- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
April 16, 2021Ronald Schutz Named 2021 Lawdragon Legend
-
April 14, 2021Robins Kaplan Secures Asylum, Relative Petition for Somali Journalist
-
April 12, 2021Robins Kaplan Executives Recognized by Twin Cities Business
-
April 28, 2021Creating the Audit Clause for Today’s Compliance Review
-
April 29, 2021International Intellectual Property: Challenges of Cross-Border Litigation
-
April 29, 2021Breakthrough Greater Boston Reflections on Resilience Virtual Gala
-
April 13, 2021US Antitrust Regulators Should Foster Climate Collaboration
-
April 2, 2021Prepare For Minn. Privacy Law To Catch Up To Calif., Wash.
-
Spring 2021Fiduciary or Foe? Revisiting Meinhard v. Salmon
-
April 16, 2021Financial Daily Dose 4.16.2021 | Top Story: Lower Jobless Claims and Big U.S. Retail Sales Power Dow Above 34,000
-
April 15, 2021Financial Daily Dose 4.15.2021 | Top Story: Big Banks Deliver Huge Q1 Profits, Economic Optimism Despite Ongoing Challenges
-
April 14, 2021Financial Daily Dose 4.14.2021 | Top Story: Crypto Exchange Coinbase Makes Public Debut on Nasdaq
In limine and beyond
Part 2
March 18, 2019
About a year and a half ago, this column addressed a decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals holding that an appellant was required to bring a motion for a new trial to preserve for appeal certain evidentiary issues raised in motions in limine even if the motions were heard and decided prior to trial. See Eric J. Magnuson & Ryan Marth, “In Limine and Beyond: More Procedural Cases,” Minn. Lawyer (Jan. 16, 2018). In County of Hennepin v. Bhakta, 907 N.W.2d 908 (Minn. App. 2017), the Court of Appeals held that pre-trial evidentiary rulings addressed to the discretion of the court must be assigned as error in a motion for a new trial in order to properly preserve those objections for appellate review. The ruling suggested that nearly all pretrial procedural issues, including discovery, would need to be included in a motion for a new trial, otherwise the issue would be waived for appeal.
Reprinted with permission of Minnesota Lawyer ©2019
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.