Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christie v. Estate, 911 N.W.2d 833.

127 citing documents.

Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, vs. Borton Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 833, 838 n.5 (Minn. 2018).
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc. (A22-0723) (A22-0724), Leland P. Schermer … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
A19-0124 A20-1271 A20-1380 A20-1385 In the Matter of the Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests and Issuance of … Minn. 2023
See, n.4 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that an argument made without providing any analysis or citation to legal authority was forfeited).
James L. Lang, et al v. Flagship Bank Minnesota f/d/b/a Landmark Community Bank, N.A., et al., Eric Knight, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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)).
Estate of: Stephen D. King, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” Christie v. Est. of Christie , .
Patrick Schaffer, et al v. Curt Haler, et al., Vermillion Acres, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
Karen K. Osowski v. Edie Harer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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).
Criticized In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Malcolm Renfro Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.4 (Minn. 2018) (stating that arguments without analysis or citation to legal authority are waived); State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, et al., Charles Christie, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5, 2015) (Christie I); (Minn. App. Apr.
Athena 2004, LLC v. LC Rochester, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Jonathan G. Foss v. Mark Scott Savage, Susan Foss, et al., Third Party Defendants Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.5 (Minn. 2018); -55 (Minn. 2019).
Anthony Kelley v. The Bernick’s Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Christopher Abdul-Haqq, et al v. David LaLiberte, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” Christie v. Est. of Christie
Minnesota Department of Corrections v. Nathan Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.4 (Minn. 2018) (deeming appellants’ “suggestion” waived for failure to provide analysis or legal authority).
A minor child by his mother and natural guardian, Chelsea Rose v. Dr. Patricia Kohls, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
In re the Matter of Michael Wartman, et al., and the Commissioner of Crystal Bay Township, Janet Rothbart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We review evidentiary rulings, and the denial of a motion for new trial, for abuse of discretion.
Ammie Murphy v. Valleyfair, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Catrina M. Rued v. Joseph D. Rued Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A. v. Watonwan County, Animal Humane Society Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
Doran-CSM SE I LLC v. Thomas Stone, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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).
In re the Marriage of: Abdiaziz Mohamud Elmi v. Rukia Abdullahi Hashi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Keith D. Bexell, et al v. Jonathan Brand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.4 (Minn. 2018) (“ To 12 The Brands argue that the 2013 quitclaim deed language is irrelevant because the 2016 quitclaim deed extinguished it.
Larry John Laver v. Jennifer Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.”).
Minn. 2022
Ramsey County Attorney v. $139,630.00 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Clear and convincing evidence is shown when the “truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation omitted) .
In the Matter of: Xiaoyan Sun v. Qiang Yang, and In the Matter of: Qiang Yang, and OBO … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Whitefish Enterprises, LLC v. Dan Leagjeld, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Raymond Kvalvog, et al v. Josh Lee, et al., Secura Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Capacity Wireless, LLC v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Christie v. Estate of Christie , (stating that we review denial of motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion).
Ronald J. Bardine v. Diana M. Petersen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Vickie M. Jones v. Michael Dan Smilanich, et al., Twin Cities Dental Center, P.A. on related appeal Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“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)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. L. C. and T. H. F., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peg Otte, et al v. Allina Health System, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Christie v. Estate of Christie
Michael Nassif v. Lowell Penz, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Christie v. Estate of Christie , (quotation omitted).
Eric S. Walker v. Steven D. Walker, Lynn M. Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. M. H. and T. D. M., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Independent School District No. 477 v. Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Court Surfaces & Repair, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Christie v. Estate of Christie , n.5 (Minn. 2018).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. S Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review “a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
Emad Gh Al Rousan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
In re the Billie V. Darkenwald Revocable Trust, dated January 21, 1983, restated February 5, 1999, as amended, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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) .
Michael Esaw v. Douglas Eugene Salo, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
ARF, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. SAMS Enterprises, LLC, et al., Creekside Office Warehouse Condominium Association Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” Christie v. Estate of Christie
Timothy Wodarck v. Lakota Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christie v. Estate of Christie , n.5 ( Minn. 2018) (citation omitted).
Bay Side Recycling Company LLC, et al v. SKB Environmental Inc., Gem-Ash Processing LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 833, 838 (Minn. 2018).
Tony Flattum v. Pro Tech Restoration, Inc., Brian Jovan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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).
SRRT Properties, LP, IDC Properties, LLC v. Nova Consulting Group, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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).
James Michael Eidson v. Christine Michele Eidson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, n.4 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that an argument made without providing any analysis or citation to legal authority was waived).
AllenMax Construction, LLC, et al v. The Wright Group, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a n ew trial for an abuse of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl v. Doreen Strosahl Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christie v. Estate of Christie , .