Cited by

ts challenge the denial of their motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in (1) allocating the profits and losses of the partnership, and (2) determining the partnership property.4 “A district court may grant a new trial for errors of law occurring at the trial or when the verdict is not justified by the evidence, or is contrary to law.” (quotations omitted).

“We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny 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).

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

5, 2015) (Christie I); (Minn. App. Apr.

n.5 (Minn. 2018); -55 (Minn. 2019).

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

n.4 (Minn. 2018) (deeming appellants’ “suggestion” waived for failure to provide analysis or legal authority).

DECISION I. Judgment as a Matter of Law “We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny 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); see also Kedrowski 4 v. Lycoming Engines, -55 (Minn. 2019).

We review evidentiary rulings, and the denial of a motion for new trial, for abuse of discretion.

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

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

“Preponderance of the evidence requires that to establish a fact, it must be more probable that the fact exists than that the contrary exists.” (quotation omitted).

n.4 (Minn. 2018) (“ To 12 The Brands argue that the 2013 quitclaim deed language is irrelevant because the 2016 quitclaim deed extinguished it.

n. 4 (Minn. 2018) (“To the extent that this suggestion in their briefs and at oral argument was, in fact, an argument, it is waived.”).

Clear and convincing evidence is shown when the “truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation omitted) .

probably due historically to the peculiar respect and consideration which has been accorded to land in English law” (quotation omitted)); -40 (Minn. 2018) (citing Shaughnessy for the principle that land has a “special status” compared with other forms of property).

See Christie v. Estate of Christie , (stating that we review denial of motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion).

(“The district court has broad discretion in determin ing jury instructions, and we will not reverse where jury instructions overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law.” (quotation omitted)).

Christie v. Estate of Christie

Christie v. Estate of Christie , (quotation omitted).

Christie v. Estate of Christie , n.5 (Minn. 2018).

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

ts have declared that “[c]lear and convincing evidence is shown where the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” 5 C hristie v. Estate of Christie, 5 Courts apply the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in cases involving certain types of civil commit ment, allegations of attorney misconduct, and the termination of parental D-5 (quotation omitted) (emphasis added).

“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” d 833, 838 (Minn. 2018) (citation omitted) .

D E C I S I O N On appeal, “[w]e review de nov o a district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same standard used by the district court and 3 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the non -moving party].” 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.” Christie v. Estate of Christie

Christie v. Estate of Christie , n.5 ( Minn. 2018) (citation omitted).

d 833, 838 (Minn. 2018).

“We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny 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 non-moving party].” n.5 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment as a matter of law, 9 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).

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

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

Christie v. Estate of Christie , .

The district court correctly noted that the contract for deed is governed by the statute of frauds, Minn. Stat. § 513.05 (2018), and that appellants would have to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the parties had orally agreed to a balloon-payment term, d 833, 839 (Minn. 2018) (“ [C]lear and convincing evidence is the appropriate standard for proving the existence of an oral cont ract for the sale of land .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Waymouth, as the nonmoving party, d 833, 838 n.5 (Minn. 2018), we determine whether “there is [a] legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find” that Waymouth met its burden in proving its abuse-of- process claim.

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

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