Cited by

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

169 citing documents.

Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
This court has consistently held, 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.” This rule applies whether trial is to the court or a jury.
Hackett v. State, Department of Natural Resources 502 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hackett v. State, Department of Natural Resources 502 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The 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.”
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Haas Livestock Selling Agency, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Haas Livestock Selling Agency, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schiltz v. City of Duluth 449 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1990
Schiltz v. City of Duluth 449 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1990
E.g., Sau *441 -02 (Minn.1986).
Waldner v. Peterson 447 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Waldner v. Peterson 447 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Jost 437 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Jost 437 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Estate of Hartz v. Nelson 437 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Estate of Hartz v. Nelson 437 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, 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.” (citation omitted).
Schiltz v. City of Duluth 435 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schiltz v. City of Duluth 435 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Amatuzio v. Amatuzio 431 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Amatuzio v. Amatuzio 431 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
see also Schaust v. Town Board of Hollywood Township, 295 Minn. 571, 572
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court laid out the general rule: [1]n order to preserve for appellate review issues arising during the course of trial, counsel — in addition to taking the other requisite steps, including making a timely objection — must move the trial court for a new trial pursuant to Minn.R.
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(failure to address issue in post-trial motion precludes appellate review).
Christle v. Marberg 421 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Christle v. Marberg 421 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 395 N.W.
Stealy v. Continental Western Insurance Co. 417 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stealy v. Continental Western Insurance Co. 417 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pawelk v. Camden Township 415 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pawelk v. Camden Township 415 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Dorweiler v. Dorweiler 413 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Dorweiler v. Dorweiler 413 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Crown Holding Corp. v. Larson 410 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Crown Holding Corp. v. Larson 410 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sauter v, Wasemiller, Cogswell v, Eichenberger
Sparta Sportsfabrikk v. NorTur, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sparta Sportsfabrikk v. NorTur, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knutson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knutson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A motion for a new trial is generally required to preserve for appellate review issues arising during the course of the trial, and an appeal may be taken from the denial of a motion for a new trial in those cases.
DeMarais v. North Star Mutual Insurance Co. 405 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thistlethwaite v. Grover 405 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thistlethwaite v. Grover 405 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
aff' d, “[w]e will not review errors occurring at trial that are not the subject of a motion for a new trial.” Id.