Cited by

(stating appellate courts do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal).

(stating that arguments not raised in the proceedings below will not be considered on appeal).

7 (2022) (requiring this court to review the ULJ’s eligibility decision upon timely writ of certiorari); ( and stating that an issue not presented to the ULJ for consideration is “not appropriately before this court”), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2022).

Moreover, a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” ().

Appellate courts generally do not consider an issue not raised before the district court, and a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a differe nt theory.”

- 83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court) ; (applying this aspect of Thiele in a family law appeal).

-83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”).

Generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below,” and an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); -61 (Minn. 2000) (applying this aspect of Thiele in child-custody matter).

(stating appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); see also Minn. R. Civ.

However, appellant did not make this argument below, ( stating that “[a] reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)).

Appellants nevertheless argue on appeal that “there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [they] are entitled to an easement by necessity.” Like the district court

(holding that a reviewing court may only consider issues that were presented and considered by the district court).

(stating that when direct appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds, a postconviction petitioner may raise substantive issues in a postconviction appeal), rev. denied (Minn. July 25, 2000); (declining to consider postconviction argument not raised in district court); d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (explaining that reviewing court must generally consider only issues presented and considered below).

(holding that a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”) ; (quoting this aspect of Thiele).

-83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that “[a]n appellate court may not 18 base its decision on matters outside of the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below”); Anothen, d at 72 (noting a motion to modify the appellate record is limited to matters omitted by er

Matthews, 2021 WL 4428919, at *5; (noting that appellate courts generally do not consider issues that were not presented and considered by the district court).

(stating that appellate courts generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal).

(); (concluding that party who relied on rule 60.02(a), (f) in the district court could not present rule 60.02(c) argument for first time on appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

5 (applying Thiele in a custody dispute).

App. P. 110.01 (stating that the appellate record consists of “[t]he documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings”); -83 (Minn. 1988) (holding that we generally do not consider matters not produced and received in the district court.); see In re Welfare of Child of J.P.– S., (applying this aspect of Thiele in a child-protection- related appeal).

(explaining that appellate courts “generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)).

“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.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

( to an issue on certiorari review).

Annis v. 9 Annis, (“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.”); (stating that an appellate court seldom considers matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

must demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact exists.” Anderson, d at 191 (“The moving party has the burden of showing an absence of factual issues before summary judgment can be granted.”).

103(a)(1) (stating the general requirement of timely objection or motion to strike to preserve an evidentiary issue for review); see also Thiele v. Stich , (concluding that issues not argued to and considered by the district court are forfeited).

(stating that only those issues presented and considered by district court may be considered on appeal).

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to , and considered by, the district court).” We may also exercise our discretion to review the construction of the HRO statute in the interest of justice.

Not only is their argument forfeited, but we need not address it 5 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits a state’s ability to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants.

(quotation omitted); see also Constans v. Comm’r of Pub.

(stating that arguments not raised in the proceedings below will not be considered on appeal).