Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92.

69 citing documents.

Anna Rae Dosso and On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 61; (stating that, “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 61 (requiring courts to disregard harmless error); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Minn. 2025
Robert Goerdt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”
Ty Bernard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
have given reasons we do not believe to be proper bases for ordering remittiturs, where reasons do exist independently of those cited by the [district] court to reduce the awards, the decision so made should stand.”)
Brian Michael Steidl, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Estate of Trisha J Ingersoll a/k/a Trisha Jolee Ingersoll, Trisha Ingersoll f/k/a Trisha Offerman, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds for reversal exist”).
Dale Zubke, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Without the existence of prejudice, “no grounds exist for reversal.”
Cornerstone Management Services, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
P. 61 (stating harmless error should be ignored); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
M. Elizabeth Benedict, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
Brooke Lea Simpson and OBO Minor Child, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 61 (instructing courts to disregard harmless error); (stating “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
August Ventures, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze, (A23-1837), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze, (A23-1837), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 61 (requiring courts to ignore harmless error); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
MPLP White Bear Lake LLC v. Michael Harvey, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
MPLP White Bear Lake LLC v. Michael Harvey, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Bette Lou Gubbe Slag, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Cody Johnson a/k/a Natasha Johnson (“Tasha”). Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0268 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 61 (requiring this court to disregard harmless error); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. A. B., Legal Custodian. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”); see also In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. M. M. and A. J. M., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. M. M. and A. J. M., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
Natasha Siefker Cook and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”); cf. Borth v. Borth , (reversing and remanding the denial of an HRO when the district court’s error was not harmless).
Colby Lake Fourth Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 ( “The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregar d any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties .”); (“ Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
In re: the Lawrence B. Schwagerl Trust Under Agreement Dated April 9, 1999; Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (noting that appellate courts decline to reach issues that are inadequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a trust-related dispute); d 92, 98 (Minn. 1987) (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”); Waters v. Fiebelkorn , - 65 (1944) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
Laurie J. Stangel, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (“A lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.” Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 61); (stating that, “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no 7 grounds exist for reversal”).
In the Matter of: Mara Jareth Butler, and on behalf of minors, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds for reversal exist”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co.
In re the Guardianship and Conservatorship of: Olga Z. Chorolec. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
In re the Marriage of: Janie Warren Berg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 61 ( “The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.” Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. , (applying this concept in a maintenance dispute and noting that the burden to show prejudice is on the party seeking relief); Minn. 6 R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: John A. Laumann, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 92, 98 (Minn. 1987) (stating that unless error is prejudicial, no grounds for reversal exist).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 61); (“Althou gh error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 61); (“Although error may exist, unle ss the error is prejud icial, no grounds for reversal exist.”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 61); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian James Turner. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of rule 61); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the district court abused its discretion by declining to even issue the subpoe na directed to ICFS, “unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”
In re the Matter of Kenneth Alan Hovland, OBO Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Burkstrand, d at 213; (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).
Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9 I. Qualified Immunity Appellants first argue that the district court improperly ruled that qualified immunity shielded Officer Huener from liability on their section 1983 claim.
Robert F. Goerdt, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.” Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. , see also Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Emergency Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of: Gary Burke. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co.
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8 We discern no harmful error in any of the alleged procedural defects and “unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal .” Kallio v. For d Motor Co. , see Minn. R. Civ.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by