Cited by

15 Copeland, Buhl & Co., (concluding that the unemployment-appeal tribunal’s error in excluding exhibits was harmless because the exhibits were “not necessarily proof of the facts in issue” and the “decision would be affirmed even if the disputed documents were considered”); Ywswf, d at 530 (concluding that the

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal” or consider “matters not produced and received in evidence below”); (stating that appellate courts generally consider only issues presented to and

As a result, while we are mindful that “courts have used the power to look beyond the record for the purposes of determining mootness,” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., n.3 (Minn. 1977), we decline to do so here because the township has not carried its “burden of coming forward” with the extra-record evidence that it posits would show Hansen’s property is within a residential subdivision, Cardinal Chem.

v. Walser Auto Sales, Inc., Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., n.3 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing that “[s]ome courts have used the power to look beyond the record for the purposes of determining mootness or other post-trial procedural matters”) (other citations omitted)), petition for rev. filed (Minn. Apr.

App. P. 110.01; see Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered”); Fabio v. Bellomo , (stating that “[t]he court

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

v. Walser Auto Sales, Inc., Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., n.3 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing that “[s]ome courts have used the power to look beyond the record for the purposes of determining mootness or other post-trial procedural matters”); d 359, 364 n.1 (Minn. App. 2024); Brosdahl v. Minn. Mut.

“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., see also Eagan Econ.

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. , (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

See Minn. R. App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal); Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. , (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., d 581, 583 (Minn. 1997) (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

App. P. 110.01 (limiting the record on appeal to “[t]he documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings”); Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Minn. R. Civ.

App. P. 110.01 (stating that the record on appeal consists of “[t]he documents filed in the [district] court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any” ); Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. , (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

“Some courts have used the power to look beyond the record for the purposes of determining mootness or other post-trial procedural matters.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

(holding that appellate courts will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); see also Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd., n.3 (Minn. 1977) (stating “courts have used the power to look beyond the record for purposes of determining mootness” (citations omitted)).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”); (citing this aspect of Plowman).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court 14 may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”) .

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”); Minn. R. Civ.

Generally, this court “may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

See NY Properties, (refusing to consider documents attached to the complaint that were not offered or received into evidence during the hearing); see also Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”) .

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

Stageberg v. Stageberg , rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005); see Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 584 (Minn. 1977) (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered”).

Lastly, “production of record evidence is never allowed in an appellate court for the purpose of reversing a judgment.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. , d 581, 583 (Minn. 1977) (establishing principle that appellate courts will not base decisions on matters outside the record submitted on appe al).

“The cour t will strike documents included in a party’s brief that are not part of the appellate record.” aff’d, see Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. , (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on ma tters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered”).

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co. , , 583 (Minn. 1977) ("It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.").

App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases.”); see also Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”).

“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that m atters not produced and receive d in evidence below may not be considered.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

this matter and that their determi nations should guide our decision here.2 But there is nothing in the r ecord to support these assertion s. Appellate courts may not base their decisi ons “on matters outside the rec ord on appeal,” and any matter not produced and received into evidence at the district court or administrative level “may not be considered.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.