Cited by

When the parties have re duced their agreement to an unambiguous integrated writing, the parol evidence rule pr ohibits “the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements , or prior written agreements, to explain the meaning of a contract.” d 303, 312 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

On appeal from a judgment when there has been no motion for a new trial, we review “whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact[,] and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458, -10 (Minn. 2003).

(“[M]otions for a new trial .

This rule preventing review of issues not raised in posttrial motions “does not apply to substantive questions of law that were properly raised during trial.”

or alter the [integrated] written agreement.” See id.; 3 In addition to this statement, Hunt cites to a number of matters extrinsic to the complaint including (1) the state’s “regular practice” of negotiating grievance settlements with explicit employment bans, (2) discussions between the state and AFSCME about a possible future employment ban, (3) the state’s “re

d 303, 309 (Minn. 2003) (restating “longstanding rule” that “matters such as trial procedure, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error” (quotation omitted)).

(ruling that a motion for a new trial is not a prerequisite for appellate review of a substantive question of law that was previously considered and addressed by the district court).

Appellant’s argument is based on the parol evidence rule, which “prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, or prior written agreements, to explain the meaning of a contract when the parties have reduced their agreement to an unambiguous integrated writing.” (quotation omitted).

However, motions for a new trial “are not a prerequisite for appellate review of substantive questions of law when a genuine issue of law is properly raised and 6 considered at the district court level.”

Sauter, d at 201-02; Heise v. J.R. Clark Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191, (citing cases); cf. Alpha Real Estate Co. v. Delta Dental 4 Plan, Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc.

Because he did not file a motion for new trial, our review is limited to substantive legal issues properly raised in and considered by the district court, whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether those findings support the conclusions of law and judgment.1 –310 (Minn. 2003); Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458

-10 (Minn. 2003) (reiterating that a motion for a new trial is a prerequisite for review of issues of “trial procedure, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions”).

(stating that a new-trial motion is not a prerequisite to appellate review of substantive legal issues properly raised and considered in district court); Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458, (stating that absent a motion for new trial, appellate courts may review wh

“In contrast to matters arising during the course of trial, we do not give deference to the district court’s conclusions of law and we review questions of law de novo.”

When no motion for a new trial has been made, this court’s review of the underlying judgment is limited to “substantive questions of law.”

The parol evidence rule “prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, or prior written agreements, to explain the meaning of a contract when the parties have reduced their agreement to an unambiguous integrated writing.” (quotation omitted).

Previously, we have held that a motion for a new trial or amended findings is a prerequisite to appellate review regarding matters of “trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions” that arise “during the course of trial.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).