Cited by

In her rule 60.02 motion, Ashley argued for the first time that UPEPA, as applied by the district court, violated her constitutional right to a

“Though trial courts generally have broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” (quotation omitted).

& n.3 (Minn. 2017) (stating that “[w]aiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right,” while forfeiture is the “failure to timely assert a right” (quotation omitted)).

.” n.3 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted); n.3 (Minn. 2017) (applying Beaulieu in the context of civil litigation).

When it adopted UPEPA, the legislature repealed the state’s previous anti-SLAPP statute, Minn. Stat. §§ 554.01-.06 (2022), 35-36 (Minn. 2017).

-32 (Minn. 2017); N. States Power Co. v. Gas Servs., Inc., (“A party may not consent to a legal proceeding by participating in it and later challenge the validity of the procedure, or take a position and later take a contradictory position on appeal.”).

(discussing the burdens of proof, production, and persuasion in a civil action).

The Minnesota Supreme Court declared Minnesota’s -38 (Minn. 2017), stating: A party moving to dismiss a claim based on the anti- SLAPP law must make a threshold showing that the underlying claim materially relates to an act of the moving party that involves public participation.

“Appellate review of an issue can be forfeited when a party fails to raise the issue in the district court.” n.3 (Minn. 2017) (“[F]orfeiture refers to the failure to timely assert a right.”).

excused” the “failure to bring what would have otherwise been a futile argument.” -68 (Minn. 2015); (“A claim becomes ripe when there is an intervening change in the law between a party’s initial decision not to raise the claim because it would have been futile under then-existing law, and a later decision to raise that claim for the first time.”).

See, e.g. , Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , (Minn. Stat. § 554.02 (2016)); State v. Garcia , (Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd.

“[F]orfeiture refers to the failure to timely assert a right.” d 623, 631 n.3 (Minn. 2017).

A district court abuses its discretion when it acts “in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , (quotation omitted).

See Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn ., (describing el ements of malicious prosecution ).

ski flew 312 hours before the crash is a question of weight, not of foundational reliability, we are mindful of “the line of distinction which separates the legitimate province of the [judge] from that of the [jury],” Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, 437 (1868), which is that “the role of resolving disputed facts belongs to the jury, not the court,” Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn ., ; see also In re Sperl’s Estate , 103 N.W.

A district court abuses its discretion on remand if “it makes findings on a subject not included in the appellate court’s rem and instructions.”

Five days later, , holding that Minn. Stat. § 554.02, subd.

compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” d 623, 633 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

See State v. Beaulieu , , 278-79 (Minn. 2015) (noting that a failure to call attention to an error in district court constitutes forfeiture); Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , , 631 n.3 (Minn. 2017) (applying the Beaulieu analysis to civil litigation).

Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn.

Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , , 631 n.3 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).

See State v. Beaulieu , n.3 (Minn. 2015); n. 3 (Minn. 2017) (applying Beaulieu in the context of civil litigation).

See Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota , (stating that issues not raised below are generally not considered on appeal).

Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota , (Leiendecker III).

(order granting accelerated review).