trial).

In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , d 803, 807 (Minn. App. 2014).

See, e.g. , In re Commitment of Spicer , Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n v. Minnesota Twins P’ship, review denied (Minn. Feb.

Lindsey relie s on this court’s opinion in where we concluded that the district court’s findings with respect to Spicer’s civil commitment proceedings were insufficient in three 4 ways.

In re Civil Commitment of Spicer

See In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , ().

Citing In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , - 12 (Minn. App. 2014), appellant argues that the case should be remanded to the panel for further findings.

“[A] district court’s recitation of what others have observed is not a finding of fact that those observations are true.” (quotation omitted).

The commissioner relies on this court’s opinion in In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , in which we concluded that the district court’s findings were insufficient in three ways.

See In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , , 810 -12 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing and remanding because district court made insufficient findings) .

Christiansen relies primarily on this court’s opinion in in which we concluded that the district court’s 6 findings that Spicer met the sta tutory criteria for commitment were insufficient in three ways.

Instead, “[w]e review the district court’s factual findings under a clear error standard to determine whether they are supported by the record as a whole,” Ince, d at 22, and view the record in the light most favorable to the findings

at 337; –10 (Minn. App. 2014) (observing that meaningful appellate review requires “particular findings”).

(reversing and remanding to the district court when the findings of fact were not “sufficiently particular to permit meaningful appellate review”).

See also Civil Commitment of Spicer, -10 (Minn. App. 2014) (observing that meaningful appellate review requires “particular findings”).

-08 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted).