Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Washington County, 518 N.W.2d 594.

109 citing documents.

In re the Trust Agreement of Soo K. Song dated April 28, 2016, as amended November 4, 2020, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings concerning materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence are within the trial court’s sound discretion and will only be reversed when that discretion has be en clearly abused.” Johnson v. Washington Cnty ., (quotation omitted).
Dwight Higgins v. Andrew Brown, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The determination of whether or not to grant a new trial because of attorney misconduct is not governed by fixed rules, but instead rests wholly within the discretion of the [district] court.”
Jonathan David Fritz v. City of Rochester Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1965)); (applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 335 in a municipal immunity case).
Snowman Construction v. Ceresota Funding II LLC, et al., Minnwest Bank Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings concerning materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence are within the [district] court’s sound discretion and will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.” (quotation omitted).
Larry Walters, et al v. Kyle Stromstad, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
is present during the trial and is best positioned to determine whether or not an attorney’s misconduct has prejudiced the jury.”
Ritalka, Inc. v. Amanda Jean Smith, et al., Noel Jennings Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court’s ruling on an objection to evidence based on relevance is within its “sound discretion and will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.”
Jay Maurice, as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Jon Maurice v. Granite Falls Municipal Hospital aka Granite Falls … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Fredi Amilcar Sun Chajon Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings concerning materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence are within the [district] court’s sound discretion and will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.” (quotation omitted).
Tal Sarusi individually and d/b/a Sealed Envelope LLC, et al v. Todd Laughlin individually and d/b/a LB Spray … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
16, 2003), and should set aside a jury’s award only if it “shocks the conscience,” (quotation omitted).
Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory Fitness … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory Fitness … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Whether to grant a new trial because of attorney misconduct is “not governed by fixed rules, but instead rests wholly within the discretion of the trial court.”
Freedom Kerkula, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Grace Elizabeth Bettie v. City of Moorhead, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(applying Minn. Stat. § 466.04, the recreational-use immunity statute for municipalities, which involves the same trespasser-exception analysis under section 335).
Janet C. Dreyer, et al v. Reierson Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Evidentiary rulings concerning materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence are within the [district] court’s sound discretion and 5 will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.” (quotation omitted).
Anthony Kelley v. The Bernick’s Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., (), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
The Townhomes of Raspberry Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Charles Stuurop Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Signature Select Contracting, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
Megan Marie Johnson v. Richard Preston Blackwell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Johnson v. Washington County , see also Minn. R. Evid.
Lineth Arrocha, et al v. Como Park Zoo And Conservatory, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, e.g. , Johnson v. Washington County , -99 (Minn. 1994) (applying recreational-use immunity to artificia l swimming pond in a county park); (applying immunity for torts at county fairgrounds when a tractor-t railer transporting fairgoers fatally injured a visitor), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Michael Nassif v. Lowell Penz, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In determining whether a verdict is insufficient, the district court “must consider all the evidence, the demeanor of the parties, and the circumstances of the trial.” (quotation omitted).
Freedom Kerkula v. City of Moorhead, et al., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16, 1993); -600 (Minn. 1994).
Megan Ashley Spindler v. Donald Lee Westman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quoting Wild, d at 786).
LVNV Funding, LLC v. Joionda Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review evidentiary rulings concerning foundation for abuse of discretion.2
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen v. Jason David Rothen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs v. Charlene Lila Henrichs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Johnson v. Washington C nty.
Kyle Wendell Else v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Evidentiary rulings concer ning materiality, foundation, remoteness, relevancy, or the cumulative nature of the evidence are within the [district] court’s sound discretion and will only be reversed when that disc retion has been clearly abused.” (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Travis Jerome Norcross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Evidentiary rulings regarding relevance “are within the [district] court’s sound discretion and will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.” (quotation omitted).
Douglas W. Wenker, et al v. Le Sueur County, Shoreland Recreational Cooperative, d/b/a Shoreland Country Club Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nicholas Houchins v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The evidence of pain and suffering, in addition to the evidence of future loss, reasonably supports the jury’s verdict and does not “shock the conscience.” 15 (stating that unless amount of damages “ shocks the conscience,” a new trial is not warranted (quotation omitted)).
Patricia J. Marquardt v. James M. Schaffhausen, et al., Steven M. Dittes, et al., Steven W. Sonnesyn, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lynn Baker Handelman-Seigel v. City of Edina, Independent School District #273 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 335).
In the Matter of: Carole Anne Rosemary Dobson v. Ryan Leon Solee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Evidentiary rulings concerning materiality, foundation, remotene ss, relevancy, or the cumulati ve nature of the evidence are within the [district] court’s sound discretion and will onl y be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.” (quotation omitted).
W. J. A v. Patricia C. Johnson, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Terry M. Johnson, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
prevailing party.” The determination of whether to grant a new trial because of attorney misconduct “is not governed by fixed rules, but instead rests wholly within the discretion of the [district] court.” Johnson v. Washington County
Carney Lien v. Casper Construction, Inc., et al., Veit & Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
T h e d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t a n e w t r i a l based on claimed attorney mis conduct “is not governed by fixed rules, but instead rests wholly within the di scretion of the trial court.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.S.H. and B.W.R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
are within the trial court’s sound discretion and will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused.” (quotation omitted).
Jenella Joyce Conda, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Ronald Eugene Conda v. Honeywell … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
prevailing party.” The determination of whether to grant a new trial because of attorney misconduct “is not governed by fixed rules, but instead rests wholly within the discretion of the [district] court.” Johnson v. Washington County
Cindy Ly v. North Memorial Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2018
104(a); (stating that evidentiary rulings concerning foundation are within district court’s sound discretion).
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Sarah Yule v. Jan Kehlenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company as subrogee of Peter and Susan Fox v. Homewerks Worldwide, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Evidentiary rulings concerni ng foundation are within the district court’s discretion and will be reversed only “when that discretion ha s been clearly abused.”
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ariola, 2014 WL 5419809, at *3 ().
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
County, (quotation omitted).
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
County, (“Evidentiary rulings concerning .
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, et al., Christa Blumer, et al., State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, et al., Christa Blumer, et al., State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 59.01(b); d 594, 600 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015