| a250656 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2025-11-24 |
Affirmed
|
Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc.
|
|
… shion a jury instruction directing an adverse inference on Holiday’s purported spoliation of evidence. Our decision affirming summary judgment ends the possibility of a jury trial and renders moot any issue about jury instructions. He al …
|
| A16-390 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2017-01-09 |
Affirmed
|
Buckingham Trucking, Inc. v. Excel Manufacturing, Inc., and Excel Manufacturing, Inc., Th…
|
|
… L), and erred in failing to impose sanctions for respondent’s alleged evidence spoliation. We affirm. FACTS Appellant Excel Manufacturing, Inc., manufactures industrial recycling equi …
|
| A15-1864 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2016-08-15 |
Affirmed
|
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and…
|
|
… puter. The district court conducted a hearing to address Trude’s laptop spoliation and its ongoing failure to disclose the Ziegler equipment’s location. JBI and Trude claimed that JBI did not want to reveal the equipment’s locatio …
|
| A15-765 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2016-02-01 |
Affirmed
|
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson
|
|
… salke, 801 N.W.2d 82, 111 (Minn. 2011) (stating that failure to file motion on spoliation of evidence fell “squarely within tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel” (quotation omitted)). Nelson’s claim that he …
|
| A15-236 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2015-12-07 |
Affirmed
|
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, …
|
|
… mary judgment dismissing their negligence claims and denying their request for spoliation sanctions, arguing that respondent breached its heightened duty of care to make its premises reasonably safe and that spoliation sanctions are warr …
|
| A15-173 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2015-10-05 |
Affirmed
|
Tiffany Montgomery, Relator v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC, Department of Employment an…
|
|
… re the ULJ on remand to impose an adverse- inference sanction upon AT&T for its spoliation of the surveillance video. But relator’s spoliation claim is being raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, the claim is not properly befo …
|
| A14-1117 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2015-03-23 |
Affirmed
|
Ryan James Dekok v. Commissioner of Public Safety
|
|
… ant asserts he requested an additional test or the officer’s response, under a spoliation-of-evidence theory. We affirm. FACTS On February 1, 2014, a deputy was traveling eastbound on Hig …
|
| A06-627 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2007-01-16 |
Affirmed
|
Phillips v. State
|
|
… erest to violate his due process rights, and by not sanctioning the college for spoliation of evidence. Because Phillips had only a unilateral, subjective expectation of future employment at the college and the college did not publicize its …
|
| 38,162 |
Minn. |
1962-01-05 |
Affirmed
|
Kmetz v. Johnson
|
|
… mmenting on this instruction, we said: “* * * The presumption, arising from the spoliation or suppression of evidence, that it would, if produced, be unfavorable to the party destroying or suppressing it, obtains with most force to the case …
|
| No. 24,366. |
Minn. |
1925-05-15 |
Affirmed
|
Knott v. Hawley
|
|
… e evidence for the claim. *241 A party’s suppression of evidential facts or his spoliation of documentary evidence is an unfavorable circumstance against his cause. Wigmore, Ev. (2d ed.) §§ 278, 2524. This is a matter of common logic and re …
|
| Nos. 16,264—(46.) |
Minn. |
1909-11-05 |
Affirmed.
|
Spreng v. Juni
|
|
… change in a written contract by a stranger thereto is not an alteration, but a spoliation, which does not avoid it, and the obligee may enforce it in its original form, as if no change had been made. If the change is made by an agent havin …
|
| Nos. 10106-(55) |
Minn. |
1896-05-08 |
Affirmed.
|
State ex rel. Childs v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n
|
|
… d thereby vindicate the honor and sovereignty of the state, and prevent further spoliation of its citizens, unless, forsooth, a subordinate and appointive officer shall *355 first file with him a statement to the effect that such corporatio …
|
| Nos. 9510, 9511, 9512—(108, 109, 110) |
Minn. |
1895-06-28 |
Affirmed.
|
Minneapolis Western Railway Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
|
|
… ably necessary to protect the property in his hands from destruction, waste, or spoliation, and that only in extraordinary cases, and where there is an irresistible necessity, should he continue such business for a long period of time. (4) …
|