Cited by

Cloverdale Foods of Minn.

1(a)(2), 4(a) (2024); see also Cloverdale Foods on Minn.

5 contracts is that rescission of a contract is justified only by a material breach or substantial failure in performance.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn., d 46, 49 (Minn. App. 1998).

“The [district] court has discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and its decision will not be reversed unless it was an abuse of discretion or based on an erroneous view of the law.”

mean[s] a contract governing the landlord-tenant relationship.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn., (quotation omitted).

“[T]he general rule applicable to contracts is that rescission of a contract is justified only by a material breach or substantial failure in performance,” which is “consistent with the principle that forfeitures are disfavored.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn.

2 (providing for retaliation defense in eviction action “following the alleged termination of a tenancy by notice to quit”); Cloverdale Foods of Minn., Inc. v. Pioneer Snacks , (concluding that the statutory retaliatory-eviction defense does not apply to eviction based on breach of lease).

Cloverdale Foods of Minn., (citing Cut Price Super M kts.

Cf. 6 Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Pioneer Snacks , (quoting Mac-Du Props .

“An evidentiary error is prejudicial if the error might reasonably have changed the result of the trial.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn., Inc. v. Pioneer Snacks

Similarly, “rescission of a contract is justified only by a material breach or substantial failure in performance.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn., d 46, 49 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. , ) ; see also Busch v. Model Corp. , 708 N.W.

as a witness, the district court’s decision to exclude him was not prejudicial error.1 Cloverdale Foods of Minn., (“An evidentiary error is prejudicial if the error might reasonably have ch anged the result of the trial.”).

Cloverdale Foods of Minn., - 50 (Minn. App. 1998).

Cloverdale Foods of Minn., .

We essentially answered this argument in Cloverdale Foods of Minn. v. Pioneer Snacks , interpreting nearly identical language in an earlier version of the statute.

Cloverdale Foods of Minn.

Cloverdale Foods of Minn., Inc. v. Pioneer Snacks

Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota

The statutory retaliatory eviction defense applies “to an action for recovery of premises following the alleged termination of a tenancy by notice to quit.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn.

Cloverdale Foods of Minn.

See Cloverdale Foods of Minn., -50 (Minn.App.1998) (citing Juvland v. Plaisance, 255 Minn. 262, 269-70 , ).

See Cloverdale Foods of Minn., (stating that party is not entitled to *205 reversal of judgment based on erroneous evidentiary ruling unless party demonstrates prejudice).

“A party is not entitled to reversal of a judgment based on an erroneous evi-dentiary ruling unless the party demonstrates that the error was prejudicial.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn., (citation omitted).

See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., -26 (Minn.1983) (applying standard to exclusion of evidence); Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, -52 (Minn.App.1998) (applying standard to admission of evidence).

“An evidentiary error is prejudicial if the error might reasonably have changed the result of the trial.” Cloverdale Foods of Minn., (citations omitted).

See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , (citations omitted) (error in instructing jury warrants new trial if it “ ‘destroy[s] the substantial correctness of the charge as a wthole,’ cause[s] a miscar *916 riage of justice, or result[s] in substantial prejudice.”); Cloverdale Foods of Minn., -52 (Minn.App.1998) (reversing and remanding for new trial where evidentiary rulings were inconsistent with established law resulting in prejudicial error).