Cited by

(stating that appellate courts generally do not address matters not previously presented to and considered by the district court); see also Beaulieu v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs.

Relatedly, this court “must generally consider only those 4 issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” Thiele v. Stich , (quotati on omitted).

Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

(district court determines whether a party has stated a claim for modification of custody by examining the “moving party’s affidavits.”); (stating that, generally, appella te courts consider only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

(stating matters that were not argued to and considered by the district court will not be considered on appeal); (applying Thiele in a certiorari appeal).

(“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)).

7 review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”

2 As an initial matter, we observe that wife’s due-process challenge is arguably not properly before us. “A reviewing court must generally consider only those i ssues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [dis trict] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that this court may only consider issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the district court, and a party may not obtain review by raising the same general issue under a different theory).

“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 ).

(applying principle to criminal cases).

(d 91, 93 (Minn. 1979) (“Nor may a party obtai n review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”)).

82 (Minn. 1988); Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

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

cf. Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , (permitting argument that was not new but “ refined 3 The district court also declared State Farm the prevailing party .

8 (“ The record on appeal consists of the documents filed in the district court, the offered exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any .”); Thiele v. Stich , -83 (Mi nn.

See Thiele v. Stich , (explaining that appellate courts generally will not consid er matters not argued to and considered by the district court); Grigsby v. Grigsby , (observing that arguments submitted without legal authority are forfeited).

We do not address theories that were not presented to and considered by the district court, and so we decline to address this argument.

“A reviewing court mus t generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court.” (internal quotation marks omitted ).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

see also Leppink v. Water Gremlin, Co., -02 (Minn. App. 2020).4 3 Alternatively, appellants argue that they should be allowed to intervene as a matter of right because a “sound reason exists.” See 35A C.J.S.

See Thiele v. Stich , (explaining that parties cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”).

And although we typically do not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, our consideration of issues on undisputed facts is proper if there is no advantage or disadvantage to the parties ba sed on the lack of a determination below, see Watson v. United Servs.

A party cannot raise a new issue on appeal, “[n]or may a party obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”

Banking, a Div. of Norwest Funding, Inc., (citing Lundgren v. Eustermann , and Thiele v. Stich , 11 ), aff’d in part, rev ’d in part