Cited by

Father’s argument is unavailing because appellate courts “will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons,”

P. 61); (stating that “[appellate courts] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family appeal); (noting appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for wrong reasons).

P. 61; (“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

Grein v. Grein , (refusing to remand when doing so would not change the result); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reason).

P. 61 (requiring a reviewing court to disregard harmless error); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached a correct result for the wrong reason).

P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); (stating that “we will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”); (same).

(“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”) ().

But even assuming without deciding that the district court went beyond the issues determinative of respondent’s present right to possession here, appellate courts “will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.” see also Minn. R. Civ.

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be 17 ignored); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reason); (refusing to remand when doing so would not change the result).

The supreme court has held in the family law context that “an adjudication on the merits of an issue is conclusive, and should not be relitigated.” Loo v. Loo , d (Minn. 2008) (applying rule 61 in a family appeal); (noting appellate courts ignore prejudicial error when prejudice is de minimis); (noting appellate courts will not reverse district court if it reached affirmable result for wrong reasons).

(stating that appellate courts “will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons); A.H., d at 6 (applying this aspect of Katz in a juvenile-protection appeal).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

(stating that appellate courts “will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”).

But we “will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family law appeal); (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reasons).

387 (Minn. 1985) (refusing to remand child-custody case when “on remand, the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the s ame result); d 915, 920 n.1 (Minn. App. 2005) (refusing to remand issue of custodial parent moving children to another state when doing so “would be futile”); (stating that appellate courts “will not reverse a correct 8 the point is harmless, and we decline to remand.

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family law appeal); see also Katz v. Katz , (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reasons).

(noting that an otherwise correct determination will not be reversed “s imply because it is based on incorrect reasons”).

Katz v. Katz , (applying this holding of Katz in a criminal case), rev. granted (Minn. Sept.

See Katz v. Katz , (“[W]e will not re verse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

(stating that “we will not reverse a corr ect decision simply be cause it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family appeal); Hesse v. Hesse , (noting that appellate courts ignore prejudicial error when the prejudice is de minimis); see also Katz v. Katz , (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reasons).

(“[Appellate courts] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reas ons.”).

(stating that the district court will not be reversed if it reached the right result for the wrong reason).

P. 61 (requiring reviewing court to disregard harmless error); d 835, 839 (Minn. 1987) (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached a correct result for the wrong reason).

P. 43.05 (when a party makes a motion “based on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits ” and “may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions ”); (“[A reviewing court] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

(stating that a district court’s decision will not be reversed if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason); (refu sing to remand for a de minimis, technical error).

(“But ‘we will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.’”) ().

Appellate courts “will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”

See Katz v. Katz , (“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”); (declining to reverse district court’s admission of statement even though reasoning was erroneous because statement was admissible on ot

(“[Appellate courts] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).

“[Appellate courts] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.” d 835, 839 (Minn. 1987).

But “we will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reason); (refusing to remand for de minimis, technical error).

Typically, this court “will not reverse a proper decision simply because the [district] court did not rely on the strongest reasons.” Carousel Autos., n.2 (Minn. App. 1994) (), aff’d see Jerry Mathison Constr., (stating that deciding the case on a different basis was appropriate despite counsel’s failure to brief the theory on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.

“[Appellate courts] will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”