Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota, 664 N.W.2d 303.

140 citing documents.

City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n 800 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-10 (Minn.2003) (stating that new-trial motion is not 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 motion for new trial, appellate courts may review whether
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
sota Supreme Court has recognized the longstanding rule “that matters such as trial procedure, evidentia-ry 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.” (citing Sauter and reaffirming the longstanding rule).
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
ence of a motion for a new trial, our scope of review includes substantive legal issues properly raised to and considered by the district court, whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether those findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment.” ( Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , ), aff'd in part, rev’d in part
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Little v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections 773 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Little v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections 773 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.S.W. 767 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.S.W. 767 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F. 752 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F. 752 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-11 (Minn.2003) (permitting review of “substantive questions of law” not raised in posttrial motions but properly raised during trial).
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
matter as the interests of justice so require.” Moreover, the scope of appellate review has been extended to also include “substantive questions of law that were properly raised during trial.”
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that new-trial motion is not 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 motion for new trial, appellate courts may review whether evi
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Alpha Real Estate v. Delta Dental Plan, Minn.
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kroiss 694 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kroiss 694 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Maki v. Hansen 694 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Maki v. Hansen 694 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 671 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 671 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
13, 2002), affd in part, rev’d in part, and remanded