Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima, 372 N.W.2d 723.

124 citing documents.

Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Lindgren 759 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Id.; see also Tonka Tours, (upholding oral modification to purchase agreement under admission exception to statute of frauds).
In Re the Welfare of the Children of T.R. 750 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of T.R. 750 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2008
A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either “manifestly contrary to the *661 weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Tonka Tours
Augustine v. Arizant Inc. 751 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2008
Augustine v. Arizant Inc. 751 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2008
It is for the trier of fact to evaluate the credibility of a claim of ‘honesty in fact’ and, in doing so, to take account of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the claim.” Tonka Tours, (internal citation omitted).
Augustine v. Arizant Inc. 735 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Augustine v. Arizant Inc. 735 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when they are “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Tonka Tours
Marriage of McConnell v. McConnell 710 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of McConnell v. McConnell 710 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Factual findings are clearly erroneous when they are “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Tonka Tours
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk 668 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk 668 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(stating appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); Tonka Tours, (stating whether party acts in good faith is, essentially, a credibility question).
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Tonka Tours, (whether party acts in good faith is, essentially, credibility question); (appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen 594 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Tonka Tours, (whether a party acts in good faith is essentially a credibility determination); (appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
McKenzie v. Olmstead 587 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
McKenzie v. Olmstead 587 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Tonka Tours, (on review of judgment where no posttrial motions have been made, we determine whether evidence sustains findings of fact and whether those findings sustain conclusions of law and judgment).
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wangen v. Swanson Meats, Inc. 541 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wangen v. Swanson Meats, Inc. 541 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“The findings must be manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Tonka Tours
Bains v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bains v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Prahmcoll Properties v. Sanford 474 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Prahmcoll Properties v. Sanford 474 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re Estate of Wentworth 452 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Estate of Wentworth 452 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
To reverse a court’s findings, they “must be manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Tonka Tours
Security Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. C & C Investments, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Security Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. C & C Investments, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
On appeal from a judgment, this court must consider “whether the evidence sustained the findings of fact and whether such findings sustained the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Tonka Tours
Citizens National Bank of Madelia v. Mankato Implement, Inc. 441 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1989
Citizens National Bank of Madelia v. Mankato Implement, Inc. 441 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1989
(findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous).
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Taylor v. Sheehan 435 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Herbst v. Northern States Power Co. 432 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Herbst v. Northern States Power Co. 432 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Berg v. Ackman 431 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Berg v. Ackman 431 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Citizens National Bank of Madelia v. Mankato Implement, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Citizens National Bank of Madelia v. Mankato Implement, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Tonka Tours, (citations omitted).
MCC INVESTMENTS v. Crystal Properties 415 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
MCC INVESTMENTS v. Crystal Properties 415 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Tonka Tours, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated the standard of review in appeals from a trial court judgment: [W]hen the lower court is the trier of fact, its findings on disputed questions are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be upset merely because a reviewing court may view the evidence
Matter of Estate of Hoffbeck 415 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Matter of Estate of Hoffbeck 415 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kadlec Motors, (citing Tonka Tours, ).
Sernak v. Krenzen Cadillac, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sernak v. Krenzen Cadillac, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Swenson 414 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by