Cited by

(providing that appellant courts do not address questions not presented to a nd considered by the district court).

“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.” Thiele v. Stich , (quotation omitted).

See Thiele v. Stich , Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

Th e (declining to address issues not raised to and addressed by district court).

Thiele v. 7 Stich, – 83 (Minn. 1988).

Despite its reference to elements of theories other than fraudulent concealment, NSP concluded by stating that GE’s nondisclosure “establishes fraudulent concealment.” A district court must base relief on issues raised i n the pleadings or litigated by consent, Folk, d at 267, and a party cannot raise a new theory on appeal

82 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts address only those 8 questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

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).

The administrative rules define a qualified employee as: We do not consider issues that were not presented below, and an argument is forfeited if the theory was “not litigated or addressed by the compensation judge and not appealed to the WCCA,”

We generally refuse to consider issues not raised in the distri ct court, and a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” 2 (Minn. 1988).

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

(holding that appellate courts need not consider issues not raised to and decided by the district court).

We 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).

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

See Thiele v. Stich , Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

see also Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minn. , (allowin g appellate review of the parol -evidence rule despite failure to file a posttrial motion for a new trial, when the issue was “properly raised and considered at the district cour

Generally, this court only reviews issues that were “presented to and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.”

We generally may not base our decision “on matters outside the record on appeal” or “consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” –83 (Minn. 1988).

“Nor may a party obtain review by raising the same general 5 issue litigated below but un der a different theory.”

582 (Minn. 1988) (providing that an appellate court will genera lly not address issues that were not presented to, consider ed by, and passed on by the dist rict 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).

(holding that an appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and co nsidered by the district court).5 4 We observe that Nova did not challenge the jury instructions or special-verdict form on appeal.

See Thiele v. Stich , (“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)); (rejecting attempt to raise new theory of negli

See Thiele v. Stich , (stating that an appellate court will generally not address issues that were not presented to and considered by the district court).

See Thiele v. Stich , d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that arguments that are not made to the district court are generally forfeited on appeal).

Generally, appellate courts do not consider matter s outside the record on appeal, -83 (Minn. 1988), and strike references to such matters, Merle’s Constr.

(“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)).

See Thiele v. Stich , (stating that appellate court s consider only those issues presented to and considered by the district court); (requiring “district court[] to demonstrate an awareness and application of the 25% presumption when the issue is appropriately

Because we do not consider matters not argued to and c onsidered by the district court, Thiele v. Stich , , Sullivan’s collateral-estoppel argument is forfeited.

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that a “reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record sho ws were presented and considered by the [district] court i n deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)).

An appellate court generally “may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”