Cited by

(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.

Kenney, d at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (similarly discussing the clear- error standard of review); (explaining that the district court’s “findings must be sustained unless clearly erroneous” and that “[d]eference must be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to assess the credibility of the witnesses” (quotation omitted)).

Contrary to the watershed district’s argument that this syllabus point is dictum, 8 the supreme court has stated that “the syllabus summarizes the [authoring court’s] holding.” (citing syllabus of prior opinion as authority).

(“Deference must be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”).

Kenney, d at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (similarly discussing the clear- error standard of review); (explaining that the district court’s “findings must be sustained unless clearly erroneous” and that “[d]eference must be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to assess the credibility of the witnesses” (quotation omitted)).

(noting that a reviewing court defers to the district court’s assessment of witness credibility).

But the record shows that the district court considered these circumstances before determining that JTA waived its right to a jury 5 trial by waiting 484 days to make a request, and this court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations, and does not reweigh evidence on appeal

The function of this court is “limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (appellate courts defer to district court’s credibility determinations).

1 “The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” (citations omitted).

This court does not amend a district court’s findings of fact; our review is “limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

(holding that this court may limit the issues to be considered on remand).

d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (explaining that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).

Pechovnik, d at 99; (advising that a reviewing court gives deference “to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses”).

“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

Second, during the district court proceedings, father claimed that mother took the child on vacation without timely notifying him and even asked for leave to move to hold mother in contempt for this reason.4 Third, given that mother has sole legal custody of the child, she has the sole ability to

See Sefkow v. Sefkow , 13 (stating that an appellate court usurps the role of the district court by reweighing the evidence).

(stating that it is not the appellate court’s function to reweigh evidence, find facts, or assess credibility); (deferring to a district court’s implicit credibility determination).

However, the function of this court is “limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

(cautioning that a reviewing court exceeds the scope of review if it “usurp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”).

The function of this court is “limited to identifying errors and correcting them.” n.7 (Minn. 2016) (noting that it is not a court’s place to contemplate policy considerations entrusted to the legislature).