Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite TORCHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC v. McKinnon, 784 N.W.2d 416.

33 citing documents.

Dwight Higgins, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Code Plus Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Torchwood Props., (stating that prejudice is “[t]he primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial”).
Anna Rae Dosso and On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Torchwood Props., (reviewing the denial of a continuance); Doe 136 v. Liebsch, (reviewing the exclusion of evidence).
A25-1517 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Torchwood Props., d 416, 419-20 (Minn. App. 2010) (“On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide [it] with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.” (Quoting Eisenschenk v. Eis
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Torchwood Props., (stating that prejudice is “[t]he primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial”).
In the Matter of the Teaching License of Raquel M. Andrade. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Torchwood Properties, (reviewing district court’s denial of continuance motion).
Charles Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“An error is prejudicial if it might reasonably have changed the result.” Torchwood Props., d 416, 419 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Larry Walters, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We will reverse the denial of a new trial only if the misconduct was “so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand.” Torchwood Props., (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
whether the denial prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Torchwood Props.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Cody Johnson a/k/a Natasha Johnson (“Tasha”). Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[P]rejudice is the primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial.” Torchwood Props., (quotation omitted).
David Kaslow Swan v. Heidi Bloedel Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2023
David Kaslow Swan v. Heidi Bloedel Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Torchwood Props., (stating this court reviews denial of continuance for abuse of discretion).
In re: Guardianship of Jill Lee Osufsen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re: Guardianship of Jill Lee Osufsen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thomas Shimota, Appellant, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Tabitha Ann Sanborn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Torchwood Props., () (continuances); d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002) (division of marital property); (spousal maintenance).
M.A.A.C., Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“An error is prejudicial if it might reasonably have changed the result.” Torchwood Props., (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Abdiaziz Mohamud Elmi, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Daniel J. Cafferty, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[P]rejudice is the primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial.” Torchwood Props., LLC v. McKinnon , d 416, 419 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Mario A. Ruiz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
for [an] abuse of discretion.” Torchwood Props., LLC v. McKinnon
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. B. B. and K. C. M., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Torchwood Props., LLC v. McKinnon , , 419 (Minn. App. 2010).
Heather Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error is prejudicial if it mi ght reasonably have changed the result.” Torchwood Props., (quotation omitted).
In the Matter: Nita Maria Hicks, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Torchwood Props ., (recognizing that the party who procured an action from the district court cannot claim error or prejudice from that action).
In the Matter of Krista Ann Dickenson and o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
whether the denial prejudiced the outcome of the trial .” Torchwood Properties
Eric D. Humphreys, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Torchwood Properties, LLC v. McKinnon
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[P]rejudice is the primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial,” and “the refusal to grant a new trial will be reversed only if misconduct is so prejudicial that it would be unjust to allow the result to stand.” Torchwood Props., (quotations omitted); see also Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207–08, (stating that there is a “well-established rule that motions for a new trial should be granted cautiously and sparingly and only in the furtherance of substantial justice”).