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.

Disclaimer

Eric J. Magnuson

Partner

Chair, Appellate Practice
Pronouns: he/his

Related Publications

September 28, 2021
Briefly: Federal appeals: How much notice is enough?
Stephen Safranski and Geoffrey Kozen - Minnesota Lawyer
Summer 2021
IATL President's Letter on Judicial Security
Roman Silberfeld - The Robins Kaplan Quarterly: Tackling Tough Business Litigation Matters
August 26, 2021
Briefly: Motions for judicial notice in the 8th Circuit
Glenn Danas, Eric Magnuson, Stephen Safranski - Minnesota Lawyer
October 12, 2020
October 1, 2020
How The Music Industry Can Weather COVID-19
Carly Kessler, Lauren Birkenstock - Law360
Back to Top