Cited by

Kenney, d at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing clear-error standard of review in a similar fashion).

“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”

The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of the best-interests considerations.”

at 222 (quotations omitted); see Bayer v. Bayer , (citing Kenney in family-law appeal); (discussing clear-error standard of review); WL 8361312, at *2 (Minn. App. Dec.

11 Kenney, d at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing clear error standard of review).

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).

to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”

Kenney, d at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing clear error standard of review in a similar fashion).

“[A]n appellate court’s duty is fully performed after it has fairly considered all the evidence and has determined that the evidence reasonably supports the decision.” Kenney, d at 222 (quotations omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing clear-error standard of review).

And the law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the court’s balancing of the best-interests considerations.”

And the law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”

at 222 (quotations omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (making similar observations about the clear-error standard of 9 review).

Appellate courts review a district court ’s factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court ’s findings and reversing only if the record “requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

at 222 (quotations omitted); (citing Kenney in family-law appeal); (discussing clear-error standard of review).

Because the district court “has the feel of the trial,” we generally defer to its “broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a new trial.” d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted).

“Caselaw ‘leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.’” (), rev. denied (Minn. 5 Feb.

“[The] law leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” (affirming best-interests determination in child-custody case).

In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and reverse only if we are left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”

at 222 (citation and quotations omitted); (applying Kenney on appeal in a family case); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing clear error standard of review).

at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); (discussing clear error standard of review).

The “law leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”

see also Alam v. Chowdhury , (“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court ’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); Vangsness v. Vangsness , (noting “[t]hat the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the [trial] court ’s findings are defective”).

Caselaw “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000).

“That the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the [district] court’s findings are defective.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

Deferring to the district court’s credibility determinations, Sefkow, d at 210, we view the record “in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).

at 222 (quotations omitted); (citing Kenney in family-law appeal); (discussing clear-error standard of review).

at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); (discussing clear error standard of review).

er clear-error review, appellate courts “view the evidence in a light favorable to the findings” and “will not conclude that a factfinder clearly erred unless, on the entire evidence, [the appellate court is] left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (quotations omitted)

(“[The law] leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”).

And we “view[] the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”