Cited by

(stating that appellate courts consider only issues “presented [to] and considered by the [district] court” (quotation omitted)).

(appellate courts may consider only issues presented to and considered by the district court).

(stating reviewing courts generally consider only issues presented and considered by district court).

App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases.”); -83 (Minn. 1988) (stating appellate courts “may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”).

Rickmyer argues that the city’s footcandle calculations were inaccurate and impossible because they were 0.0, but, as respondents observe, (M inn.

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

-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.”).

(explaining that appellate courts “must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)); see also Dieseth v. Calder Mfg.

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

(stating that appellate courts generally do not consider issues not raised or decided during district court proceedings).

-83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its 24 C. Cumulative Potential Effects As a final matter, MCEA contends that the record lacks a sufficient explanation for the city’s determination that there will be no cumulative potential effects and that it instead relied on “bare assertions” on that iss

(stating that an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); Peterson v. Ne.

But we generally do not consider issues that were not presented to and decided by the district court, , and Dropps presents the issue 7 for the first time in his reply brief on appeal, never having raised it in the district court .

5 By contrast, Abdi conceded in district court that the arrest warrant was “a critical intervening factor that sufficiently attenuates the link between the unlawful [pat-frisk] and discovery of the ID card and drugs.” (stating that, generally, a party may not shift theories on 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)).

And she asks this court to set aside longstanding precedent holding that “[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).

(concluding that issues “lacking in supportive arguments and/or legal authority” are deemed forfeited unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)); (noting that appellate courts generally consider only issues presented to, considered by, and decided by the district court).5 4 Crumble argues the issue as if our review were de novo.

(“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)).

Appellate courts do not base decisions “on matters outside the record on appeal and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” - 83 (Minn. 1988).

Even in a summary-judgment appeal, we “must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).

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

- 83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts will not consider matters not argued and not considered by the district court).

15, 2002); (“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)); (“Because the distric

As an initial matter, it appears that t his argument may not properly be before us because it was not raised in father’s submissions to the district court, the district court did not mention it in the order, (providing that issues generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

26, 2017); n.5 (Minn. App. 2023) ().

(applying this aspect of Thiele to family law case), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

(stating that, generally, appellate courts review only issues considered by the district court).

6 Relatedly, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” and we “generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.”

(applying this aspect of Thiele to family law case), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

d 418, 422 (Minn. App. 2015).

(“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and 8 We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Ashley’s civil-conspiracy claim against respondents as it is not supported by an underlying tort.

“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.” - 83 (Minn. 1988).

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

(stating that appellate review is limited to issues presented to and considered by the district court).

1 d 152, 161 n.2 (Minn. App. 2024) (“As a general rule, an appellate court will consider and resolve ‘only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.’” ()).

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

-83 (Minn. 1988) (providing that we may consider “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it”).

Thus, (setting out principle that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

(“ A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); see also Wesser v. State Farm Fire & Cas.