Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, a reviewing court must consider “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a parenting schedule because, while the schedule was clear, the district court failed to articulate its rationale for that schedule); In re Salah, 26 (remanding a custody dispute because the district court “failed to adequately explain its application of [the relevant law]”); see generally, (stating that for a question to be properly before an appellate court, that question must have been previously presented to and considered by the district court).
Lenny N. Anderson v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Maria F. Olson, et al v. James Scott Kent, et al. Defendants, Peoples National Bank of Mora Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cheri Glassick v. Wells Federal Bank, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Northwest Title Agency, Inc., Tim Breuer, Manufacturers Bank … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lenny N. Anderson v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Maria F. Olson, et al v. James Scott Kent, et al. Defendants, Peoples National Bank of Mora Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Heidi B. Moon v. Roderick H. Moon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“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 also Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1, 11, (“[A] party cannot avail himself o
Cheri Glassick v. Wells Federal Bank, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Northwest Title Agency, Inc., Tim Breuer, Manufacturers Bank … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
By failing to raise the issue, Hauer cannot now argue it because “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below.” Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 262-63
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(declining to consider issues that were not presented to or considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Ashley Danielle Martin, individually and o/b/o M. M. F. and M. B. F v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that objections not argued to and considered by the district court are waived).
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P.A., Nina Mattson 889 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P.A., Nina Mattson 889 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
“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.’ ” (quoting Thayer v. Am.
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” -83 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Trust Agreement of Don D. Henyan Created Under Agreement Dated May 1, 2006, as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Trust Agreement of Don D. Henyan Created Under Agreement Dated May 1, 2006, as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
Indira Y. Junghare v. The Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A-1 Construction, Inc. v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arden Clarence Hoff v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Indira Y. Junghare v. The Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arden Clarence Hoff v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“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)).
A-1 Construction, Inc. v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); Peterson v. Ne.
In Re the Custody of N.O.K.; Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Nicolaison v. Kevin Moser, Director of Minnesota Sex Offender Program Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bradley Mordini v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A v. Jamison Robert Arend Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Custody of N.O.K.; Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bradley Mordini v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A v. Jamison Robert Arend Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that generally, an appellate court will not address issues that were not raised before and considered by the district court).
Wayne Nicolaison v. Kevin Moser, Director of Minnesota Sex Offender Program Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a reviewing court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Burt Gregory Alan Stover Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It overlooks the often-repeated D-3 rule, “Nor may a party obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” (“[W]e conclude that the court of appeals erred when it raised the constitutionality of the right-turn statute sua sponte and then decided the issue.”).
State of Minnesota v. Burt Gregory Alan Stover Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(precluding review of issues raised for the first time on appeal).
Jeffrey Beckman, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Robert A. Tenold, et al., Green Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Beckman, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Robert A. Tenold, et al., Green Line … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Alternatively, and in the “interests of justice.” In general, we will review “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court.” Thiele, d at 582 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016