Cited by

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

485 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Kay Nelson v. Steven John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Kay Nelson v. Steven John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas C. Rubey v. Valerie A. Vannett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Joseph Leroy Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Joseph Leroy Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“That the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not 4 show that the court’s findings are defective.”
In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gordon Dodge v. Charlotte Stack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gordon Dodge v. Charlotte Stack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In determining that Stack’s retention of clinical earnings were proper, the district court necessarily found Stack’s testimony and evidence more credible than Dodge’s. We defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to 4 the district court’s determination, Rasmussen, d at 797.
In re the Estate of: Edward D. Kane a/k/a Edward Donald Kane, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Estate of: Edward D. Kane a/k/a Edward Donald Kane, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Daiker Werger v. Brett Michael Werger 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 10 defective.” see Elliott v. Mitchell, 311 Minn. 533, 535, (affirming findings, but noting that evidence might have supported another conclusion); (observing that, while the record could support a different decision, “this
In re the Marriage of: Emily-Jean Chinwendu Aguocha v. Ikechukwu Hisa Aguocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Emily-Jean Chinwendu Aguocha v. Ikechukwu Hisa Aguocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court has said that 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: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo 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.” d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson 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 Marriage of: Andrew James Carl Trupe v. Christin Marie Sohns Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow 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: Andrew James Carl Trupe v. Christin Marie Sohns Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jacob Anthony Pulsifer v. Julie Ann Pulsifer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
J. T. S. v. S. L. v. B. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Lian Yang McGaughey v. William Howard Taft McGaughey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jacob Anthony Pulsifer v. Julie Ann Pulsifer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm 4 conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).
J. T. S. v. S. L. v. B. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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: Lian Yang McGaughey v. William Howard Taft McGaughey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Thomas Joseph Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Thomas Joseph Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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: A. J. O. David Ortiz v. Sarah Judith Un Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the Custody of: A. J. O. David Ortiz v. Sarah Judith Un Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Juan Carlos Carreon v. Michelle Sorensen, Steele County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Juan Carlos Carreon v. Michelle Sorensen, Steele County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A finding is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. J., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. J., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).