DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

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

491 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Sedina Glover, Hennepin County Below v. Clement Olertey Totimeh 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 v. Johannes Moen, joint-petitioner 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: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo 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 v. Cheryl Constance Stevens Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. L. A. A 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.”
In re the Matter of: J. S. S v. G. I. S Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Wakisha Nicole Fortwengler, n/k/a Alexa Nicole Schultz v. Chad Michael Fortwengler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
and determine that it reasonably supports the findings.” (quotation omitted).
Hennepin County, Hawa H. Ibrhim v. Hussein Y. Dawid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hennepin County, Hawa H. Ibrhim v. Hussein Y. Dawid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Lorraine Bourgoin v. Bradley Joseph Bourgoin, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul M. Dobis, et al v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Lorraine Bourgoin v. Bradley Joseph Bourgoin, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accordingly, there is “scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”
Paul M. Dobis, et al v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 52.01, and will not reverse on clear error simply because evidence exists to support an alternative conclusion, (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings 7 are defective.”).
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Kuzara, f/k/a Patricia A. McDermott v. John R. McDermott, Hennepin County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Kuzara, f/k/a Patricia A. McDermott v. John R. McDermott, Hennepin County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [CSM’s] findings.”
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. M. T. and D. W. T., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Custody of M. M. L. Nathan James Sands v. Sue Mae Lovick, Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 Custody of M. M. L. Nathan James Sands v. Sue Mae Lovick, Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if this court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. M. T. and D. W. T., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Lynn Rogers v. David Matthew Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Lynn Rogers v. David Matthew Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We defer to a district court’s determinations of credibility, and “do not disturb ‘findings of fact based on conflicting evidence .
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. C. a/k/a Q. N. F. (W.), Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. C. a/k/a Q. N. F. (W.), Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s factual findings and will set aside such findings only if a review of the record leaves us with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In Re the Custody of N.O.K.; Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Custody of N.O.K.; Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And “appellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.”
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. L. G., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. L. G., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question 5 the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”