Cited by

(stating that “issues not raised or argued in appellant’s brief cannot be raised in a reply brief”).

(stating that “issues not raised or argued in appellant’s brief cannot be raised in a reply brief”); (declining to reach an issue raised for the first time on appeal of a motion to suppress and recognizing that “this court’s revie

“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (same) (quoting Kucera, d at 183).

These alleged errors arose in the context of the district court’s analysis of whether Rubin breached his duty of loyalty, which 6 “It is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (quotation omitted).

d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009) (considering an award of legal fees and stating that “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”) ().

d 672,679 (Minn. App. 2009) (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal”) (quoting Kucera d at 183).

“The district court has broad discretion in determining damages, and we do not reverse absent an abuse of discretion.”

(“It is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (quotation omitted)).

“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.” d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009).

(“A claim that is based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

A. Application of Minn. Stat. § 544.42 Appellant’s argument that no expert testimony would be needed for a jury to address a d 672, 677 (Minn. App. 2009) (addressing whether a party’s claims “require[d] expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of malpractice”).

(“[T]his court does not consider matters .

There is an exception to these requireme nts that applies when “the conduct complained of can be evaluated adequately by a jury in the absence of expert testimony.” (quoting Hill v. Okay Contr.

While he asks us to “review the totality of his case,” appellate courts do not determine issues of fact on appeal, and “the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it,” Loth v. Loth , (quotation omitted).

“It is not w ithin the province of appe llate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (quotation omitted).

(“Appellate courts have no more business finding facts af ter a court trial than after a jury trial.”); see also Fontaine v. Steen , (“It is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (quotation omitted)).

band’s 12 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that this court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal that were not raised in the district court and w ill not consider arguments not addressed in briefing); (“[T]his court does not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court or issues not raised or argued in an appellant’s principal brief .

Assocs., (“[A]n undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.”); (“It is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.” (internal quotation omitted)).

(stating that it is improper for an appellate court to reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility); (stating that an appellate court does not determine issues of fact on appeal); Novack v. Nw.

Fontaine v. Steen , d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009).

’” Fontaine v. Steen , (quoting Kucera v. Kucera , ) (alteration in original).

2 See Fontaine v. Steen , (stating that it is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal).

.”) ; Fontaine v. Steen , d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating that “[i]t is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal” (quoting Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, )).

Because we do not consider arguments raised after the appellant’s opening brief, see Fontaine v. Steen , , we do not address the later variation.

Such arguments are unavailing because “[i]t is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.” d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted).

The case cited by the court of appeals for that proposition, relied on Sorenson v. St.

(stating that “[i]t is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal” (quotation omitted)).

See Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254, Wright Elec., review denied (Minn. Dec.

“We neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” 9 (“It is not within the province of appellate courts to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).

Motor Freight v. O’Connor & Hannan, Schmitz, d at 741; -79 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., & n.4 (Minn. 2007).