Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

Martin L. McDonal v. SuperValu, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Clayton Leonard Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Clayton Leonard Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Martin L. McDonal v. SuperValu, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
on appeal, appellant argues that “[o]ther evidence surrounding [his] termination buttresses the causal link required for purposes of the MWCA.” But, on appeal, a party cannot obtain review of issues not presented to and considered by the district court or of “the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” 5
State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(declining to consider matters outside the record on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
First, application of this legal standard was not raised below and, therefore, is not properly before us. It is well settled 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."' (quoting Thayer v. Am.
Jonathan C. Barnett v. Soligent Distribution LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jonathan C. Barnett v. Soligent Distribution LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Eley v. Southshore Invs., Inc., ().
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“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)).
Medtronic, Inc., et al v. Michael Doerr, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tracey Weathers, et al v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2005-6; et … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
La’Mont Knazze, III, Okhui Cho-Knazze v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., CTX Mortgage Company LLC, d/b/a CTX Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Scott H. Lansing, John Doe and Mary Rowe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tracey Weathers, et al v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2005-6; et … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
La’Mont Knazze, III, Okhui Cho-Knazze v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., CTX Mortgage Company LLC, d/b/a CTX Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Scott H. Lansing, John Doe and Mary Rowe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Medtronic, Inc., et al v. Michael Doerr, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[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”); (recognizing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defen
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Heidi Anne Vizuete and In re the Marriage of Miriam Rose … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rachel Marie Davies f/k/a Rachel Marie Mehralian v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Heidi Anne Vizuete and In re the Marriage of Miriam Rose … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rachel Marie Davies f/k/a Rachel Marie Mehralian v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al v. Erik Hjelle, The Insurance Shop Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al v. Erik Hjelle, The Insurance Shop Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“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)).
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Herzog, et al v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of St. Cloud v. Elissa Winters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Jackson v. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of St. Cloud v. Elissa Winters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Jackson v. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As such, this argument has been waived as it is not properly before this court for review.1
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that a reviewing court will only consider “issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it”).
David Herzog, et al v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Consequently, Grounded Air’s (holding that appellate review is limited to those issues presented to and ruled on by the district court).
Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company 858 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Loren J. Zutz, et al v. John Nelson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company 858 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“This issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived.”).
Loren J. Zutz, et al v. John Nelson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that a reviewing court generally considers only issues presented to and decided by the district court).
In re: Guardianship of the Estate of David Tracy Platz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Amaal Mohammed Shire v. Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, Lester L. Hall, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Dixon v. Avarto Digital Services NetZero Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re: Guardianship of the Estate of David Tracy Platz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“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”).
Amaal Mohammed Shire v. Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, Lester L. Hall, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Followed Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An appellate court should “generally consider only those issues that were presented and considered below.” d at 327 ().
Joseph Dixon v. Avarto Digital Services NetZero Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that generally an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).1 Affirmed; motions granted.