Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gruenhagen v. Larson, 246 N.W.2d 565.

286 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that a new-trial motion is not a prerequisite to appellate review of substantive legal issues properly raised and considered in district court); Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458, (stating that absent a motion for new trial, appellate courts may review whether evidence supports findings of fact and whether findings support conclusions of law and judgment).
Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
As a result of its holding, the supreme court in Rubey remanded to this court “for review of the underlying judgment on appeal as though no new trial/amended findings motion had been made and review to determine ‘whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.’ ” d at 425 (quoting Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Finally, the newly discovered evidence “must not be merely collateral, impeaching, or cumulative, but rather, must be such as to have a probable effect upon the result of a new trial.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 459
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , Meiners v. Kennedy, 221 Minn. 6, 8 , Potvin v. Potvin, 177 Minn. 53, 54 , 224 N.W.
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-10 (Minn.2003) (stating that new-trial motion is not prerequisite to appellate review of substantive legal issues properly raised and considered in district court); Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , (stating that absent motion for new trial, appellate courts may review whether evidence supports findings of fact and whether findings support conclusions of law and judgment).
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 Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , (stating that “where there has been no motion for a new trial the only questions for review are whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment”).
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
ncludes substantive legal issues properly raised to and considered by the district court, whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether those findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment.” ( Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ), aff'd in part, rev’d in part
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that new-trial motion is not prerequisite to appellate review of substantive legal issues properly raised and considered in district court); Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , (stating that absent motion for new trial, appellate courts may review whether evidence supports findings of fact and whether findings support conclusions of law and judgment).
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
ANALYSIS On appeal from a judgment where there has been no motion for a new trial, appellate review is limited to “whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
We, therefore, remand this case to the court of appeals for review of the underlying judgment as though no new trial/amended findings motion had been made and review to determine “whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ANALYSIS On appeal from a judgment where there has been no motion for a new trial, appellate review is limited to “whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Aug.13, 2002) (quoting Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
Karels v. State Farm Insurance Co. 617 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Karels v. State Farm Insurance Co. 617 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., (“Generally on appeal from a judgment where no motion for a new trial was made, ‘the only questions for review are whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and judgment.’ ”) (quoting Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
John, (unilateral expectation); Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454 , (inexcusable mistake); Newman v. Fjelstad, 271 Minn. 514, 519 , -85 (1965) (unexpected consequences).
New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. v. Contemporary Closet Design, Inc. 570 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. v. Contemporary Closet Design, Inc. 570 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
ANALYSIS I. When a party appeals from a judgment without having made a motion for a new trial, “the only questions for review are whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., (quoting Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
Marriage of Kahn v. Tronnier 547 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Kahn v. Tronnier 547 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(citing Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 457-58 , (holding that when party fails to raise issue in motion for new trial, appellate court will not review it).
Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Generally on appeal from a judgment where no motion for a new trial was made, “the only questions for review are whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , , 569 (1976).
Matter of Dn 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In re the Welfare of D.N. 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Matter of Dn 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
d at 341 (citing Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
In re the Welfare of D.N. 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
d at 341 (citing Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ).
State Bank of Cokato v. Ziehwein 510 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State Bank of Cokato v. Ziehwein 510 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
See, e.g., Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 457 , (errors not presented to trial court for consideration are not reviewable on appeal).
Hackett v. State, Department of Natural Resources 502 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hackett v. State, Department of Natural Resources 502 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458