Cited by

We must view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and we will not reconcile conflicting evidence or weigh witness credibility

On appeal from a decision on whether to grant an OFP, we “will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

“Domestic abuse” requires “either a showing of present harm or an intention on the part of the actor to do present harm.”

v. James, (quoting Gada, d at 514).

(stating that “[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence lie within the district court’s discretion”).

(“[I]n ordering temporary custody and parenting-time in connection with an OFP, the district court is not 1 We read Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.

“Rulings on the admissibility of evidence lie within the district court’ s discretion.” Aljubailah v. James

“Rulings on the admissibility of evidence lie within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not disturb an evidentiary ruling unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or is an abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).

And we do not “decide issues of witness credibility.” Aljubailah v. James , (quotation omitted).

“Rulings [in domestic abuse proceedings] on the admissibility of evidence lie within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not disturb an evidentiary ruling unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or is an abuse of that discretion.”

We will not reverse an evidentiary ruling unless it is “based on an erroneous view of the law or is an abuse of that discretion.”

We will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

v. James, (“An appellate court will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.” (quotation omitted)).

The Domestic Abuse Act “requires either a showing of present harm or an intention on the part of [the actor] to do present harm.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny an OFP, “[a]n appellate court will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that “[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence lie within the district court’s discretion” and an appellate court is not to “disturb an evidentiary ruling unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or is an abuse of that discretion”).

When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny an OFP, “[a]n appellate court will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

On appeal from a district court’s decision on whether to grant an OFP, “[a]n appellate court will ‘neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.’” 643 (Minn. App. 2017) ().

see Aljubailah v. James , (applying this aspect of Thiele in an OFP appeal).

“Rulings [in domestic-abus e proceedings] on the admissi bility of evidence lie within the district court’s discretion, and th is court will not disturb an evidentiary ruling unless it is based on an erroneous view of th e law or is an abuse of that discretion.” Aljubailah v. James

An e videntiary ruling in an OFP proceeding is within the district court’s discretion and should not be disturbed “unless [the ruling] is based on an erro neous view of the law or is an abuse of that discretion.”

Generally, appellate courts address only “tho se issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted); see Aljubailah v. James , (applying this aspect of Thiele in an OFP appeal).

On appeal from a district court’s decision about whether to grant an OFP, “[a]n appellate court will ‘neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility.’” ().

v. James, (upholding OFP based on single incident).

See Thiele v. Stich , Aljubailah on behalf of A. M. J. v. James , d 638, 643 (Minn. App. 2017) (applying Thiele in affirming a district court’s grant of an OFP).

v. James , 13 (Minn. App. 2017) (stating th at any “threats of a general nature” must result in either physical harm or fear of imminent harm in order to constitute domestic abuse).

See Aljubailah v. James , d 638, 643 (Minn. App. 2017) (“An appellate court w ill neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness c redibility.” ( quotation omitted)).

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 (affirmin

v. James, (“An appellate court will 1 We have previously looked to this subdivision to distinguish the HRO statute from a criminal statute prohibiting harassment.