Cited by

To determine whether a 12 district court plainly erred in a jury instruction, an appellate court seeks to determine whether “(1) there is an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects a party’s substantial rights.” (considering whether district court plainly erred in instructing jury on negligence).

-29 (Minn. 2012) (addressing an issue raised for the first time on appeal to avoid remand “[i]n the interest of judicial economy”).

To warrant relief, the newly discovered evidence “must not be merely collateral, impeaching, or cumulative, but rather, must be 4 such as to have a probable effect upon the result of a new trial.” aff’d as modified (Apr.

Because the jury had already been instructed to consider only the evidence in the case, which we presume it followed, Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp. , we are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion by declining to repeat that instruction.

Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe 14 Corp.

To justify a new trial, the newly discovered evidence cannot “be merely collateral, impeaching, or cumulative, but rather, must be such as to have a probable effect upon the result of a new trial.”

“We presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”

(d 618, 626-27 (Minn. 2012)).

App. P. 103.04 (stating that appellate courts have discretion to take action that “the interest of justice may require”); see also, d 618, 628–29 (Minn. 2012) (addressing a question not reached by the court of appeals in the interests of judicial economy).

(considering whether relief could be granted after an invited error at all, even under a theory of plain error); see also Minn. R. Civ.

First, “the moving party must show that the new evidence was not discovered until after [the hearing], and could not have been discovered before [the hearing] by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (quotation omitted).

The district court’s jury instructions accurately reflected the legal standard, and we presume “juries follow the instructions they are given.”

–29 (Minn. 2012) (addressing in the interest of judicial economy issues not reached by the court of appeals).

We presume that a jury follows the instructions it is given, and Bey has 11 presented no evidence to suggest otherwise.

11 To warrant relief under section 518.145, subdivision 2(2) and rule 60.02(b), Minnesota courts hold that (1) newly discovered evidence must not have been discoverable before the relevant proceeding “by the exercise of reasonable diligence ,” Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. , (internal quotation omitted); (2) the “evidence must be relevant and admissible ,” id.; and (3) the evidence must not be “cumulative, contradictory, or impeaching,” but “must be such as will likely a ffect th

To obtain relief based on newly discovered evidence, 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.” Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp. , (quotation omitted).

P. 51.04(b); as modified (Apr.

See Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp. , –29 (Minn. 2012).

The jury was therefore instructed by the court on multiple occasions to return a verdict based not on the attorneys’ statements but on the evidence at trial, and appellate courts “presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.” Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp.

12 Santa Fe Corp., (“We presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”).

Ass’n, (citing Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp ., ) , aff’d

–29 (Minn. 2012) (addressing three separate grounds not reached by the court of appeals because “the relevant questions have been briefed by the parties and the r ecord is sufficient for us to decide the remaining issues”); see also Hoffman v. N. States Power Co. , (addressing a

An error does not affect the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings if a reversal “would allow a party to choose to try a case on one theory while holding a second theory in reserve for a possible appeal” because such action “would adversely impact the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” See Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp. , -28 ( Minn. 2012) (applying the Griller criminal plain-error test in a civil case).

(refusing to preclude argument under the invited-error doctrine because the error implicated the court’s subject- matter jurisdiction); (opining that arguments concerning plain error might not be forfeited under the invited-error doctrine).

This court will not reverse a district court’s denial of a new-trial motion absent a “clear abuse of discretion.”

r rule 60.02(b), the moving party must show that the new evidence (1) was not discov ered until after trial; (2) could not have been discovered before trial by exercising due diligence; (3) is relevant and admissible and; (4) is not merely collateral, impeaching, o r cumulative but rather would have “a probable effect upon the result of a new trial.”

d 618, 625 (Minn. 2012).

A party challenging posttrial decisions must demonstrate clear abuse of discretion in denying amended findings , Zander v. State , 703 N .W.2d 845, 857 (Minn. App. 2005), or in denying a new trial

We will not reverse a district court’s denial of a new-trial motion absent a “clear abuse of discretion.”

Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp.

The supreme court has explained that an error does not affect the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings if a reversal “would allow a party to choose to try a case on one theory while holding a second theory in reserve for a possible appeal ,” noting that such action “would adversely impact the integrity of the judicial proceedings .” -28 (Minn. 2012) (applying the Griller criminal plain-error test in a civil case).

P. 51.04 (b) (explaining that a court may review for plain error when the objection to jury instructions has not been properly preserved); (stating that when party fails to object to jury instructions this court may review only 14 for plain error) .