Cited by

(stating that, generally, appellate courts address only those questions presented to and considered by the district court); Grigsby, d at 726.

“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).

And where an appellant asks this court to review an issue raised and decided in district court, the appellant may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”

d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters 7 outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”); see also Minn. R. Civ.

“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).

“An appellate court may not base its decisions on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” -83 (Minn. 1988).

(“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 “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.’” (citation 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.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that an appellate court 7 will only consider issues on appeal that were presented to and considered by the district court).

But relator’s spoliation claim is being raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, (stating that this court will generally not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal).

(declining to consider matters not argued to and not considered by the district court).

to toss Frisbees into the audience standing in the parking lot surrounded by numerous trip hazards (including the parking lot curb and the feet of other invitees) at dusk.” Because appellants did not argue this theory before the district court, and the district court did not consider it, we need not 8 address it on appeal.4 (holding that an appellate court need not address arguments not raised before, and considered by, the district court).

ges that he did not object to the instruction on this specific basis, and therefore we review the instruction for plain error.”); (stating that “‘a party [may not] obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated 13 below but under a different theory’” ()).

(stating that this court will not address matters not argued to or considered by the district court).

A defendant seeking to apply the two-year statute of limitations, which is an affirmative defense, “bears the burden of establishing that the claims are time-barred as a matter of law.” Nolan, d at 495 ().

(“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)); Roberge v. Cambridge Coop.

(stating that appellate courts will not consider issues not argued to and decided by the district court); (stating that issues not briefed on appeal are waived).

(“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.”).