Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Leuba v. Bailey, 88 N.W.2d 73.

29 citing documents.

Michael Nassif, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Moreover, we have recognized the “well -established rule that motions for a new trial should be granted cautiously and sparingly and only in the furtherance of substantial justice.”
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION Trial courts should grant motions for a new trial cautiously, sparingly, and “only in the furtherance of substantial justice.” Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 193
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Trial courts should grant motions for a new trial cautiously, sparingly, and “only in furtherance of substantial justice.” Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 194, d 73, 74 (1957).
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[P]rejudice is the primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial,” and “the refusal to grant a new trial will be reversed only if misconduct is so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand.” Torchwood Props., (quotations omitted); see also Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207–08, (stating that there is a “well-established rule that motions for a new trial should be granted cautiously and sparingly and only in the furtherance of substantial justice”).
Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207-08
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207-08
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence “should be granted cautiously and sparingly in the furtherance of substantial justice.” Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 208
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A motion for a new trial, however, should be granted “cautiously and sparingly and only in the furtherance of substantial justice.” Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207-08
Miller v. Michel 409 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Miller v. Michel 409 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“[Mjotions for a new trial should be granted cautiously and sparingly and only in the furtherance of substantial justice.” Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207-08
Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
Hertz v. Hertz 229 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1975
Manahan v. Jacobson, 226 Minn. 505 , Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke 167 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1969
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke 167 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1969
Bank, supra; In re Estate of Enyart, supra; Claggett v. Claggett, 204 Minn. 568 , ; Hafner v. Schmitz, 215 Minn. 245 , 9 N. W. (2d) 713 ; In re Estate of Wilson, 223 Minn. 409 , 27 N. W. (2d) 429 ; Sorlie v. Thomas, 235 Minn. 509 , 51 N. W. (2d) 592 ; Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193 , 88 N. W. (2d) 73 ; In re Estate of Anthony, 265 Minn. 382 , 121 N. W. (2d) 772 ; Agner v. Bourn, 281 Minn. 385 , 161 N. W. (2d) 813 .
Agner v. Bourn 161 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1968
Agner v. Bourn 161 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1968
In Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 202 , 88 N. W. (2d) 73, 80 , this court in sustaining the lower court held: “The trial court is the finder of the facts and conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in that court.
Capital Warehouse Co. v. McGill-Warner-Farnham Co. 149 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1967
Capital Warehouse Co. v. McGill-Warner-Farnham Co. 149 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1967
Light & Power Assn. 253 Minn. 77 , *114 91 N. W. (2d) 148 ; Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193 , 88 N. W. (2d) 73 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
Fenrick v. Olson 131 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1964
It is a question whether they were of such a character and were made under such circumstances that they were reasonably calculated to deceive the plaintiff * * *; and the diligence and prudence that is required is such as may reasonably be expected of a person of the intelligence and capacity of the person seeking the relief.” See, also, Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 203 , 88 N. W. (2d) 73, 80 ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597 , .
In Re Estate of Anthony 265 Minn. 382 Minn. 1963
In Re Estate of Anthony 265 Minn. 382 Minn. 1963
[3] Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193 , 88 N.W.