Laserfiche WebLink
judgment without making findings on their asserted defenses. The <br />appellant in Metro appealed from the judgment and from denial f <br />its motion for amended conclusions. The appellant in Rocket' <br />appealed from denial of a motion for new trial. The appeals <br />courts in both cases affirmed on the bases that the failure to <br />make findings could not be raised first on appeal and that the <br />findings and evidence otherwise supported the judgment. <br />Neither the failure to move for a new trial nor the failure <br />to move for amended findings prevent the appellate court from <br />determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the <br />findings. Cincinatti Time Recorder Co. v. Loe, 188 N.W. 1011 <br />(1922); Metro Federal, 356 N.W.2d 415; Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.02. <br />As to the instant case, the city should bring a motion for <br />amended findings or new trial if it contends that the court erred <br />in some aspect of trial procedure or evidence or if the court <br />failed to make findings on matters critical to the city's case. <br />Later review is limited to the errors asserted in the motion <br />Papers, so it is important to include every alleged error in the <br />notice of motion, if one is made. <br />References: Magnuson, Herr & Haydock, Minnesota Practice, <br />vol. 3 (2d. Ed. 1985), S 103.14 and annotations. <br />2307me01.g48 <br />1® Dunnell Minnesota Digest (3d ed. 1983) <br />Appeal and Error SS 5.00h, 5.01 <br />2 <br />