Cited by

“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).

“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [decision-maker] in deciding the matter before it.” Thiele v. Stich , (quotation omitted); (applying forfeiture-by-failure-to-raise analysis to the certiorari-appeal context).

“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).

(“[A] party 10 [may not] obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”) The fact that RCL did mention appearance of bias in its post-trial written argument, when Rochester and FT had no opportunity to respond to it, is further analogous to RCL’

Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

See Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988).

But “[a]n 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 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.” 12 (quotation omitted).

“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and recei ved in evidence below.” Thiele v. Stich , d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988).

See Thiele v. Stich, 8 (stating that an issue generally has to be presented to the district court in order for an appellate court to consider it).

See Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that arguments and theories not raised in the trial court are not reviewable on appeal).

Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that appellate courts review "only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it").

“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 o mitted).

See Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988).

(stating that appellate review is limited to issues raised and addressed below).

See State v. Morse , - 02 (Minn. 2016) (citing Thiele v. Stich , ).

See Thiele v. Stich, 15 (“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)).

We are not persuaded by realtor’s argument, -83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on ma tters outside the record on a ppeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”), and therefore defer to the ULJ’s findings as supported by the record.

Thiele v. Stich , –83 (Minn. 1988).

See Thiele v. Stich , (stating that appellate courts generally do not consider new theories on appeal).

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

T his court generally will not consider issues that were not “presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.”

Thiele v. Stich , (stating that an appellate court will “consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)).

Because parties may not raise "the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory," Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988), we do not address whether the circumstances here violated procedural due process.

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

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

Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988).

To the extent that Smith suggests this court should seal the record containing Crapser’s HRO petition, this court is an error-correcting court and cannot consider such action for the first time on appea l. See Thiele v. Stich , (“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)).

(noting that appellate courts generally consider only those issues presented and considered by the district court); Thompson v. Thompson , (applying Thiele in declining to reach issue raised for first time on appeal of the denial of a motion to reopen judgmen

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

4 Under 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).

“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).

“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).