Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 654 N.W.2d 704.

54 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Robert Raymond Jackson (A26-0033) v. Kadi Beth Jackson (A25-1612) Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in the appellant’s principal brief and exceed the scope of the respondent’s brief “may be stricken from the reply brief.” Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., d 704, 707 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Matter of the Alleged Misuse of Access to DVS Data by Andrew Brackett Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Sylvester L. Zurn, individually and as beneficiary of the Sylvester L. Zurn Trust, dated December 30, 2002, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
28, 1990); see also Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (stating that “[i]f an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [the court of appeals] and may be stricken from the reply brief”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Matthew Ryan Foede v. Courtney Ann-Nicole Vaughn, County of Sherburne, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Jeffery Helmin v. Yuemin Xu Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (stating that “[i]f an argument is raised in a reply brief [that, among other things,] exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, [the argument] is not properly before [the court of appeals] and may be stricken from the reply brief”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Heidi Ann Collins v. Angel Marie Morgan Below, Brandon Lee St. George Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (applying this principal to new arguments in a reply brief), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), John Does Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), John Does Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [the court of appeals] and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee LLC dba Extended Stay America Suites-Eden Prairie-Valley View Road v. Jessie Lin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Anda, see Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., ( “If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [ the court of appeals] .
Sawmill Golf Club, Inc. v. Bruce A. Ramsden, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
3, and we may strike matter in a reply brief that exceeds this limitation, Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Derrick D. Turner v. MG McGrath, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3; Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (d 593, 596 (Minn. App. 1996)) (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”).
Mehdijaffer Allyakber Mulla v. University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (stating that “[i]f an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [the court of appeals]”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Kurt A. Amplatz Funding Trust Dated April 11, 2014, as Amended (A21-0034) and … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda, see Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. , (stating that arguments in reply brief that neither were raised in appellant’s principal brief nor respond to respondent’s brief “[are] not properly before [the court of appeals]”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Jomari E Alexander, Sr., Majestic Dreams Holding Co. v. Laurie Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda , (discussing the principle that issues not raised or argued in an appellant’s principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief); Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Molly Elizabeth Joyce v. Randy Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda, Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brie f, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [the court of appeals] .
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. R. and A. V., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 (noting that a reply brief is intended to respond to arguments the respondent raises in their brief and not to raise new issues); Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. , (describing how this court may strike an argument from a reply brief when a ppellant raises a new argument that was not raised in their main brief because the new argument is not properly before this court), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Marriage of: Carolynn Bitker v. David Bitker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
8 Inc., (“ If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an a ppellant’s main brief, and it exce eds the scope of the respondent’ s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Surer Muse v. Dakota County Community Development Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., ( (declining to consider issue raised but not decided by district court)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Joseph Hodapp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’ s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.” Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Marriage of: Janelle Rozalind Spah v. Steven Phillip Spah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
6 in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds th e scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.” Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.” Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business, et al 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business, et al 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Christopher C. Mogren v. Gregory Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher C. Mogren v. Gregory Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Wolf, Rohr, Gemberling & Allen, P. A v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wolf, Rohr, Gemberling & Allen, P. A v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.” Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Steven Daywitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Steven Daywitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4; Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, review denied (Minn. Feb.
Susanne M. Glasser v. Butler Liberty Law, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanne M. Glasser v. Butler Liberty Law, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
A14-1525 Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A14-1525 Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cf. Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [an appellate] court and may be stricken from the reply brief.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 (stating that a reply brief “must be confined to a new matter raised in the brief of respondent”); Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (concluding that arguments raised in a reply brief, and not in a principal brief, are not properly before us and may be stricken from the brief).4 Appellants argue that the district court erred in declining to apply marketability and lack-of-control discounts to determine the value of
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 803 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 803 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before this court and may be stricken from the reply brief.” Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc.
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration 770 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., ( (declining to reach issue raised to but not addressed by the district court)).
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (), review denied (Minn. Feb.