Cited by

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

485 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Stinchfield Giebenhain, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
, A18-1041 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See S.E.P., d at 385; (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”).
In re the Marriage of: Sarah L Braun, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A party challenging a district court’s factual findings must show that, despite viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings, “the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. F. and J. E., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But, “[t ]hat the record might support [factual] findings other than t hose made by the trial court doe s not show that the court’s findings are defective.” see In re Welfare of Child of J.L.L.
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Vangsness v. Vangsness , , 474 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, [an] appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”
In re the Marriage of: Kurtis Lee Manley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Marie Causton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Vangsness v. Vangsness , (Minn .
Damian Loth, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Custody of: J. K. L. Peter Romero Lockhart, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, we view “the record in the light most favorable to the [dis trict] court’s findings.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Danielle M. Kerr, n/k/a Danielle M. Dubois, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And even if there is evidence in the record that could support other findings, the fact “[t]hat the record might support findings other t han those made by the trial court does not show that the 8 court’s findings are defective.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , (stating that although appellant’ s recitat ion of facts “might prompt another trier of fact to different findings, because there is sufficient contradictory evidence to reasonably support the tri al court’s findings,” appellant’
In re the Custody of A. M. W. Kelly James Wadsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Vangsness v. Vangsness , –73 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “law leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”
In re the Marriage of: Robert Joseph Hoolihan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Kerry J. Olson, a/k/a Kerry Ciardelli-Olson, n/k/a Kerry J. Ciardelli, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“That the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”
In the Matter of the Application of J. M. M. o/b/o Minors for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing factual findings, we view the ev idence in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings; “[t]hat the record mi ght support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”
In re the Matter of: Colleen Jea’ne Olson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, [an] appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Vangsness v. Vangsness , (“That 7 the record might support findings other than those made by the [ district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective .”); Minn. R. Civ.
James Cortese, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Thomas Hesse, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, appellate court s “defer to the trial court ’s broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a new trial.”
In re the Custody of: A. N. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ross Ronald Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Linde Anne Sayen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “law leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best -interests considerations.”
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: N. E. R. and W. G. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that in matters of child custody, the law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’ s balancing o f best -interests c onsiderations”).
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Angela Swenson, f/k/a Dawn Angela Pedri, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Vangsness v. Vangsness , (“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
County of Anoka, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Michele Lura Honderich-Flannery, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, [an] appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”
In re the Marriage of: Thor Richard Asfeld, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”
In re the Custody of A.M.W. Kelly James Wadsen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Vangsness v. Vangsness , (explaining procedure for determining whether factual findings are clearly erroneous).
In re the Marriage of: Bradley Jude Domagala, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
Sarah Yule, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 468, 474 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Peterson n/k/a Jennifer Ann Hirschey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness, 9
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review the evidence in the light most favorable t o the district court’s findings, and defer to the district court’s credibility determinations.
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re the Marriage of: NaCole LaVae Ferden, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best- interests considerations.” Vangsness v. Vangsness
In re the Marriage of: Elio Fumagalli, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A finding of fac t is clearly erroneous if this court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
In re the Matter of: Sedina Glover, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best -interests considerations.”
In re the Marriage of: Molly Kathryn Sanders, joint-petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, Vangsness v. Vangsness , and will not “disturb findings of fact based on conflicting evidence .
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Our earlier opinion remanded to the district court “to reconsider its best-interests findings,” that the best-interests determination is uni quely for resolution by the district court.
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. L. and D. A., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”