Cited by

“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.” 4 -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.” (quotation omitted) ).

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

d 251, 261 (Minn. 2016) (“Generally, we will not consider an issue not addressed below.”)

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

Doe 175 v. Columbia He ights School Dist., -43 (Minn. App. 2014).

We generally consider only issues that “were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).

See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., ( (declining to consider issue raised but not decided by district court)), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Review is not appropriate “even though the question was raised below, if it was not passed on by the trial court.”

See Thiele v. Stich , (stating that appellate courts do not consider matters not raised before and addressed by the district 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.” d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted).

As for Crowley’s new-theory argument, it is true that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” see, (stating that plaintiffs may not raise a new negligence theory on appeal); Sec.

See Thiele v. Stich , ( reviewing court will generally consider only those issues that record shows were presented and considered by district court in deciding matter before it); Minn. R. Civ.

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

(stating that a party may not "obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”).

“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 , –83 (Minn. 1 988) (“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.”).

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to demonstrate that “no genu ine issue of material fact exists.”

Thiele v. Stich , Doe 1 75 v. Columbia Heights School Dist.

see Rouland v. Thorson, 13 (holding that we only consider issues that the ALJ considered and decided).

Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988) (declining to address new issues raised for the first time on appeal).

(stating that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”).

A party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, but “when the moving party makes out a prima facie case, the burden of producing facts that raise a genuine issue shifts to the opposing party.”

reverse the district court’s order granting the Swansons’ motion for summary judgment, Isanti Pines asks us to “enter an Order granting [its] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.” We decline to do so because “[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.” d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

(holding that arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal).