Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468.

485 citing documents.

Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that appellate courts defer to district court’s credibility determinations).
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Child of Evenson 729 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
But the guiding principle in child-custody matters is to satisfy the best interests of the child, Durkin, d at 152 , and the law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
A finding is “clearly erroneous” when this court has “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hassinger v. Seeley 707 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Currently, the law “leaves scant if any room for an *711 appellate court to question the trial court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson 701 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] courts balancing of best-interests considerations.”
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the trial court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
findings are defective.”
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
*358 and determine^] that it reasonably supports the findings”); , 474-75 & n. 1 (Minn.App.2000) (applying Wilson in dissolution ease).
Robert v. Zygmunt 652 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Robert v. Zygmunt 652 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not render the findings clearly erroneous, ahd we view the “evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings.”
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Chaney v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 641 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Chaney v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 641 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(holding appellate courts defer to district court’s credibility determinations).
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Prahl v. Prahl 627 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jw v. Cm 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
J.W. ex rel. D.W. v. C.M. 627 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In order for a finding to be clearly erroneous, we must be left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted).
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney 625 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
52 .01; 474 (Minn.App.2000) (discussing proper method for challenging findings of fact).
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”