Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business, et al 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Administrative Order with Penalty Issued to Architektur, Inc., Philip Carlson and Virginia Carlson, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Range Development Company of Chisholm, et al v. Star Tribune, et al., Paul McEnroe 885 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Administrative Order with Penalty Issued to Architektur, Inc., Philip Carlson and Virginia Carlson, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that, generally, matters not raised below will not be considered on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business, et al 885 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Range Development Company of Chisholm, et al v. Star Tribune, et al., Paul McEnroe 885 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a reviewing court generally addresses “only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it”) (quotation omitted)).
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
at *1 (d 580, 584 (Minn. 1988)).
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Paul James Ayers v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharper Management, LLC, et al v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharper Management, LLC, et al v. Melvin Pittel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellants did not argue this theory before the district court
Paul James Ayers v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
district court noted that “[Ayers] does not challenge, and the Court does not address, the issue of whether the test of [Ayers’s] breath to determine intoxication was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” “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).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because the district court did not address rule 306, any alleged violation of that rule is not properly before this court.2 d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts address only those questions presented to and considered by the district court, and that a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”).
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[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” and that “[n]or may a party obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different th
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P. A., f/k/a Mohrman & Kaardal, P. A v. Gene Rechtzigel, Gene Rechtzigel as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Assigned Risk Plan as administered by RTW, Inc. v. Dimas Reyes, Advanced Designs Siding and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P. A., f/k/a Mohrman & Kaardal, P. A v. Gene Rechtzigel, Gene Rechtzigel as … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the [district] court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases.”); (“A reviewing 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)).
Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Assigned Risk Plan as administered by RTW, Inc. v. Dimas Reyes, Advanced Designs Siding and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a reviewing court generally considers only those issues presented to and decided by the district court).
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 110.01 (defining record on appeal); (stating that, generally, appellate courts do not consider evidence not previously presented to the district court).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brent Charles Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mahmoud Soltan v. Columbia Sussex Management, LLC, WB Hotel Partners, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“A reviewing 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)).
Mahmoud Soltan v. Columbia Sussex Management, LLC, WB Hotel Partners, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citations omitted) (“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.”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brent Charles Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The general rule is that 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).
In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of: Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union v. Daniel N. Gess Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union v. Daniel N. Gess Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of: Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi, … 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)).
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 883 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 883 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 2016
Candyce L. Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Candyce L. Brown v. State of Minnesota 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.” (quotations omitted)).
Sharon Anderson v. YUM Design, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharon Anderson v. YUM Design, LLC, 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.I.O. Jeremiah R. Peck v. Melanie A. Sauter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Custody of N.I.O. Jeremiah R. Peck v. Melanie A. Sauter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Martin, et al v. A’BULAE, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Martin, et al v. A’BULAE, LLC, et al 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)).
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
-83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that “[an] appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal”); n.6 (Minn. 2008) (granting motion to strike portions of State’s brief).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: W. J. C., III, and G. A. C., … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Findings of Maltreatment and Disqualification of R. M. M v. State of Minnesota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Findings of Maltreatment and Disqualification of R. M. M v. State of Minnesota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: W. J. C., III, and G. A. C., … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting appellate courts will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).