DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

286 citing documents.

  • First American National Bank of St. Cloud v. Hommerding 381 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
  • Strand v. Nelson 380 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454 , that: [0]n appeal from a judgment 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.
  • Benson v. City of Little Falls 379 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Benson v. City of Little Falls 379 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454
  • Esselman v. Production Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud 380 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Esselman v. Production Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud 380 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
  • Sullivan v. Ouimet 377 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Fritz v. Fritz 377 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sullivan v. Ouimet 377 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
  • Fritz v. Fritz 377 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Where no motion for a new trial is made, the only issues on appeal “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
  • ERA Town & Country Realty, Inc. v. TEVAC, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • ERA Town & Country Realty, Inc. v. TEVAC, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Therefore, the only issues on appeal “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).
  • Wood v. Schlagel 375 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Wood v. Schlagel 375 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
  • Stall v. First National Bank of Buhl 375 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Stall v. First National Bank of Buhl 375 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    When a motion for *845 a new trial is not made, the only issues on appeal 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
  • Meyer v. Mason Publishing Co. 372 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Meyer v. Mason Publishing Co. 372 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Therefore, the only issues on appeal “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
  • Cogswell v. Eichenberger 371 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Cogswell v. Eichenberger 371 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458
  • Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454 , see also Liptak v. State ex rel.
  • Plaisted v. Fuhr 367 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Plaisted v. Fuhr 367 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454
  • Sauter v. Wasemiller 364 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sauter v. Wasemiller 364 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Appellants also rely on Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454 , but that reliance is misplaced.
  • Beyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Beyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 459
  • Schatz v. Davis 354 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima 354 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Schatz v. Davis 354 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454 , : [O]n appeal from a judgment 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.
  • Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima 354 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Consequently, the scope of review on appeal 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 , see also Pierce v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., (purpose of motion for new trial is to permit correction of errors by trial court and avoid expense of appeal).
  • Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 296 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1980
  • Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 296 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1980
    See e. g., Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 457-8 , , 569 (1976).
  • AAMCO Industries, Inc. v. DeWolf 250 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1977
  • AAMCO Industries, Inc. v. DeWolf 250 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1977
    Further, we note that in Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , we said: “* * * Since what is at stake for Larson in the present case is a property interest, rather than his liberty — let alone his life— the instant case is readily distinguishable from the few cases in which courts have sanctioned deviations from the basic principle that an app