Cited by

d procedural-due-process argument raised for first time in supreme court because appellant pursued different due-process theory in lower courts); -43 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that appellant forfeited argument that defendant violated section 325F.69 because plaintiff argued in district court only that defendant violated section 325F.60); (concluding that appellant forfeited certain negligence theories because plaintiff requested instruction on different negligence theory at trial).

(holding that a party cannot raise a new negligence theory on appeal); Sec.

And a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” (holding that plaintiffs could not raise a new negligence theory of recovery on appeal).

(d 91, 93 (Minn. 1979) (“Nor may a party obtai n review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”)).

Pomush v. McGroarty , (rejecting a plaintiff’s attempt to raise a new theory of negligence on appeal).

See Thiele v. Stich , (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (rejecting attempt to raise new theory of negligence on appeal).

As for Crowley’s new-theory argument, it is true that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” see, (stating that plaintiffs may not raise a new negligence theory on appeal); Sec.

See Thiele, d at 582; (determining that an appellant cannot raise new negligence theories on appeal).

(); see also Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn.2007) (stating that appellants may “refine” arguments previously made to district court).

( (holding appellant cannot raise new theory of recovery on appeal); Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564 , (holding that a party cannot shift its position on appeal)).

Advisers, Inc., (recognizing appellate courts should review only those issues presented to and considered by trial court); (forbidding plaintiffs from raising new theory of recovery on appeal).

Gillen v. Commissioner of Taxation, 305 Minn. 525 , John W. Thomas Co. v. Carlson-LaVine, Inc., 291 Minn. 29 , State v. Adams, 251 Minn. 521 , , cert.

(cannot raise new negligence theory on appeal); Security Bank of Pine Island v. Holst, 298 Minn. 563, 564 , (elementary that party cannot shift his position on appeal).

(Scott, J., dissenting) (citing Wolle v. Jorgenson, 256 Minn. 462 , ).