Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Hoglund-Hall v. Kleinschmidt, 381 N.W.2d 889 (1986)

Citation
Hoglund-Hall v. Kleinschmidt, 381 N.W.2d 889 (1986)
Parent Document
Hoglund-Hall v. Kleinschmidt, 381 N.W.2d 889 (1986)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1986-02-18

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text

695 chars
On review of a trial court’s findings of fact, the court of appeals is bound by the clearly erroneous standard of review. Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01. Appellants argue that the trial court clearly erred because (1) the fact that respondents gave appellants 60 days to vacate indicates they did not view appellants as an immediate threat; (2) the tire iron incident was an isolated incident; (3) Kleinschmidt’s act was committed against property, not persons; (4) Jeffrey Kleinschmidt is required to remain law abiding under the terms of his release in the criminal matter; and (5) there was no showing that appellants were a present danger to others since the tire iron incident or at the time of trial.