Cited by

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

485 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DuPrece Lashae Slaughter v. Anissa Lachelle Black, Lisa Danielle Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Peiliang Yuan v. Te Hao, and In re the Matter of: Te Hao … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: DeWayne Stanley Farr v. Sophia Marie Farr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Peiliang Yuan v. Te Hao, and In re the Matter of: Te Hao … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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: DeWayne Stanley Farr v. Sophia Marie Farr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A finding is clearly erroneous only when, viewing the record in a light most favorable to the district court’s decision and deferring to its credibility determinations, “the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. A.-P. and D. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. A.-P. and D. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the possibility that the record could support an alternative finding does not mean that the district court erred).
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeffrey Philip Dawson v. Sara Rhea Taylor, County of Dakota, Intervenor. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A finding is clearly erroneous if this court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
Jeffrey Philip Dawson v. Sara Rhea Taylor, County of Dakota, Intervenor. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Findings are clearly erroneous when, viewing the record in the light most favorable to those findings, we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Findings are clearly erroneous when, viewing the record in the light most favorable to them, they leave us with “‘the definite and firm 3 conviction that a mistake has been made.’” (quoting Fletcher v. St.
Kristina Hacker Tompach v. Paul Christopher Tompach Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kristina Hacker Tompach v. Paul Christopher Tompach Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(explaining our deference to the district court’s credibility determinations on appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 52.01, and we will only determine a finding to be clearly erroneous if we are left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”
In re the Marriage of: Christina Lynn Clark v. Shon Raymond Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Christina Lynn Clark v. Shon Raymond Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
District courts applying best-interests factors are entitled to broad discretion, and 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 Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ if the reviewing court is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” (quoting Fletcher v. St.
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Hniya Abdenbi Kouttay v. Ali Jama Yahia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In doing so, we review the record “in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” and we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
This standard is satisfied when the reviewing court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made,” “despite viewing [the] evidence in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” Id.
Ramirez v. Luna 830 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Ramirez v. Luna 830 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.L.L. 801 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.L.L. 801 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon 784 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon 784 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
This is because prejudice is “[t]he primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial,” Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 433 , and because “[t]he refusal to grant a new trial will be reversed only if misconduct is so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand,” (quotation omitted).
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hagen v. Schirmers 783 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
272, 272 (1895) (noting “paramount” question in custody dispute is “what would be most for the benefit of the infant”); (stating “[a] child’s best interests are the fundamental focus of custody decisions”).
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.C.M. 758 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.C.M. 758 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007