DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp., 552 N.W.2d 555.

32 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Kaycee Houde v. David Fryxell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Kaycee Houde v. David Fryxell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that a reviewing court “traditionally accord[s] great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter befo
Rosa Maria Maldonado Lopez, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. , (stating that a reviewing court “traditionally accord[s] great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has 5 the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relati ve credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter
Deondra Warren, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Concurring, Chutich, Thissen, JJ. Lori Dowling Hanson, Minn. 2022
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. , .
Damon Doss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
12 showing that “an employment decision was based partly on legitimate motives and partly on unlawful ones.”
Beth A. Layeux, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993)
Robert Grado, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
, A18-1155 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that a reviewing court “traditionally accord[s] great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter bef
Nicole LaPoint, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We review findings of fact for clear error and “accord[] great deference” to a district c ourt’s findings because of the advantage the district court has in “hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understa nding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it.”
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
Lapoint v. Orthodontics 892 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 2017
1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (same))); (“The Hicks court merely emphasized that the plaintiff still bore the ‘ultimate burden’ of persuading the factfinder by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant discriminated against him because of his race.”); Bilal v. Nw.
In the Matter of the Estate of: Orville C. Jacobson, In the Matter of the Estate of: Hughie … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Estate of: Orville C. Jacobson, In the Matter of the Estate of: Hughie … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Butler, d at 249-50; (stating that appellate courts “accord[] great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it”).
Victor Legatt v. Dennis Legatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victor Legatt v. Dennis Legatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We give “great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it.”
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We give “great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it.”
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2752 (1993) (emphasis omitted); (following Hicks for purposes of third prong of McDonell-Douglas test).
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Ross Wickenhauser v. Denise Esther Wickenhauser, n/k/a Denise Esther Peterson, (A14-0417), and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Ross Wickenhauser v. Denise Esther Wickenhauser, n/k/a Denise Esther Peterson, (A14-0417), and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We accord “great deference to a [district] court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it.”
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
In Re Welfare of D.M.D. 607 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2000
In Re Welfare of D.M.D. 607 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hasnudeen v. *762 Onan Corp.
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
see also Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., (third prong of McDonnell Douglas test requires plaintiff to show proffered reason was pretext for discrimination or not worthy of belief).