Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200.

169 citing documents.

Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Madina Ula v. Bertil Eugene Gunnarson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Madina Ula v. Bertil Eugene Gunnarson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “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 200, 201 (Minn. 1986).
In re the Guardianship of O'Brien 847 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Guardianship of O'Brien 847 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
at 310 ( and Tyroll v. Private Label Chems., Inc., ).
Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin 801 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2011
Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin 801 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2011
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).
American Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis 802 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
American Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis 802 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
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
The Minnesota 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).
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
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
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.W. 727 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.W. 727 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Because appellant did not make these objections to Reese’s testimony to the district court
Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate, 2002 WL 1840897 , at *4 ().
In Re Estate of Rock 612 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re Estate of Rock 612 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-02 (Minn.1986) (ruling new-trial motion required to preserve for appellate review issues arising at trial); (stating error first argued on appeal and not basis of new-trial motion or otherwise presented to trial court may not be considered on appeal), review
State v. Gebremariam 590 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1999
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 582 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1998
Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. County of Hennepin 576 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1998
Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. County of Hennepin 576 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1998
1 Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc., ().
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Nugent v. Kerr 543 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Nugent v. Kerr 543 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(to preserve issues for review, counsel must make timely objections and move for new trial).
Hagel v. Schoenbauer 532 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hagel v. Schoenbauer 532 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
the supreme court reaffirmed the general 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.
In Re Irwin 529 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re Irwin 529 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of S.R.A. 527 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of S.R.A. 527 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
A post-trial motion for a new trial raising individual errors allegedly occurring at trial “is a prerequisite to appellate review of those errors.”
Matter of Dn 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In re the Welfare of D.N. 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Matter of Dn 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
the supreme court held that "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 as error."
In re the Welfare of D.N. 523 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
the supreme court held that “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 as error.” This rule applies equally in juvenile eases.
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994