Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Brian Matthew Hood v. Katherine June Downing Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Leroy Gamble v. Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-25 (Minn. App. 2001) (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Brian Matthew Hood v. Katherine June Downing Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Leroy Gamble v. Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Serena Rae Sullivan v. Robert John Sladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wolf, Rohr, Gemberling & Allen, P. A v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 880 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Serena Rae Sullivan v. Robert John Sladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(this court generally addresses only matters presented to and considered by the district court); (“[A] district court [should] demonstrate an awareness and application of the 25% presumption when the issue is appropriately raised and the court
Wolf, Rohr, Gemberling & Allen, P. A v. Margots Kapacs 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)).
John Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 880 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Victor Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nuvola, LLC v. Morgan Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura Kay Ellingsworth, Hennepin County v. Moses Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Victor Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laura Kay Ellingsworth, Hennepin County v. Moses Wazwaz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nuvola, LLC v. Morgan Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2016
103(a)(1) (stating the general requirement of timely objection or motion to strike to preserve an evidentiary issue for review); (concluding that issues not argued to and considered by the district court are waived).
Anibal Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. P.-S. and J. D. F., Parents 880 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anibal Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(declining to consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. P.-S. and J. D. F., Parents 880 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court.” d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted).
Hope Amundsen v. Great Glory Auto, Inc., Kehnny Alabi, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hope Amundsen v. Great Glory Auto, Inc., Kehnny Alabi, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
We have said, “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.
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry L. Gates, et al v. Michael L. Macken, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry L. Gates, et al v. Michael L. Macken, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
2 This failure may have been the result of the district court’s misstatement of the burden of proof, stating that with respect to whether the third mortgage imposed a liability only on Macken Plumbing, “Macken has offered no evidence that this was the case.” 8 (stating that “[t]he party moving for summary judgment under Rule 56 .
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 878 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nicholas James Heinz v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 878 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-83 (Minn. 1988);' In re Judicial Ditch No. 1, 140 Minn. 1, 3-4 , 167 N.W.
Nicholas James Heinz v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “a reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were 7 presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)).
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: I. M. A. a/k/a I. N. and A. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Adrianne Robbennolt and obo minor child v. Sandi Weigum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Adrianne Robbennolt and obo minor child v. Sandi Weigum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that appellate courts do not consider new evidence on appeal); see also Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
More than 2,000 times, we have cited the supreme court’s holding in Thiele v. Stich and rebuked parties, flatly rejecting their newly minted issues raised first on appeal because “a reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court.” (quotation omitted).
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: I. M. A. a/k/a I. N. and A. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We 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: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Donald Hand 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James Adam Roth v. Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. L. C. and M. C., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016