Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holton v. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, 747 N.W.2d 912.

19 citing documents.

Marcus Anthony Baker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Elias Padilla Jovel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 912, 917 (Minn. 2008); -35 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting oral testimony at hearing on motion for new trial).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Bradley Lanphear Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
In the Appeal of Jared Cunningham re: DHS Appeal for Maltreatment of a Minor Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joshua James Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Lipe Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion, and a new trial is warranted upon a Brady violation only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different, Pederson, d at 460.
State of Minnesota v. Blanyon Toe Davies Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Mark Thomas McGowan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cory James Bebeau Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
-83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that “[an] appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”); n.6 (Minn. 2008) (granting motion to strike portions of State’s brief).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
We have long held that the interests of justice are implicated only in exceptional and “extraordinary situations.” Gassler, d at 586 ; see also Valencia v. Markham Coop.
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
1(1)1, we explained that the interests of justice ground for a new trial required a court to “weigh the degree to which the party alleging error is at fault for that error, the degree of fault assigned to the party defending the alleged error, and whether some fundamental unfairness to the defendant needs to be addressed.” Gassler, d at 587 ().
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
But, we conclude that the interests of justice do not require us to address the due process issue because we are not confronted here with a rule of law that was unknown at the time of trial, and because there is no “fundamental unfairness to the defendant [that] needs to be addressed.” -19 (Minn.2008).
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
we noted that in deciding whether to grant relief in the interests of justice, courts should weigh the degree to which the party alleging error is at fault for that error, the degree of fault assigned to the party defending the alleged error, and whether some fundamental unfairness to the defendant n