Cited by

-15 (Minn. App. 2005) (discussing factors for determining whether nonvested economic interests, such as an attorney’s contingent fee, are marital property or merely expectation), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 14 2005).

Although we will “not consider matters outside the record on appeal and will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs,” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005), we deny the County’s motion to strike as unnecessary because the statements that the County challenges are not material to our decision.

Although we will “not consider matters outside the record on appeal and will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs,” d 609, 613 (Minn. App. 2005), we deny Knife River’s motion to strike as unnecessary because the statements that Knife River challenges are not material to our decision.

App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal as “the documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings”); (stating that if a party includes references to matters outside the record, an appellate court “will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs”).

(stating that “[a]ppellate courts may not consider matters outside the record on appeal”).

We “may not consider matters outside the record on appeal.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

App. P. 110.01; -83 (Minn. 1988); rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

“Appellate courts may not consider matters outside the record on appeal and will stri ke references to such matters from the parties’ briefs.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

App. P. 11 0.01 (providing that the record on appeal shall constitute the documents filed in the district court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings); (“Appellate courts may not consider matters outside the record on appeal and will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs.”), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

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 eviden

Stageberg, v. Stageberg, review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

- 15 (Minn. App. 2005) (concluding that portion of contingent legal fee payments not yet received were marital) , review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005) ; Salstrom v. Salstrom , -51 (Minn. App. 1987) (concluding that portion of incentive stock options were marital); VanderLeest v. VanderLeest

review denied (July 19, 2005).

While review of the legal issues is de novo, this court “defers to the district court’s underlying findings of fact.” review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005) .

Moreover, the supreme court has concluded in attorney contingency-fee cases that fees for work done during a marriage for cases that have yet to be resolved are not too speculative to be property subject to valuation and division, even though “the attorney is not assured of earnin g anything for efforts expended .” review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

Stageberg v. Stageberg , review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

Stageberg v. Stageberg , (M inn.

(valuing the shares of a company at which husband remained the president); (valuing contingent fees on an attorney’s work in "progress on the valuation date), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

“Appellate courts may not consider matters outside the record on appeal and will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs.” review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

Co., n.3 (Minn. 1995), we “will strike references to [extra-record materials] from the parties’ briefs,” d 609, 613 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

The general rule is that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and we “will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs,” d 609, 613 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005), this court held that “the portion of a contingent fee for work in progress on the valuation date that is attributable to work done before the valuation date .

938 (1929))); , 613 n. 2 (Minn.App.2005) (applying Shelly Oil Co.), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

613 n. 2 (Minn.App.2005) (stating that “the language used in an opinion must be read in the light of the issues presented”) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

938 (1929))); , 613 n. 2 (Minn.App.2005) (applying Skelly Oil in a family-law case), review denied (Minn. Jul.

“Appellate courts may not consider matters outside the record on appeal and will strike references to such matters from the parties’ briefs.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).