Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

Dwight Higgins, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1965)); (applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 335 in a municipal immunity case).
Snowman Construction, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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., Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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., Appellants, 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 ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory ... 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., (), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
The Townhomes of Raspberry Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Matter of Michael Wartman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We review evidentiary rulings, and the denial of a motion for new trial, for abuse of discretion.
Megan Marie Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Johnson v. Washington County , see also Minn. R. Evid.
Lineth Arrocha, et al., Appellants, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16, 1993); -600 (Minn. 1994).
Megan Ashley Spindler, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quoting Wild, d at 786).
LVNV Funding, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review evidentiary rulings concerning foundation for abuse of discretion.2
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Johnson v. Washington C nty.
Kyle Wendell Else, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nicholas Houchins, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lynn Baker Handelman-Seigel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 335).
In the Matter of: Carole Anne Rosemary Dobson, Respondent, 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., Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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).
A17-2040 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, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company as subrogee of Peter and Susan Fox, Respondent, 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, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, 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
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015