Cited by

at [their] discretion, decide to hear such issues when the interests of justice require their consideration and addressing them would not work an unfair surprise on a party”); (stating that “constitutional rights can be asserted on appeal when the interests of justice require 7 A. The county satisfied the joint-preparation requirement.

See Tischendorf v. Tischendorf , State v. Sorenson

App. P. 103.04; (addressing constitutional issues in the interest of justice when the parties had adequate briefing time and the issues were “implied in the lower court”).

App. P. 103.04 (noting that appellate courts may address issues as justice requires ); (considering constitutional issues not addressed by district court when parties briefed the issues and issues implied in lower court).

We have considered arguments under this exception in cases where , among other things, “all parties have briefed the issues,” Tischendorf v. Tischendorf , , and where “[t]he parties agree[d] on the relevant facts and only dispute[d] .

for the proposition that an appellate court has the authority to review the conditions imposed in an order for parenting time.

“[F]ailure to make a timely appeal is a jurisdictional defect.”

1, 2); (explaining that district court has discretion to appoint GAL).

However, “constitutional rights can be asserted on appeal when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues, when the parties have had adequate time to brief such issues, and when such issues are implied in the lower court.”

We have applied this interests-of-justice exception to constitutional issues “when the parties have had adequate time to brief such issues, and when such issues are implied in the lower court.”

(recognizing that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal that is filed late).

v. Don-John Co., , 409 n. 2 (Minn.1982).

(in general, defendant who does not raise an issue in district court waives right to raise issue on appeal); (appellate court can consider constitutional issues not raised to district court when required in interest of justice, when parties had adequate briefing time, and when issues implied at trial).

Kenzie v. Dalco Corporation, 309 Minn. 495, 497 , Schaust v. Town Bd.

Tischendorf v. Tischendorf

Cf. Tischendorf v. Tischendorf (intervention motion untimely where brought only a few days prior to child’s scheduled departure for Germany); Omegon, d at 687 (finding prejudice where one party relied on a city’s issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to court’s order).

( (upholding trial judge’s requirement that a noncustodial parent post bond before taking a child overseas for extended visitation), cert.

(failure to timely appeal is a jurisdictional defect), cert.

(findings of a trial judge in a matter of such importance as the bond between father and son should not be lightly set aside), cert.

(approving requirement that noncustodial parent post bond and provide transportation for adult companion to secure return of child to custodial parent after foreign visits), cert.

( , 409 n. 2 (Minn.1982), cert.