Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Antonson v. Ekvall, 186 N.W.2d 187.

58 citing documents.

Range Cornice & Roofing Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
either asserted an affirmative defense based on such a duty in its answer nor asserted this argument in the district court until it mentioned the issue in its posttrial proposed findings of fact and 16 conclusions of law.6 “[A]n issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.” ( (explaining that a claim was made “too late” when it was first made in a motion for a new trial); Allen v. Cent.
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Stephen Sawyer, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“The claim came too late when suggested for the first time by plaintiff’s motions for a new trial.”).
Chad Monson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
490, 492 (Minn. 1939) (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); (“We initially note that an issue first raised in a posttrial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Liberte Construction, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(concluding that an issue was raised too late when it was raised before the district court but only in a motion for a new trial).
A21-1064 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 187, 189 (Minn. 1971) (new trial); Allen v. Cent.
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Second, even ignoring th e impropriety of Justin’s motion for a new trial, an issue raised for the first time in a motion for a new trial is raised “too late.” Antonson v. Ekvall , (applying this principle from Antonson in a marital-dissolution action), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Emily Kay Stilwagon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that a claim was not before the district court when “the pleadings were general enough to have possibly made out a claim on the theory, [but] there was no language in the complaint that would alert anyone to a claim” based on that theory).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. H., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Antonson v. Ekvall , (determining that a claim was raised “too late” when it was first suggested in a motion for a new trial); Allen v. Cent.
In re the Matter of the Child of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(holding that a claim was not before district court when “the pleadings were general enough to have possibly made out a claim on th at theory, [but] there was no language in the complaint that would alert anyone to a claim” based on that theory).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
490, 492 (Minn. 1939); 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. denied (Minn. Oct.
Athena 2004, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that a new issue cannot be raised in a motion for a new trial); see also Allen v. Cent.
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“The claim came too late when suggested for the first time by plaintiff's motions for a new trial.”).
In re the Custody of: N. Y. B., James Edward Bono, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
490, 492 (Minn. 1939) (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 , (citing these aspects of Antonson and Allen in a family -law appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Custody of: C.A.M., Cody A. Myers, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Cf. Antonson v. Ekvall , (holding claim not before district court when “the pleadings were general enough to have possibly made out a claim on that theory, [but] there was no language in the complaint that would alert anyone to a claim” based on that theory).
ARF, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(declining to consider claim that was not presented or litigated at trial).
Herbert A. Igbanugo, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Antonson v. Ekvall , (holding that where a complaint in cludes vague language which could be read to include a particular theory but the party does not actually raise that theory at trial, the theory cannot be raised for the first time after trial).
Mark R. Zweber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Antonson v. Ekvall , (u pholding district court’s denial of a new-trial motion based on legal theory that had not been raised at an earlier st age, where, although general pleadings could have possibly made a claim based on an ejectmen t theory, complaint did not contain any language that woul d have alerted anyone t
In re the Marriage of: Dennis D. Dickinson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
490, 492 (Minn. 1939); 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 (Minn. Oct.
Leland Bertsch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539, (stating that a claim was made “too late” when made for the first time in a motion for a new trial); Allen v. Cent.
ARU Properties, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cf. Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 538–39, (holding that a claim was not before the district court when “the pleadings were general enough to have possibly made out a claim on that theory, [but] there was no language in the complaint that would alert anyone to a claim” based on that theory).
Tracey Weathers v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2005-6 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tracey Weathers v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2005-6 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539, (affirming the denial of a new trial where, although the pleadings were general enough to have possibly made a claim based on a particular theory, the complaint contained no language that would give notice to a claim based on that theory).
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
490, 492 (1939), or a motion for a new trial, Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539–39
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , (concluding that tort claim not specifically pleaded or presented at trial was waived when it was raised for first time in a motion for new trial); Minn. Mut.
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
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , (stating claim made “too late” when made for the first time in a motion for a new trial); Allen v. Cent.
Gores v. Schultz 777 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 777 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gores v. Schultz 777 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 538-39 , (rejecting an argument as too late when raised for the first time in posttrial motion); Minn. Mut.
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 777 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 586 , 588-39
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.
First National Bank of Cold Spring v. Jaeger 408 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
First National Bank of Cold Spring v. Jaeger 408 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , -90 (1971).
Cal-Tank, Inc. v. Interco, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cal-Tank, Inc. v. Interco, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Matters involving tidal procedure, evi-dentiary rulings, objections to the instructions, and the like are subject to review only providing there was a motion for a new trial in which such matters are assigned as error.” Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , -90 (1971) (quoting Heise v. J.R. Clark, Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191 , ).
Cogswell v. Eichenberger 371 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cogswell v. Eichenberger 371 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 538-39
Byman v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 364 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Byman v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 364 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , -90 (1971).
Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536
Metropolitan Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Adams 356 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Metropolitan Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Adams 356 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , -90 (1971).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by