Cited by

(holding that appellant had not preserved a position when she “never contended” that position in the district court).

App. P. 110.01 (“The appellate record is limited to “documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any”); - 83 (“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside of the re cord on appeal , and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below”).

See Thiele v. Stich , (noting that appellat e courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court); (applying Thiele in a family -law appeal).

(stating that an appellate 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)).

denied (June 21, 2022) ( in context of ULJ proceeding).

(holding that appellate court s generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those issues presented to and considered by district court ).

A party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”

See Thiele v. Stich , (noting that, on appeal, an appellant ca nnot use a new theory to argue an issue that was presented to the district court); Vangsness v. Vangsness , - 78 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing this aspect of Thiele in a family law case).

The state argues that D’Cruz “forfeited the argument by failing to raise it below.” (stating that appellate courts do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal).

See Thiele v. Stich , (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and consi dered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)).

see Aljubailah v. James , (applying this aspect of Thiele in an OFP appeal).

(stating that appellate courts generally refuse to address matters not previously presented to and considered by the district court).

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

(applying Thiele in a certiorari appeal).

“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.” Thiele v. Stich , -83 (Minn. 1988).

(stating that an appellate court “must genera lly consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by th e trial court in deciding th e 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.” (quotation omitted); (applying Thiele to a certiorari appeal).

Michaels v. First USA Title , LLC, ; see Lewis- Miller v. Ross , (applying this aspect of Thiele in a family law appeal).

In review ing a district court’s decision, we “must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” Thiele v. Stich , (quotation omitted).

Thiele v. Stich , see also Fiduciary Found., (applying Thiele in an HRO appeal).

Thus, because of the limited record, we too decline to address appellants’ arguments about the definition of “shipment.” (“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.”).

(stating that reviewing court considers issues that were presented and considered by the district court).

(“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)).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

But an appellate court “cannot base its decision on matters outside the record on 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.”).

Thiele v. Stich , (stating that appellate courts generally address only those issues presented to and considered by the district court).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally consider only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court); see State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.

See Thiele v. Stich , (stating that reviewing court will generally consider only issues that were presented and considered below and that parties may not obtain review by raising a different theory on appeal); Peterson v. Ne.

(stating that this court generally does not consider arguments that were not presented to and considered by the district court).

He presented neither this argument nor supporting evidence of this assertion in the district court, we will not generally address arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

(“A specific objection is required to preserve the issue for appeal.”); see also Thiele v. Stich , (stating that the reviewing court generally only considers issues that were presented and considered by the lower court).

See Steward v. State , (“A reviewing court must 10 generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court.” () ).

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those issues previously presented to and considered by the district court, to include key facts supporting legal arguments).

The first two arguments were not raised to the district court and are thus forfeited, Thiele v. Stich , and the third was first ra ised in Bullock’s reply brief and is thus also forfeited, Moorhead Econ.