Cited by

The di strict court concluded that this factor favored relocation, finding that mother’s j ob in Nevada would allow her to work fewer court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases.”); Thiele v. Stich , - 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.”).

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

“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.” Thiele v. Stich , (quotation omitted) ; see also N. Star Int’l Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. , (noting this court’s role as “an error-correcting court”).

See Thiele v. Stich , (stating that appellate courts will generally not consider matters not considered the district court).

See Thiele v. Stich , (holding that reviewing courts may only consider “issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court.”).

Pomush v. McGroarty , (rejecting a plaintiff’s attempt to raise a new theory of negligence on appeal).

(“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)).

testif y in court.” Appellant contends that “[t]he attorney for [respondent] approached, ques tioned, and harassed the witnesses for the Appellant about their upcoming testimony in the courtroom hallway.” “A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial c ourt in deciding the matter before it.”

d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988).

d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (holding appellate court must base its decision on evidence filed with the district court and found in the record on appeal); d 539, 549 (Minn. App. 1992) (denying a motion to strike a letter when it had been filed in district court and was a part of the appellate rec

(providing that appellate courts may consider issues presented to th e district court).

(holding appellate courts “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)).

First, “[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).

ara Heger, testified that numerous published studies indicate that there are potentially milli ons of bacteria and viruses present in 100 5 The MPCA argues that this issue regard ing the proper characterization of the government’s

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

Dist., ISD No. 13 , (citing Thiele v. Stich , ); see also Thayer v. Am.

-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 receive d in evidence below.”).

“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).

(“[A] party [may not] obtain review by ra ising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”).

(expl aining that a party may not “rais[e] the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”).

And a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal, “[n]or may a party obtain 14 review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” d 288, 293 (Minn. 2017).

Cf. Antonson v. Ekvall , (holding claim not before district court when “the pleadings were general enough to have possibly made out a claim on that theory, [but] there was no language in the complaint that would alert anyone to a claim” based on that theory).

(“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)).

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

(declining to address a constit utional issue raised for the first time on appeal from a termination of parental rights).

see also Dean v. City of Winona , d 1, 8 (Minn. 2015).

Thiele v. Stich , (stating that an appellate court will not consider issues not raised to the district court).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (declining to consider issue not previously presented below).1 Affirmed.

See Thiele v. Stich , (st ating that a “reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court”).

See Thiele v. Stich , (“[Appellate courts] will not consider the applicability of [a legal theory] on appeal, even though the question was raised below, if it was not [co nsidered] by the [district] court.” (quotation omitted)).

App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal); - 83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that the appellate court may not consider matters not received in evidence below).

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

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