Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Ramsey v. Holmberg, 548 N.W.2d 302.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
App. P. 106; rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
James P Gerchy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See City of Ramsey v. Holmberg , (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Carl Green dba Signature Capital, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
App. P. 106, the issue is not preserved for appeal and a reviewing court cannot address it.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
A20-0743 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4, 106; City of Ramsey v. Holmberg , review denied (Minn. Aug.
Bradley Wingate, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
App. P. 106 ; City of Ramsey v. Holmberg , , 305 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Jesse James O�Brien v. City of Mentor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jesse James O�Brien v. City of Mentor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Therefore, (stating that if party fails to file notice of related appeal, “the issue is not preserved for appeal and a reviewing court cannot address it”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. 11 Aug.
Angela K. Schreader v. DC & D Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Above Summit Construction Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Angela K. Schreader v. DC & D Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Above Summit Construction Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Even if the judgment below is ultimately in its favor, a party must file a notice of review to challenge the district court’s ruling on a particular issue.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jay Nygard v. Penny Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[A] party must file a notice of review to challenge the district court's ruling on a particular issue.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Danika Paige Anastasi v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Danika Paige Anastasi v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“To challenge a district court ruling, a respondent has to file a notice of review, ‘[e]ven if the judgment below is ultimately in its favor.’”1 ( review denied (Minn. Aug.
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB 848 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB 848 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that an issue decided adversely to respondent is not properly before this court if no notice of review is filed), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Aase v. Wapiti Meadows Community Technologies & Services, Inc. 832 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Aase v. Wapiti Meadows Community Technologies & Services, Inc. 832 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“Even if the judgment below is ultimately in its favor, a party must file a notice of review to challenge the district court’s ruling on a particular issue.’’).
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach an inadequately briefed issue); (declining to address an issue without a notice of review), review denied (Minn. Aug.
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 781 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2010
Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 781 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2010
( rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Even if the judgment [in the district court] is ultimately in its favor, a party must file a notice of review to challenge the district court’s ruling on a particular issue.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Schultz 676 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Schultz 676 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
584 n. 1 (Minn.App.1998); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Botsford 630 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Botsford 630 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
To challenge a district court ruling, a respondent has to file a notice of review, “[e]ven if the judgment below is ultimately in its favor.” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In Re Petition of Metro Siding, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Petition of Metro Siding, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Lemke Ex Rel. Teta v. Brooks 614 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lemke Ex Rel. Teta v. Brooks 614 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Secord 614 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Secord 614 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(issue decided adversely to respondent not properly before court absent notice of review), review denied (Minn. Aug.
City of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc. 569 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
City of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc. 569 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The distinction between businesses that provide on-site consumption and those that do not has been considered by this court and rejected as “simply not the law.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Di Ma Corp. v. City of St. Cloud 562 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Di Ma Corp. v. City of St. Cloud 562 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
59 , 130 L.Ed.2d 17 (1994); review denied (Minn. Aug.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by