Cited by

To preserve an evidentiary issue, a party must “mak[e a] timely objection.”

We will only review issues involving trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions “if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error.” (citation omitted).

(reaffirming “the general rule that in order to preserve for appellate review issues arising during the course of trial, counsel—in addition to taking the other requisite steps, including making timely objection—must move the [district] court for a new trial pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.

B. Scope of review: Generally, “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.”

“It has long been the general 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.” ; see also Minn. R. Civ.

d 200, 202 (Minn. 1986).

The bank relies on Sauter v. Wasemiller , which held that, in general, “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.” d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986).

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.”

Additionally, “[i]t has long been the general 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.” .

Minnesota has long followed “the general 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.” (emphasis added) (reaffirming the rule) .

Generally, “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.”

d’s failure to seek a new trial forfeited his appellate challenges to the HRO, wife relies on “the general rule that matters such as trial procedure, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion 4 for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error.” see also Minn. R. Civ.

Such a motion serves to either “eliminate the need for appellate review” or, “if appellate review is sought,” to “facilitate development of ‘critical aspects of the record.’” 4 (Minn. 2003) (discussing motion for new trial) (d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986)).

3 3 Appellant contends that Thiele only applies to “issues raised and decided during trial,”

In juvenile cases, appellate courts may only review evidentiary rulings “if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error.” (quoting Sauter v. Wasemiller , ) , rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

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.”

-02 (Minn. 1986) (using the phrases “occurring at trial,” “during the course of trial,” and “during trial” to depict issues that must first be addressed in a motion for a new trial before appellate review may be sought).

(declining to review ev identiary issues in a juvenile protection proceeding where appellant failed to br ing a motion for a new trial) (), review denied (Minn. Nov.

otion for a new trial.” County of Hennepin v. Bhakta , 9 see also Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minn ., (clarifying that only substantive questions of law properly raised and considered by district court are subject to appellate review without making a motion for new trial); (same).

See Sauter v. Wasemiller , (“[T]he general rule [is] 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.”); Frank v. Illinois Farmers Ins.

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.” (noting that a new -trial motion provides the district court with an opportunity to remedy errors or more fully develop the record).

In Sauter v. Wasemiller, the supreme court stated “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.”

(indicating that, generally, to preserve an evidentiary ruling for appeal, the party seeking review must make a motion for a new trial to the district court).

both in adult and juvenile proceedings, “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.” (declining to review evidentiary issues in a juvenile protection proceeding where appellant failed to bring a motion for new trial) ( 12 (Minn. 1986)), review denied (Minn. Nov.

The court of appeals concluded that orders on pretrial procedural motions in limine fall within the general rule of Sauter v. Wasemiller

(“[T]he general rule [is] 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.

4 -02 (Minn. 1986) (holding that evidentiary rulings not challenged as erroneous in a post-trial motion are not reviewable on appeal).

Requests for reconsideration—like new-trial motions—allow the court an “opportunity to correct its own errors without subjecting the parties and the appellate courts 5 to the time, expense, and inconvenience involved in an appeal.”

The supreme court has held that rule 103.04’s broad language does not change the longstanding general rule “that ma tters 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.” (citing Heise v. J.R. Clark, Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191, ).

Evidentiary rulings are subject to appellant review “only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error.”

“[T]he general rule [is] 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.”

Generally, in a civil case, “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.”

(declining to review evidentiary issues in a CHIPS determination where appellant failed to bring a motion for new trial) (d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986)), review denied (Minn. Nov.

Generally, evidentiary rulings “‘are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned error.’” (d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986)), review denied (Minn. Nov.