Tovsland v. Tovsland

4 Citing cases

  1. Custody of Child of Williams v. Carlson

    701 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that if "recognition of parentage was never properly vacated, it continues to have the force and effect of a judgment or order that [the father named on the ROP] is the adjudicated father"

    A district courts denial of a motion for new trial is not an abuse of discretion when the causes justifying a new trial, as listed in Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01, have not been shown to exist. See Tovsland v. Tovsland, 358 N.W.2d 700, 702 (Minn.App. 1984). Rule 59 establishes the grounds and procedures that determine when a new trial may be granted.

  2. In re Paternity, J.P.G. v. C.M.Q

    No. C7-01-1306 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2002)

    A district court's denial of a motion for new trial is not an abuse of discretion when the causes justifying a new trial, as listed in rule 59.01, have not been shown to exist. Toysland v. Toysland, 358 N.W.2d 700, 702 (Minn.App. 1984). Mother argues there was an irregularity in the proceedings because the district court forced the parties to complete the trial within a three-day period and she was consequently denied the opportunity to call certain witness.

  3. In re Marriage of Reed v. Reed

    No. C9-96-2571 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 1997)

    On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, the inquiry of the appellate court is whether "the refusal of it involved the violation of a clear legal right or a manifest abuse of judicial discretion." Tovslandv. Tovsland, 358 N.W.2d 700, 702 (Minn.App. 1984) (citation omitted). "There must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record before the reviewing court will find that the trial court abused its discretion."

  4. Schumm v. Schumm

    510 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a parent's mental or physical disability is relevant to a custody determination if that disability affects the best interests of the child

    The decision not to grant a new trial or allow additional evidence was within the trial court's discretion. See Tovsland v. Tovsland, 358 N.W.2d 700, 702 (Minn.App. 1984) (a trial court has substantial latitude in deciding whether to grant a new trial). DECISION