abuse of discretion standard in Minnesota

2011Maxfield v. Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Minn.1990).

1996As to the trial court’s conclusions on the ultimate issues, mindful of the discretion accorded the trial court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, the reviewing court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard.” Maxfield v. Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Minn.1990).

2016Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997).

2016See Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997).

2010In concluding that it had discretion to make some factual determinations on summary judgment in the immunity context, the district court relied on a passage from Rehn v. Fischley, in which we explained that “[bjecause the determination of an immunity’s application is best decided by the trial court at the earliest possible juncture, however, the trial court’s determination necessarily will include mixed questions of law and fact” and concluded that “we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the trial court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under

2009“When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, ‘we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC, 668 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Minn.App.2003) (quoting Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 333 (Minn.1997)).

2024“When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” 9 Id. (quotation omitted). “[The] district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” Bender v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257 , 262 (Minn. 2022) (quotation omitted).

2016“When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2025Appellate courts “apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.” In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018).

2024Appellate courts “apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.” In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 651 (Minn. App. 2018).

2016DECISION “An appellate court reviews a district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004).

2015“An appellate court reviews a district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004).

2011See, e.g., Lilyerd v. Carlson, 499 N.W.2d 803, 811 (Minn.1993) (bench trial); Nadeau v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Minn.1979) (motion for reinstatement following grant of motion for new trial). 5 But see Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen, 781 N.W.2d 880, 885 (Minn.2010) (applying a different standard of review to a district court’s equitable determination when this court determined whether to apply equity principle to a new situation). 6 Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we may overrule the district court when the court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law.

2011See Nadeau v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 520, 523 (Minn.1979) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court’s denial of rescission as an equitable relief after trial).

2003State v. Kelly, 435 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn.1989).

2003State v. Kelly, 435 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn.1989).

2019Id. (explaining that a district court's foundational reliability determinations are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard).

2012State v. Hull, 788 N.W.2d 91, 103 (Minn.2010) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 815 (Minn.2000) (stating that questions of “general acceptance in the relevant scientific field” are questions of law, but questions of foundational reliability are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard).

2013We review the lower court’s decision on whether to expunge criminal records “under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Minn.2000).

2009A district court's exercise of its inherent authority to expunge records that are located within the judicial branch is a matter of equity, which this court reviews under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review, id., although findings of fact underlying a district court's decision will be set aside if they are clearly erroneous, State v. H.A., 716 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.App.2006).

2024In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 4 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012); see also In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018).

2023In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012); In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018).

2024Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985); Schallinger v. Schallinger, 699 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2005).

2018Pikula , 374 N.W.2d at 710 ; In re M.R.P.-C. , 794 N.W.2d 373 , 378 (Minn. App. 2011).

2016HRA v. Blackwell, 602 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn.1999); see also Minn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc., 844 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Minn.2014) (noting that fraudulent concealment is an equitable doctrine and, typically, a district court’s decision as to whether to grant equitable relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); City of North Oaks v. Sarpal, 797 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Minn.2011) (regarding equitable estoppel, “we review equitable determinations for abuse of discretion”); Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 483 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Minn.1992) (“[Wjhere the - trial court weighs the equities in

2016HRA v. Blackwell, 602 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1999); see also Minn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc., 844 N.W.2d C/D-4 509, 513 (Minn. 2014) (noting that fraudulent concealment is an equitable doctrine and, typically, a district court’s decision as to whether to grant equitable relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); City of North Oaks v. Sarpal, 797 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Minn. 2011) (regarding equitable estoppel, “we review equitable determinations for abuse of discretion”); Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 483 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Minn. 1992) (“[W]here the trial court weighs the equi

2000Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 400 , 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2458 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990); Uselman, 464 N.W.2d at 142 .

1996Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 138 (Minn.1990) (reviewing evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion or error of law); State v. Garcia, 302 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn.1981) (reviewing de novo a trial court’s application of the sentencing guidelines and affirming a sentencing departure, based in part on proper considerations, because the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion).

2015Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831, 833 (Minn. 2011).

2015Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831, 833 (Minn.2011).

2024State v. Stempfley, 900 N.W.2d 412, 417-18 (Minn. 2017); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006).

2024Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 307-08 ; State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006).

2004We review departures from presumptive sentences “under an abuse of discretion standard, but there must be ‘substantial and compelling circumstances’ in the record to justify a departure.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 744 (Minn.1998) (quoting Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 326 (Minn.1996)); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 1(4).

2004We review departures from presumptive sentences "under an abuse of discretion standard, but there must be `substantial and compelling circumstances' in the record to justify a departure." State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 744 (Minn.1998) (quoting Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 326 (Minn.1996)); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines I(4).

2009State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588, 597 (Minn.2005).

2006State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588, 597 (Minn.2005).

2018Koppi , 798 N.W.2d at 361 .

2017State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Minn. 2011).

2006We review such rulings under an abuse of discretion standard, and “a matter will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” Id. at 305-06 .

2006We review such rulings under an abuse of discretion standard, and "a matter will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law." Id. at 305-06 .

2026Norman v. Refsland, 383 N.W.2d 673, 676 (Minn. 1986). 20 1.

2001Norman v. Refsland, 383 N.W.2d 673, 676 (Minn.1986).

2024State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 553 (Minn. 2010).

2017See State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 548, 553 (Minn. 2010) (stating that we review an unobjected-to error for plain error, but review an error to which an objection was. made under ■ an abuse-of-discretion standard).

2018See Citizens State Bank , 786 N.W.2d at 277-78 ("Under an abuse of discretion standard, we may overrule the district court when the court's ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law.").

2016We applied an abuse of discretion standard to review the district court’s decision, id. at 277 , but stated that “we need not decide the proper standard of review because we would reach the same result” under either 1 an abuse of discretion standard or “under our normal review on appeal from summary judgment,” id. at 278 n. 2. 1 In’ SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855 (Minn.2011), we considered whether the parties to a stock sale transaction were entitled to reformation or rescission of the transaction based on mutual mistake.

2016Stich v. Stich, 435 N.W.2d 52, 53 (Minn. 1989); Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d at 38 .

2014Prahl v. Prahl, 627 N.W.2d 698, 702 (Minn. App. 2001). 8 A district court has broad discretion in decisions regarding spousal maintenance, Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984), and this court applies an abuse-of- discretion standard of review, Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36, 38, 41 (Minn. 1982).

2014Witchell v. Witchell, 606 N.W.2d 730, 731 (Minn. App. 2000). 4 Whether the district court has statutory authority to grant an HRO presents a question of statutory interpretation, which this court reviews de novo.

2004Witchell v. Witchell, 606 N.W.2d 730, 731 (Minn.App.2000).

2026“When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC, 668 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Minn. App. 2003) (quotation omitted).

2009“When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, ‘we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC, 668 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Minn.App.2003) (quoting Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 333 (Minn.1997)).