Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mundy v. American Red Cross, 711 N.W.2d 470.

24 citing documents.

James A. Nilsson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“By their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the [district court] judge familiar with the setting of the case.” Doe 136 v. Liebsch, (quotation omitted).
A25-0341 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(explaining that failure to address an issue in an appellate brief constitutes waiver of that issue).
Minn. 2022
Our “review of jury instructions is limited.”
Christopher Gary Baylor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[F]ailure to address an issue in [a] brief constitutes waiver of that issue.”); see also State v. Tomassoni (noting that an appellate court does not address pro se unsupported claims on appeal).
Melissa Regouski, as court-appointed Guardian and Conservator for Morgan Moeller, Ward and Protected Person, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Svihel Vegetable Farm, Inc. v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev. 915 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
James Michael McConnell, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[F]ailure to address an issue in [a] brief constitutes waiver of that issue.”
Hearing Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Jury instructions are viewed as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law .” (quotation omitted).
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of the Petition of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation for a New Certificate of Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The district court has broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary matters and [an appellate court] will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings [absent] a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted); see also Mitchell, d at 71 (“A district court’s decision whether to take judicial notice of proffered facts is an evidentiary ruling that we review only for abuse of discretion.”).
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 857 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “failure to address an issue in brief constitutes waiver of that issue”).
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee 852 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 2014
19 (declining to consider an argument not pressed below and on which the record was not adequately developed); (stating that it is well established that the failure to address an issue “constitutes waiver of that issue”).8 III.
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
(quoting Hilligoss, d at 147 )
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 791 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2010
("It is well-established that failure to address an issue in brief constitutes waiver of that issue.”).
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
In Re Contest of General Election 767 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2009
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
746 n. 1 (Minn. 1998) (indicating that although appellant "allude[d]” to issues, failure to "address them in the argument portion of his brief” constituted waiver); , 193 n. 8 (Minn.1997) ("issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal”)
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
Granville v. Minneapolis School District 716 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that “failure to address an issue in brief constitutes waiver of that issue”).