Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580.

2745 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: J. S. S v. G. I. S Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court.” Thiele v. Stich , (quotation omitted).
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elio Fumagalli v. Stacy Lynn Fumagalli Minn. Ct. App. 2017
City of Grant, by and through its City Clerk, Kim Points v. John D. Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jacquet Deon Munn v. Tom Roy, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Christine Diane Eyal v. Ephraim Eyal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Thiele v. Stich , (articulating rule that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to or considered by the district court).
In re the Marriage of: Joanna Brooks Benson, f/k/a Joanna Lee Brooks v. Carl Grant Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Carol Jansen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 891 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Carol Jansen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 891 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But we are bound to the district court record and may not base our decision “on matters outside the record on appeal.” -83 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Matter of: Verdell Fredrick Borth v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Carver … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Steven Merrill Hogy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Verdell Fredrick Borth v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Carver … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–83 (Minn. 1988) (holding appellate court “may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Steven Merrill Hogy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(explaining that a reviewing court generally must consider only those issues that were presented to and considered by the district court).
Fulisha Fulmer v. Meridian Behavioral Health, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fulisha Fulmer v. Meridian Behavioral Health, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Eley v. Southshore Investments, Inc., ( in deciding not to consider issues not raised before the ULJ).
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Linn, et al v. BCBSM, Inc. 890 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. James John Wieczorek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
James Linn, et al v. BCBSM, Inc. 890 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that this court does not generally address an issue not presented to and considered by the district court).
Anthony Browne v. M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
RK Midway, LLC, et al v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
County of Washington, Danielle Kathryn Richardson v. Brandon Christopher Fischer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
RK Midway, LLC, et al v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.” (emphasis added).
County of Washington, Danielle Kathryn Richardson v. Brandon Christopher Fischer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal to include only documents filed in the district court, exhibits, and transcripts); -83 (Minn. 1988) (explaining that an appellate court may generally not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below); (requiring appellate courts to strike documents from a party’s brief if they are not part of the record), aff’d
Anthony Browne v. M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark Randall v. Healtheast/St. John’s Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. M. P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. M. P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark Randall v. Healtheast/St. John’s Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Imholte Farms Partnership v. John Kerwin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Bret William Smith v. Timothy Patrick Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Kuzara, f/k/a Patricia A. McDermott v. John R. McDermott, Hennepin County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Thus, (“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)).
Imholte Farms Partnership v. John Kerwin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And if these obstacles were not enough, he faces two more: he has also not attempted to overcome the bar to appellate review resulting from the district court’s decision not to address the merits of the argument ( (holding that an appellate court generally considers only those issues presented to and considered by the district court)) or to overcome his failure to successfully introduce a copy of the alleged settlement agreement into the record (see id.
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Kuzara, f/k/a Patricia A. McDermott v. John R. McDermott, Hennepin County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
In the Matter of: Bret William Smith v. Timothy Patrick Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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); n.2 (Minn. 1979) (striking a document not included in district court record).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharon Hobbs v. The Polishing Touch, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-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.”).
Sharon Hobbs v. The Polishing Touch, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that generally an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to or considered by the district court); see also Hentges v. 4 Minn. Bd.