Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Probate Court, Hennepin County, 198 N.W.2d 260.

80 citing documents.

Peterson v. Peterson 242 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1976
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties 243 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1976
This rule establishes a broader scope of review than that applied to the findings of a jury or an administrative tribunal, for as we said in In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94, 96 , the trial court’s findings may be held clearly erroneous, notwithstanding evidence to support such findings, if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Larson Bros. Tiling v. Melton 235 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Hedberg & Sons Co. v. County of Hennepin 232 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , ” 9 The governing definition of market value is found in Minn. St.
Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.
J. McClure Kelly Plumbing Co. v. Minneapolis Housing & Redevelopment Authority 231 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94, 96
Jansen v. Herman 230 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Products, Inc. 229 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure; In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State 229 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1975
Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure; In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Spencer v. Spencer 229 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Bell v. Gannaway 227 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, Lodge 364 v. State, Department of … 229 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
BROTH. OF RY. CLERKS v. State by Balfour 229 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Angelos v. Balafas 225 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1975
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
But since we do not find it in the record, we deal with the question of whether the findings of negligently caused damages can be sustained without it, the standards for review being as stated in In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Lampert Yards, Inc. v. Thompson-Wetterling Construction & Realty, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1974
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Winona National & Savings Bank v. Sheehan 222 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1974
rly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” It is true that “even though there is evidence to support a finding, the finding can be held to be clearly erroneous if ‘the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94, 96
LaCrescent Constant Care Center, Inc. v. State 222 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1974
In Re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
In Re Estate of Lea 222 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1974
It is true that "even though there is evidence to support a finding, the finding can be held to be clearly erroneous if `the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94, 96
Sappa v. Strite-Anderson Manufacturing Company 221 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1974
of our review is delineated by Rule 52.01, Buies of Civil Procedure, which in pertinent part provides: “* * * Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly *122 erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” The “clearly erroneous” rule was stated to be incapable of precise definition in In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Noehl v. Midwest Empire, Inc. 215 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1974
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Channing v. Benefit Trust Life Insurance 216 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1974
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Furuseth v. Olson 210 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1973
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
HOUSING & REDEV. AUTH. OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. Schapiro 210 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1973
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Karl Krahl Excavating Co. v. Goldman 208 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1973
See, In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Duffy v. Park Terrace Supper Club, Inc. 206 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1973
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Nyborg 204 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1973
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Real Estate Tax Assessments of Real Property of Silver Lake Apartments, Inc. v. County of Olmsted 204 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1973
In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94
Cool v. Hubbard 199 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1972
Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable where there are findings of fact by the trial court sitting without a jury, provides in part: “* * * Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” In the recent case of In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , this court indicated that a broad scope of review exists under Rule 52.01.