Cited by

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that this court should consider “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court” and that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory” (quotation omitted)); (“The general rule .

See id.; (stating that “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below”).

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis

6 Relatedly, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” and we “generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.”

(stating that we generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); (stating that “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below”); Ganguli v. Univ.

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”

Generally speaking, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” (holding that an appellant who has not raised an issue in district court may forfeit the issue even if it was raised by an adverse party).

Further, generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” and we “generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).

(stating general rule “that litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below”).

(“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the .

And a party may not “obtain [appellate] review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” Id.; (quoting Thiele); (“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories .

-63 (Minn. 1957) (stating that “[t]he general rule .

(“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories .

–63 (Minn. 1957) (“The general rule .

See Annis v. Annis , (stating that litigants are bound on appeal by the theory or theories upon which the action was actually tried below); see also Thiele, d at 582.

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below,” and an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court

Annis v. 9 Annis, (“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”); (stating that an appellate court seldom considers matters not argued to and considered by t

(“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”).

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below, ” Annis v. Annis

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”

ty to appoint multiple deputy city clerks to its ballot board because Minnesota Statutes section 412.151 (2020) authorizes the appointment of a single “deputy clerk,” whose duties do not include serving on a ballot board.5 Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” and an appellate court generally will not consider the applicability of a statute unless the district court first address

On appeal, litigants are generally confined to the theory or theories “upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis , 262-63

Generally, “litigants are bound in this court by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” -20 (Minn. App. 2017) (d 256, 261 (Minn. 1957)).

Litigants are generally bound on appeal by the theory on which the action was actually tried below, Annis v. Annis , 1 (Minn. 1957), and an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argue d to and considered by the district court, Thiele v. Stich

Airlines, Inc., n.9 (Minn. 1997) ( declining to address untimely argument s); Annis v. Annis , (“litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous 10 or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below ”).

We decline to address this argument because “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” and an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.

by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below,” and an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”

(“[L]itigants are bound [ on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”); (holding that an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and cons

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was act ually tried below[,]” and an appellate court gener ally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theo ry or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”

And generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below .” 10 Affirmed.

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however 8 erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 263

Rather, “litigants are bound in this court by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 263, 84 N.W.

(explaining that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”); Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 262-63, 84 (stating that litigants are bound to their theories of the case on appeal).

See Annis v. Annis , 250 Minn. 256, 263, (“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”).

nts conceded below that “all parties have been ‘open’ with their occupation of their parcels of property.” The district court therefore concluded that “all parties agree that the possession of the dispute[d] parcel was open.” Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 262-63

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 262-63, and an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court.

By failing to raise the issue, Hauer cannot now argue it because “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 262-63