Cited by

“Thus, evidentiary rulings made at trial must be assigned 12 as error in a motion for a new trial or amended findings in order to properly preserve an objection for appellate review.” Continental Retail

“The tax court’s decision is clearly erroneous if the decision is not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Cont’l Retail

“The income capitalization approach determines the value of income-producing property by capitalizing the income the property is expected to generate over a specific period of time at a specified capitalization yield rate.” Cont’l Retail

U nder Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702, “a qualified expert witness may testify in the form of an opinion so long as the testimony has foundational reliability and is helpful to the fact - finder.” Cont’l Retail

Cont’l Retail, (“The income capitalization approach determines the value of income-producing property by capitalizing the income the property is expected to generate over a specific period of time at a specified capitalization yield rate.”).

I. Under the income-capitalization approach, the value of income-producing property is determined “by capitalizing the income the property is expected to generate over a specific period of time at a specified capitalization yield rate.” Cont’l Retail

8 period of time at a specified capitalization yield rate.” Cont’l Retail

See Continental Retail, LLC, v. County of Hennepin , (stating that evidentiary rulings made at trial must be assigned as error in motion for new trial or amended findings to properly preserve objection for appeal).

Indeed, the supreme court has stated that a “motion for a new trial or amended findings is a prerequisite to appellate review regarding matters of trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.” Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin , (quotations omitted).

Cont’l Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin , ; In re Welfare of D.N.

Credit Ass’n C ont’l Retail, LLC v. Cnty of Hennepin

of Hennepin , 5 (Minn. 2011); EOP–Nicollet Mall, LLC v. Cty.

of Hennepin, d 395, 402 (Minn. 2011).

See Cont'l Retail, LLC. v. County of Hennepin , , 398-99 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that we defer to the tax court's valuation determinations unless the court has clearly overvalued or undervalued the property).

Cont'l Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin , , 403 (Minn. 2011).

See Cont'l Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin , , 398-99 (Minn. 2011).

of Hennepin, (quoting Alpha Real Estate , -11 (Min n. 2003)).

of Hennepin, see also Minn. Stat. § 271.10 (“[RJeview may be had on the ground that the Tax Court was without jurisdiction, that the order of the Tax Court was not justified by the evidence or was not in conformity with law, or that the Tax Court committed any other error of law.”).

of Hennepin, and is no longer available for purchase.

of Hennepin, see also Singer v. Comm’r of Revenue