Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130.

254 citing documents.

Bergh & Misson Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co. 565 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1997
Bergh & Misson Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co. 565 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1997
Redburn v. Ferlitto 565 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Redburn v. Ferlitto 565 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Di Ma Corp. v. City of St. Cloud 562 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Di Ma Corp. v. City of St. Cloud 562 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(error in admission or exclusion of evidence does not entitle party to new trial unless error is prejudicial).
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Berg v. Nelson 559 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Berg v. Nelson 559 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
*725 (Minn.1990) (stating that in actions at law, it is “firmly within the province of the jury as trier of fact to weigh and evaluate * * * expert opinions”).
Sorenson v. Visser 558 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sorenson v. Visser 558 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rer v. Jg 552 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
R.E.R. v. J.G. 552 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
R.E.R. v. J.G. 552 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1108, 1111 (N.D.Ill.1978) (applying Minnesota law and stating actions for breach of fiduciary duty are equitable in nature); (recognizing that “actions for a breach of trust lie in equity”).
Rer v. Jg 552 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1108, 1111 (N.D.Ill.1978) (applying Minnesota law and stating actions for breach of fiduciary duty are equitable in nature); (recognizing that "actions for a breach of trust lie in equity").
State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(reviewing evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion or error of law); (reviewing de novo a trial court’s application of the sentencing guidelines and affirming a sentencing departure, based in part on proper considerations, because the trial court
County of Anoka v. Maego, Inc. 541 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
County of Anoka v. Maego, Inc. 541 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
103(a) (error may not be predicated on a ruling admitting evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected); (providing for a new trial based on an erroneous evidentiary ruling only when the appellant can demonstrate prejudicial error); (denying a request for remand because the improper admission of testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), review d
TMG Life Insurance Co. v. County of Goodhue 540 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1995
TMG Life Insurance Co. v. County of Goodhue 540 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1995
State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(evidentiary rulings); Halla Nursery v. Baumann-Furrie & Co., (denial of motion for new trial); (jury instructions, abuse of discretion); Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, (j
Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The admission of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless “it is based on an erroneous view of the law or constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
State Bank of Young America v. Fabel 530 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State Bank of Young America v. Fabel 530 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
In Re Irwin 529 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re Irwin 529 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Frank v. Winter 528 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Frank v. Winter 528 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hampton Bank v. River City Yachts, Inc. 528 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hampton Bank v. River City Yachts, Inc. 528 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McGuire v. County of Scott 525 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
McGuire v. County of Scott 525 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sherman v. Marden 525 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sherman v. Marden 525 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
The burden of proving “[entitlement to a new trial on the grounds of improper evidentiary rulings rests upon the complaining party’s ability to demonstrate prejudicial error.”
K.L. v. Riverside Medical Center 524 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
K.L. v. Riverside Medical Center 524 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1994