Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., 811 N.W.2d 618.

97 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citation omitted), modified (Minn. Apr.
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
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 883 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 883 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 2016
-29 (Minn. 2012) (addressing, in the interest of 18 judicial economy, a question briefed by the parties where the record was sufficient to decide the remaining issues).10 Under the endangerment provision, a student may be dismissed from school for “willful
Randall Norman v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randall Norman v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As an initial matter, we note that the jury was properly instructed on nuisance law, and “[w]e presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.” modified (Minn. Apr.
In re the Estate of: Harold E. Farnes, a/k/a Harold Farnes and Harold Ellwood Farnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Estate of: Harold E. Farnes, a/k/a Harold Farnes and Harold Ellwood Farnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To warrant a new trial under rule 60.02, “the moving party must show that the new evidence was not discovered until after trial, and could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (quotation omitted).
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The decision to deny a motion for a new trial rests in the discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will reverse that decision only for a clear abuse of that discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Pettey v. Melissa Denise Pettey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Pettey v. Melissa Denise Pettey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The decision to deny a motion for a new trial rests in the discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will reverse that decision only for a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If appellants had moved for a new trial before taking this appeal, we would have reviewed the district court’s ruling with great deference because a district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for new trial such that “we will reverse that decision only for a clear abuse of that discretion.”
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corval Constructors, Inc. v. FPD Power Development, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corval Constructors, Inc. v. FPD Power Development, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“This court reviews an award of sanctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” rev’d on other grounds
Sean Kennedy v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sean Kennedy v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 51.04(b) (allowing application of plain-error analysis to jury instructions where no objection was made); -27 (Minn. 2012) (applying plain-error analysis to a claimed jury- instruction error in a railroad-negligence case).
Cameron Court Homeowners Association v. Ngozichukwa Akubuike Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cameron Court Homeowners Association v. Ngozichukwa Akubuike Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(explaining that a party cannot try a case on one theory without objecting to the jury instructions “while holding a second theory in reserve for a possible appeal”).
Guava LLC, Michael Dugas v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Respondents,John Doe 173.23.48.174, John Doe 24.111.103.45, John Doe … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Guava LLC, Michael Dugas v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Respondents,John Doe 173.23.48.174, John Doe 24.111.103.45, John Doe … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(applying abuse-of-discretion standard to attorney-fee sanctions imposed under inherent authority), rev’d on other grounds
Julie Ann Holtegaard and David William Streng, Co-Trustees for the Next-of-Kin of Bruce Edward Streng v. Soo Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie Ann Holtegaard and David William Streng, Co-Trustees for the Next-of-Kin of Bruce Edward Streng v. Soo Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Because the decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the district court, we review the district court’s decision for clear abuse of discretion.”
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
1 (reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion), modified, (Minn. Apr.
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
Harbaugh v. Commissioner of Revenue 830 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2013
Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
issues.” -29 (Minn.2012).
Harbaugh v. Commissioner of Revenue 830 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2013
issues.” -29 (Minn.2012); see also Anderson v. Frontier Commc’ns, (noting judicial economy favored resolving issue of employer knowledge, rather than remanding, because facts were undisputed).
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
ANALYSIS Appellate courts will reverse a district court’s denial of a new-trial motion only if the district court clearly abused its discretion, but appellate courts “need not give deference to the district court’s decision” on issues of law, Stoebe v. Merastar Ins.
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by