Cited by

Under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, “it must be more probable that the fact exists than that the contrary exists.” (quotation omitted).

This standard requires that, “to establish a fact, it must be more probable that the fact exists than that the contrary exists.” (quoting City of Lake Elmo v. Metro.

24, 2007); (citing Rixmann to address standard of proof for an 8 order-for-protection).

To obtain an OFP, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent has committed “domestic abuse.” -65 (Minn. App. 2015); Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subds.

If the petitioner proves domestic abuse occurred by a preponderance of evidence, -65 (Minn. App. 2015), the district court may grant relief enumerated by statute, see Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.

Finally, the GAL’s refusal to opine on the ultimate question of whether domestic abuse occurred does not favor Schanze when he had the burden to establish domestic abuse by a preponderance of the evidence, and when the district was not obligated to construe the record in his favor by ruling on the motion to dismiss, see Coker, d at 489-90.

To obtain an OFP, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, - 65 (Minn. App. 2015), that the respondent has committed “domestic abuse.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subds.

The district court determined that, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of proof applied to the OFP proceeding.

Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2022).

-65 (Minn. App. 2015); see Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subds.

(explaining that “the preponderance of the evidence standard requires that to establish a fact, it must be more probable that the fact exists than that the contrary exists” (quotation omitted)).

But we have held that the standard of proof for obtaining an OFP is a preponderance of the evidence, and the same standard logically applies when a petitioner seeks to extend an OFP.

2(a)-(b); Oberg v. Bradley , 7 (Minn. App. 2015).

See 1995 Minn. Laws ch 142, § 5, at 404; 2002 Minn. Laws ch. 304 § 10, at 442; see also Oberg v. Bradley , (explaining the history of the phrase “full heari ng” in this statute).

v. James, –43 (Minn. App. 2017) (affirming finding of domestic abuse and issuance of an OFP when a father admitted striking his son with a belt and photographs showed bruising); 66 (Minn. App. 2015) (affirming OFP based on two incidents of spanking); Gada, d at 515 (affirming an OFP based on testimony that father kicked mother in the back and twisted her arm).

Although the language in the Domestic Abuse Act has since changed from “full hearing” to “hearing,” the relevant language in section 609.748 has remained the same.