Cited by

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

491 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Nicholas James Davis v. Theresa Anne Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A party challenging the district court’s findings of 5 fact must show that they are “clearly erroneous.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , d 468, 474 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Rebekah Lynn Green v. Peter John Graffunder Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And “appellate courts defer to [district] cour t credibility determinations.” Vangsness v. Vangsness
In re the Matter of: Matthew Lawson Thornton v. Jessica Ortiz Bosquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Deann Kay Wells v. Joseph Daniel Wells, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mis take has been made.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking v. Audra Jo Buxengard f/k/a Audra Jo Freking Minn. Ct. App. 2018
and C.F. See 12 (“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 re the Marriage of: Dennis D. Dickinson v. Marymargaret Dickinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Stinchfield Giebenhain v. Michael Edwin Giebenhain Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. R. H., R. W. G., and M. … 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 v. Joseph Patrick Braun 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: Joseph Loren Conner v. Jakklyn Marie Netland 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 v. Sara Anne Manley 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 v. Paul Ronald Causton Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Vangsness v. Vangsness , (Minn .
Damian Loth v. Gregory Hoscheit, et al., George Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Custody of: J. K. L. Peter Romero Lockhart v. Quintiny Luenelle Flakes 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 v. Jonathan R. Kerr, County of … 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 v. Jennifer Maggie Rosenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Vangsness v. Vangsness , –73 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Samuel Thomas Shea Greenwood v. Kari Ann Greenwood 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 v. Jacqueline Ann Hoolihan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Kerry J. Olson, a/k/a Kerry Ciardelli-Olson, n/k/a Kerry J. Ciardelli v. Scott Bradley … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad v. Stephanie Christine Olstad 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 v. Jeremy Michael Olson 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 v. Mace Faamasani Fonoti 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 v. Jay D. Hedin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Thomas Hesse v. Toni Renee Wingrove 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. Jake Robert Lockwood v. Morgan Nicole Nybeck Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ross Ronald Olsen v. Molly Erin Koop, f/k/a Molly E. Humphrey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Linde Anne Sayen v. Michael Stephen Sayen 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 v. Shawn Anthony Pedri, and County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Vangsness v. Vangsness , (“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
County of Anoka, Abang Simon Adam v. Menasa Cham Adom 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 v. Christopher John Flannery 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 v. Brittany Lyn Asfeld Below, and Corinna Moeller, et al., … 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 v. Jennifer Maggie Rosenthal 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 v. Laura Lynn Domagala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[A]ppellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”).
Sarah Yule v. Jan Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 468, 474 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Peterson n/k/a Jennifer Ann Hirschey v. Kevin John Peterson 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 v. Julie Ann Green 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 v. Keith Joseph Gorney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re the Marriage of: NaCole LaVae Ferden v. Kristopher Kollen Ferden, County of Clay, Intervenor 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 v. Stacy Lynn Fumagalli, n/k/a Stacy Lynn Duesterhoeft, County of McLeod, … 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 v. David Victor Rucki, County of Dakota, intervenor 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.”