Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Allen v. Central Motors, Inc., 283 N.W. 490.

45 citing documents.

Range Cornice & Roofing Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Motors, (stating that an issue was raised “too late” when it was first raised in a motion for amended findings)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Chad Monson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Motors, (holding defense raised for the first time in motion for amended findings was raised “too late”); (holding claim came “too late when suggested for the first time” in motion for a new trial); (Minn. App. 2
A21-1064 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Motors, Inc., (amended findings); (citing these aspects of Antonson and Allen in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Custody of: C. W. P.; William James Peck, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. H., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Motors, Inc., (determining that a factual argument was “too late” when firs t raised in a motion for amended findings); (“[A] issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Motors, Inc., d 187, 189 (Minn. 1971) (stating that an issue is raised “too late” if it is first raised in a motion for a new trial); see also Grigsby v. Grigsby , (citing these aspects of Allen and Antonson in a family-law appeal), rev. d
Athena 2004, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Motors, Inc., (stating that a new fact issue cannot be raised in a motion for amended findings).
In re the Custody of: N. Y. B., James Edward Bono, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Motors, Inc., (stating that an issue first raised in a motion for amended findings is “too late”); (stating that an issue is raised “too late” if it is first raised in a motion for a new trial); see also Grigsby v. Grigsby , (Minn. A
In re the Marriage of: Dennis D. Dickinson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. , see Antonson v. Ekvall , (stating that an issue is raised “ too late” if it is first raised in a motion for a new trial); (citing these aspects of Antonson and Allen in a family law appeal), review denied (
In re the Custody of J. M. H. and A. M. H. Roland John Hillstrom, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Motors, Inc., 204 Minn. 8 295, 297
Leland Bertsch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Motors , 204 Minn. 295, 299, 283, N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Lyn Renneke, n/k/a Tamara Lyn Fjoslien v. Dean Glenn Renneke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Lyn Renneke, n/k/a Tamara Lyn Fjoslien v. Dean Glenn Renneke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Motors, Inc., 204 Minn. 295, 299, 283 N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 297, 283 N.W.
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 299, 283 N.W.
S. M. K. v. D. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
S. M. K. v. D. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 298-99, 283 N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A new issue is raised “too late” when first raised in either a motion for amended findings, Allen v. Central Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 297, 283 N.W.
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Allen v. Central Motors, Inc., 204 Minn. 295, 295, 283 N.W.
Superior Shores Lakehome Ass'n v. Jensen-Re Partners 792 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Superior Shores Lakehome Ass'n v. Jensen-Re Partners 792 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 299 , 283 N.W.
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, e.g., Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536 , (stating claim made “too late” when made for the first time in a motion for a new trial); Allen v. Central Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 299 , 283 N.W.
Davis v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 521 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Davis v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 521 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Allen v. Central Motors, 204 Minn. 295, 298-99 , 283 N.W.
Bush Terrace Homeowners Ass'n v. Ridgeway 437 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bush Terrace Homeowners Ass'n v. Ridgeway 437 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Such a submission automatically excludes what it does not include.” Allen v. Central Motors, Inc., 204 Minn. 295, 298 , 283 N.W.
Denney v. City of Duluth 202 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1972
Denney v. City of Duluth 202 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1972
Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn. 35 , Strupp v. Canniff, 276 Minn. 558 , American Surety Co. of New York v. Greenwald, 223 Minn. 37 , Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295
Antonson v. Ekvall 186 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1971
Antonson v. Ekvall 186 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1971
Tompkins v. Sandeen, 243 Minn. 256 , 67 N. W. (2d) 405 ; Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , .
Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
6 E. g., American Surety Co. v. Greenwald, 223 Minn. 37 , 25 N. W. (2d) 681 ; Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , .
Behrendt v. Rassmussen 47 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1951
Behrendt v. Rassmussen 47 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1951
Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , ; Edelstein v. D. M. & I. R. Ry.
Lovrenchich v. Collins 46 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1951
Lovrenchich v. Collins 46 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1951
Co. 225 Minn. 508 , 31 N. W. (2d) 165 ; Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , .
Edelstein v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1948
Edelstein v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1948
Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , ; M. & St.
American Surety Co. of New York v. Greenwald 25 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1946
American Surety Co. of New York v. Greenwald 25 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1946
We believe, however, that the holding and reasoning in Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , , may properly be applied to the situation here presented by the record.