Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Swartwoudt v. Swartwoudt, 349 N.W.2d 600.

31 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When a 4 party seeks a new trial, the bases under rule 59.01 for that new trial must be identified “explicitly and with specificity.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Motion for New Trial A motion for a new trial must make that request expressly and state the basis for the request “explicitly and with specificity.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Stockdale Bancorporation v. Kjellberg 479 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stockdale Bancorporation v. Kjellberg 479 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See In re Estate of Williams, 217 Minn. 634 , 634, , 736 (1944) (denial of new trial must be affirmed if motion failed to identify specific grounds); (new trial motion must explicitly state Rule 59.01 basis), pet.
In Re the Welfare of D.B. 463 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Welfare of D.B. 463 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Balder v. Haley 441 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Balder v. Haley 441 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Burwell v. Burwell 433 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Burwell v. Burwell 433 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
pet for rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Marriage of Beeson v. Beeson 432 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Beeson v. Beeson 432 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dennis Frandsen & (party having failed to appeal a first judgment is bound by determination left undisturbed by amendments); pet.
Weikle v. Weikle 403 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Weikle v. Weikle 403 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dennis Frandsen & Co., pet.
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
As recently stated by this court: “It is imperative the request for [a] new trial and the Rule 59.01 basis therefor * * * be stated explicitly and with specificity.” Eager v. Siwek Lumber & Millwork, Inc., (quoting Swartwouldt v. Swart *519 wouldt, ).
Eager v. Siwek Lumber & Millwork, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Eager v. Siwek Lumber & Millwork, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(review limited when time to ap *783 peal from original judgment has passed), pet.
Marriage of Hemingway v. Hemingway 383 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hemingway v. Hemingway 383 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin 366 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin 366 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Ray 359 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Ray 359 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Setter v. Mauritz 351 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Setter v. Mauritz 351 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
we said: Where the original judgment is not appealed and an issue is left undisturbed in an amended judgment, that issue is not reviewable on appeal from the amended judgment.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by