Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swanson v. Williams, 228 N.W.2d 860.

26 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Marineisy Jimenez Rosario v. Robert Eliazar Villanueva Minn. Ct. App. 2025
12 Williams, (stating that newly discovered evidence under rule 60.02 must not have been “known to the party at [the] time” of the hearing).
In the Matter of: Natalie Storm Pettit AND obo Minor Children v. Jeremy Pettit Minn. Ct. App. 2025
P. 60.02(b), if the evidence is “material,” .
In re the Marriage of: Kristin Grace Logdahl v. Roger Duane Logdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Court of Appeals Chutich, J. Dissenting, Hudson, J. Rebecca Ellen Bender, Gildea, C.J., Anderson, J. Respondent Minn. 2022
t proceeding “by the exercise of reasonable diligence ,” Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. , (internal quotation omitted); (2) the “evidence must be relevant and admissible ,” id.; and (3) the evidence must not be “cumulative, contradictory, or impeaching,” but “must be such as will likely a ffect the outcome of the case .” .
Life Clinic PA v. Sharon E. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(concluding that a physician’s testimony about a consul tation that 5 occurred after trial was not newly discovered evidence within the meaning of Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Grace Kathryn Adams v. Frank Thomas Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In general, evidence is “newly discovered” only if it was ‘“in existence at the time of trial but not known to the party at that time.’” d 360, 365 (Minn. App. 2006) (quoting Swanson v. Williams , 303 Minn. 433, 436, ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 435, (noting that “[t]he trial court acted well within its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the ground of surprise”).
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
P. 59.01(d) authorizes the district court to grant a new trial due to “[m]aterial evidence newly discovered, which with reasonable diligence could not have been found and produced at the trial.”5 Generally, newly discovered evidence “must have been in existence at the time of trial but not known to the party at that time.” Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 436
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
And the district court correctly concluded that the fact that husband moved after the dissolution trial is not “newly discovered evidence.” Generally, newly discovered evidence “must have been in existence at the time of trial but not known to the party at that time.” Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 436
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
See, e.g., Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 435-36 , see also Minder v. Peterson, 254 Minn. 82, 91-92 , -07 (1958) (post-trial affidavit stating truck driver admitted to affiant that brakes were defective held merely cumulative, contradictory, and impeaching).
Wieland v. State 457 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1990
Wieland v. State 457 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1990
2 Additionally, we have held that “[generally expert testimony does not constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.” (citation omitted); cf. Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 436 , -63 (1975).
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
The new evidence must not be merely “cumulative, contradictory or impeaching.” Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 435
Gunderson v. Olson 399 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gunderson v. Olson 399 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433
State, Ex Rel. Pula v. Beehler 364 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State, Ex Rel. Pula v. Beehler 364 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Also, the evidence must be such as will likely affect the outcome of the case.” Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 436
Kozak v. Weis 348 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Weis 348 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433 , the court reviewed claims of surprise, and newly discovered evidence.
Tuseth v. Thoreson, Inc. 287 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1979
Tuseth v. Thoreson, Inc. 287 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1979
See also Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 436 , -63 (1975).