Cited by

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

70 citing documents.

Robert E. Villanueva v. GEICO Casualty Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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.”).
Anna Rae Dosso and On Behalf of Minor Children v. Ben Dosso 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 v. Park Nicollet Clinic 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 v. Dennis Goerdt, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”
Ty Bernard v. Superset Tile & Stone, LLC 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. David Nelson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Without the existence of prejudice, “no grounds exist for reversal.”
Cornerstone Management Services, LLC v. BAHEYA, LLC 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 v. John Beckfeld, US Bank National Association 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 v. Arturo Andrade 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 v. Gedney Foods Company, PMC Global, Inc., et … 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), In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Danielle Ann Oldenburg v. Daniel Frederick Schanze (A23-1837), In the Matter of: Daniel Frederick … 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, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
MPLP White Bear Lake LLC v. Michael Harvey, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Bette Lou Gubbe Slag v. David Alan Slag 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
Bren Road LLC v. Talon OP, LP, et al. (A23-0248) (A23-0268), Talon First Trust LLC, and Bren Road … 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 v. Tobin Jack Cook 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 v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. 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 v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, vs. Borton Construction, Inc. 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 v. Elliot Day Whipple, Jordan Gall, Greg Rutten 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 v. Jacob Richard Lindekugel 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 v. Michelle Kristine Boyd, Liberty Bail Bond Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.” Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota v. John Wesley Buchanan, IV 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 v. Terry Lee Banks, Bail Bonds Doctor, Inc. 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 v. Andrew John Jakes Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds for reversal exist”).
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lamond Jones 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 v. David A. Berg 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: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad 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 v. Kelly M. Laumann 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: Nicole Marie Knewtson, n/k/a Nicole Marie Campbell v. Adam Christopher Knewtson 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: Caryn Blaine Evans v. Keith Eric Evans 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: Matthew James Ulness v. Jill Marie Ulness, n/k/a Jill-Marie Stefano 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: Kathryn Marie Larson, on behalf of Minor Child v. Keith Norman Marohn 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 v. Ryan Richard Jazdzewski 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: Tabatha Annette Cusick n/k/a Tabatha Annette Biegler v. Mark Anthony Cusick 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., Floyd Blawat v. Ben Huener, et al 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 v. Lucille Goerdt, et al 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.