Cited by

4 DECISION “We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

d 833, 838 (Minn. 2018).

We review a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law de novo, Vermillion State Bank v. Tennis Sanitation, LLC, and denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

P. 59.01(f); -38 (Minn. 2018) (applying rule 59.01(f) to argument that district court erred in instructing jury).

And “[s]ummary arguments made without citation to legal support are waived.” n.4 (Minn. 2018) (quotation and citation omitted).

“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” see Minn. R. Civ.

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

See Christie v. Est. of Christie¸

P. 15 59.01(f).4 “We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Moorhead Econ.

n.5 (Minn. 2018); Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 1 We conclude under this standard that the district court did not err by denying Pineur’s JMOL motion.

It is clear [he] does not agree with the Court’s decision, but that disagreement does not rise to the level required under the rule for a new trial.” Reviewing this denial for an abuse of discretion, we see no abuse here.

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party].” d 833, 838 n.5 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also Vermillion State Bank v. Tennis Sanitation, LLC

“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

d 833, 838 n.5 (Minn. 2018).

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

.” n.5 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

-38 n.4 (Minn. 2018) (stating that arguments without analysis or citation to legal authority are waived); State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.

-08 (Minn. App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. July 31, 1986); (citing Moorhead Econ.

“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”

(stating that review of district court’s denial of new trial is for abuse of discretion).

d 833, 838 n.5 (Minn. 2018).

that the relevant provision in the BPAs is ambiguous and therefore “should be construed against Cambria, the undisputed drafter.” “We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying 21 the same standard used by the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party].” n.5 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

See, n.4 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that an argument made without providing any analysis or citation to legal authority was forfeited).

Appellate courts “review de novo a district court’s decision to [decide] a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same standard used by the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party].” n.5 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted); -55 (Minn. 2019) (“On review of the grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, we make an independent determination of the sufficiency of the evidence.” (quotation omitted)).

“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” Christie v. Est. of Christie , .