Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boschee v. Duevel, 530 N.W.2d 834.

22 citing documents.

Code Plus Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Steps taken by a trial court in response to an ‘irregularity’ can cure the potential prejudice to a party.”).
Jacob Becker, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“An irregularity is a failure to adhere to a prescribed rule or method of procedure not amounting to an error in a ruling on a matter of law.” d 834, 840 (Minn. App. 1995) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
Demo Unlimited Incorporated, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
An irregularity is defined as a “failure to adhere to a prescribed rule or method of procedure not amounting to an error in a ruling on a matter of law.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Okitokoko also argues that our prior decisions in Boschee v. Duevel , d 834 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995), support his argument that devices not permitted on a roadway are vehicles only if they are in fact being driven on a roadway.
In re the Marriage of: Abdiaziz Mohamud Elmi, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In this context, the word “irregularity” means “a ‘failure to adhere to a prescribed rule or method of procedure not amounting to an error in a ruling on a matter of law.’” (quoting 3 Douglas D. McFarland & William J. Keppel, Minnesota Civil Practice § 2411 (2d ed. 1990)), rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An irregularity is a failure to adhere to a prescribed rule or method of procedure not amounting to an error in a ruling on a matter of law.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
Kyle Wendell Else, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To obtain a new trial based on a procedural irregularity, the movant must demonstrate “(1) an irregularity occurred and (2) th ey were deprived a fair trial.” Boschee v. Duevel, 19 review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., Boschee v. Duevel , -40 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding that inline skates meet the definition of “vehicle” as a d evice that may transport persons upon the highway), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To establish a claim for irregularity in the p roceedings, a party “must prove (1) an irregularity occurred and (2) they were deprived of a fair trial.” review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Reno L. Brandt v. Jessie J. Johnson, f/k/a Jessie J. Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An irregularity is a failure to adhere to a prescribed rule or method of procedure not amounting to an error in a ruling on a matter of law.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(“[T]he mere circumstance, that [a person] ...
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
But the legislature intended to regulate any mode of transportation used on state highways, “whether or not specifically contemplated at the time the statutes were enacted.” review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).