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.
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.
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."
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