Cited by

(“An appellate court exceeds its proper scope of review when it bases its conclusions on its own interpretation of the evidence and, in effect tries the issues anew and substitutes its own findings for those of the trial judge.”).

-80 (Minn. 1989) (stating that “[a]lthough the record also contains testimony which, if believed, would support different findings of fact more favorable to the respondent, when the record contains credible evidence to support the fact findings and those findings support the [district] court ’s conclusion,” an

(“An appellate court exceeds it s proper scope of review when it bases its conclusions on its own interpretation of the evidence and, in effect tries the issues anew and substitutes its own findings for those of the trial judge.”).

in which the supreme court held that two employees forfeited their right to recover unpaid commissions because they had breached their duties of honesty and loyalty to their employer.

business finding facts”); Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co. , ( providing that “an appellate court ’s limited scope of review circumscribes additional fact finding by it”).

Similarly, d 777 (Minn. 1989), the plaintiffs commenced an action against thei r former employer to 15 collect unpaid commissions, and the defendant alleged that the plaintiffs had breached their duties of honesty and loyalty to their employer.

-75 (Minn. 1990) (stating that the role of the court of appeals is to correct errors, not to find facts); Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co. , (“[A]n appellate court’s limited scope of review circumscribes additional fact finding by it .

(“[A]n appellate court’s limited scope of review circumscribes additional fact finding by it.”).

Sewing Supply Co., (acknowledging that an appellate court may remand for additional findings necessary to support a district court’s conclusion on a disputed issue).

Even if we were 6 inclined to disagree with the district court’s finding, it would exceed the scope of our review to substitute our judgment for that of the district court’ (“An appellate court exceeds its proper scope of review when it bases its conclusions on its own interpretation of the evidence and, in effect tries the issues anew and substitutes its own findings for those of the trial judge.”); see also Fletcher v. St.

4 TLM relies heavily on Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., for the proposition that equitable principles provide a defense to penalties under section 181.14.

(“[A]n appellate court’s limited scope of review circumscribes additional fact finding by it.”).

.”); (“[A]n appellate court’s limited scope of review circumscribes additional fact finding by it.”).

(“[A]n appellate court’s limited scope of review circumscribes additional fact finding .

“An appellate court exceeds its proper scope of review when it bases its conclusions on its own interpretation of the evidence and, in effect tries the issues anew and substitutes its own findings for those of the trial judge.”

The statute forbids deductions from “wages due or earned.”