| A17-0404 |
Minn. |
2017-11-08 |
Denied
|
Zornes v. State
|
|
… acts to support a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. He labels some assertions “spoliation,” but they are actually additional arguments that law enforcement officials did not sufficiently investigate the case. The postconviction court- dete …
|
| No. A09-2223 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2010-10-19 |
Denied
|
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co.
|
|
… (2006). Appellants challenge (1) a negative-inference jury instruction based on spoliation; (2) the determination that the liability and apportionment of damages were governed by Minnesota law rather than federal maritime law; (3) the amoun …
|
| A09-2212, A09-2213, A09-2214, A09-2215 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2010-09-14 |
Denied
|
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
|
|
… 0 against BNSF. The district *783 court awarded sanctions on three grounds: (1) spoliation, discovery, and evidentiary abuses; (2) misrepresentations and false testimony; and (3) witness abuses and obstructing law enforcement. 15 Specifical …
|
| A07-0584, A07-0788 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2008-06-03 |
Denied
|
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
|
|
… tute the disk that had been sent to Atmore, and before At-more communicated his spoliation concerns to Kidwell. Not until those events did Kidwell develop a suspicion of a violation of a law or rule — the suspected violation that was commun …
|
| A04-760, A04-1956 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2005-08-16 |
Denied
|
Foust v. McFairland
|
|
… eted. Appellants moved to dismiss respondents’ negligence claims, based on this spoliation of evidence. Alternatively, appellants requested a mistrial, continuance, or adverse inference instruction. A few days later, Lanterman, testifying o …
|
| A03-737 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2004-08-10 |
Denied
|
State v. Heath
|
|
… on of the allegedly exculpatory evidence, and there is no evidence of bad-faith spoliation; (2) the evidence in the record sufficiently supports the convictions; and (3) the court’s conduct during trial was proper, we affirm the convictions …
|
| C2-01-1942 |
Minn. |
2003-01-30 |
Denied
|
State v. Larivee
|
|
… sample while he was in custody and, therefore, it could not be used because of spoliation. Id. at 1156. Neither the district court decision nor the Montana case upon which it relied adequately addresses the appropriate authority for decidi …
|
| C2-02-90 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
2002-09-10 |
Denied
|
Wajda v. Kingsbury
|
|
… ws. ISSUE Did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence? ANALYSIS Spoliation is the destruction of evidence. Federated, Mut. Ins. Co., v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434, …
|
| C4-96-2199 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
1997-07-08 |
Denied
|
Himes v. Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc.
|
|
… S 1. Exclusion of Expert Testimony and Report The decision on sanctions for the spoliation of evidence focuses on prejudice to the opposing party, even where the evidence was destroyed through “inadvertence or negligence” as opposed to will …
|
| C8-93-2546 |
Minn. Ct. App. |
1994-09-28 |
Denied
|
Patton v. Newmar Corp.
|
|
… es the district court have authority to sanction a party for the destruction or spoliation of evidence in the absence of a violation of a court order or a finding of bad faith? II. Did the district court abuse its discretion by completely e …
|
| C6-89-2301, C1-89-2254 |
Minn. |
1990-05-25 |
Denied
|
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc.
|
|
… ppellants for negligently or intentionally destroying this evidence under a new spoliation tort not yet recognized in Minnesota. In denying appellants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for summary judgment, the trial cour …
|
| cl-8012202 |
Minn. |
1891-08-24 |
Denied
|
Graham v. Burch
|
|
… the will itself should be destroyed, or bear some of the marks of defacement or spoliation, manifesting the intent to revoke. The act and intent must concur, and there must.be proof of both, though the intent may be inferred from the facts …
|
| cl-8011143 |
Minn. |
1889-05-24 |
Denied
|
Wilson v. Hayes
|
|
… ification or adoption, whichever it may be called. If the alteration was a mere spoliation by a third party, or if made by the holder by mistake or accident, or innocently and without fraudulent intent, so that it did not destroy the note, …
|