Legal Memorandum: Grounds for exclusion of relevant evidence

Issue: Under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, what are the grounds for excluding relevant evidence?

Area of Law: Litigation & Procedure, Uncategorized
Keywords: ;   Evidence; Relevancy; Exclusion; Rule 403
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Cited Cases: 691 N.W.2d 474
Cited Statutes: None
Date: 12/01/2015

Rule 1-059(E) NMRA specifies the time limit for filing a motion to alter, amend or reconsider a final judgment.

E.        Motion to alter, amend, or reconsider a final judgment. A motion to alter, amend, or reconsider a final judgment shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after entry of the judgment.


N.M. Rule 1-059(E) (2015). 

In Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., the court held that a plain reading of Rule 1-059(E) does not provide for automatic denial after thirty days.

In making this determination, we look first to Rule 1-059 NMRA 2006 (prior to August 21, 2006 amendment), which governed Redi-Mix’s motion for reconsideration. "Rule 1-059 sets forth the procedures governing post-trial motions for new trial in civil cases." Martinez v. Friede, 2004-NMSC-006, ¶ 11, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596. In the early 2006 version of the rule, only Rule 1-059(D) provided for automatic denial: "If a motion for new trial is not granted within thirty (30) days from the date it is filed, the motion is automatically denied." Rule 1-059(E), on the other hand, states "[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than ten (10) days after entry of the judgment." A Rule 1-059(E) motion is distinct from a Rule 1-059(D) motion and not subject to the same requirements. Rule 1- 059(D) simply does not apply to Rule 1-059(E). If this Court wanted […]


Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)