Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 215 N.W.2d 61.

33 citing documents.

Timothy John Walvatne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(declining to consider an appellant’s theory because “a party cannot for the first time on appeal shift his position” (quotation omitted)).
Shona Tahiro, parent and natural guardian of Ramaden Waliye, a minor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that it is elementary that a party cannot shift position on appeal).
Oehlerts & Sons Construction, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563 , (stating that a party may not raise an equitable lien issue for the first time on appeal).
Hennepin County, Mamie Jegbadai v. Gbenga Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hennepin County, Mamie Jegbadai v. Gbenga Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564, (“It is elementary that on appeal a case will be considered in 6 accordance with the theory on which it was pleaded and tried, and a party cannot for the first time on appeal shift his position.” (quotation omitted)).
Glendalough Homeowners' Association v. Jovani Nassar, and third party v. Evermoor Community Association, third party Community Development, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Glendalough Homeowners' Association v. Jovani Nassar, and third party v. Evermoor Community Association, third party Community Development, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564, (stating that it is elementary that a party cannot shift his position on appeal).
In re the Estate of: Leonard J. Marihart, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Leonard J. Marihart, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564, (quotation omitted); (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues .
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564, d 61, 62 (1974) (“It is elementary that on appeal a case will be considered in accordance with the theory on which it was pleaded and tried, and a party cannot for the first time on appeal shift his position.” (quotation omitted)).
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
( (holding appellant cannot raise new theory of recovery on appeal); Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564 , (holding that a party cannot shift its position on appeal)).
Casey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Casey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564
Empro Corp. v. Scottland Hotels, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Empro Corp. v. Scottland Hotels, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Security State Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564
Olmscheid v. Paterson 440 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Olmscheid v. Paterson 440 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
An appellate court considers a case “in accordance with the theory on which it was pleaded and tried * * *.” Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564 , (per curiam) (quoting Urban v. Continental Convention & Show Management, Inc., 244 Minn. 44, 47 , ).
Thiele v. Stich 425 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1988
Thiele v. Stich 425 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1988
(cannot raise new negligence theory on appeal); Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564 , (elementary that party cannot shift his position on appeal).
McMains v. Commissioner of Public Safety 409 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McMains v. Commissioner of Public Safety 409 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564
State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563 , (case will be reviewed in accordance with theory in which it was pleaded and decided).
LaPanta v. Heidelberger 392 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
LaPanta v. Heidelberger 392 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563
BACHE & CO., INC. v. Wahlgren 235 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1975
BACHE & CO., INC. v. Wahlgren 235 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1975
Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563
State v. Holbrook 233 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1975
State v. Holbrook 233 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1975
We therefore hold that the error was nonprejudieial.” 298 Minn. 563 , , 696.