Cited by

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

T hey further agree that the supreme court’s applies, Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

“A re viewing 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).

This court generally considers only issues that “were presented and con sidered by the [district] court .” Thiele v. Stich , (quotation omitted).

See Thiele v. S tich, d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch.

“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] party may not ‘obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated belo w but under a different theory.’” ().

The nonmoving party must “provide the court with specific indications that there is a genuine issue of fact.” 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).

-83 (Minn. 198 8); see also Minn. R. Civ.

See Thiele v. Stich , (holding that appellate courts do not generally consider matters not argued to and considered by a district court).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that this court generally will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal).

See Thiele v. Stich , -83 (Minn. 1988) ; see also Minn. R. Civ.

Thiele v. Stich , d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

See Eley v. Southshore Invs ., Inc., d 216, 222 (Minn. App. 2014) (declining to consider merits of ineligibility determination where ULJ did not consider merits of determination) (d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court)).

(explaining that a reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record demonstrates have been presented and considered 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.” -83 (Minn. 1988).

6 indications that there is a genuine issue of fact.” (emphasis added).

See Thiele v. Stich , (declining to address issue not raised below); see also Minn. R. Civ.

“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)).

Rothfusz v. Brown , d 756, 762 (Minn. App. 2013) (), review denied (Minn. Sept.

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

(declining to review issues not raised to and considered by the district court).

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

Because we generally decline to consider questions "never litigated- below," we do not decide whether Rule 5220.0510, subp.

lants argue that “where, as here, the inquiry into parentage and granting of rights cannot destroy the integrity and privacy of an extant marital family, the use of irrebuttable presumptions is not defensible.” “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); (stating that an “appellant cannot now for the first time raise constitutional issues that were

ue that “where, as here, the inquiry into parentage and granting of rights cannot destroy the integrity and privacy of an extant marital family, the use of irrebuttable presumptions is not defensible.” “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); (stating that an “appellant cannot now for the first time raise constitutional issues that were not raise

(holding that appellate courts only consider issues presented to and decided by the district court).

(stating that generally an appellate court will not consider matters not argued and considered below); see also Hentges v. Minn. Bd.

Beaulieu v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., (); d 666, 671 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec.

We generally decline to address arguments that were not presented to the district court, Thiele v. Stich , including constitutional arguments.