Cited by

Generally, a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” see also Law Enf’t Lab.

(“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)).

(holding that we generally do not entertain arguments that were not “presented and considered by” the district court).

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court); see also Thomas A. Foster & Assocs., (“An appellate court ordinarily may not consider matters outside the record.

“Generally, we will not consider an issue not addressed below.” ().

(observing that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not raised to the district court).

(stating that appellate courts “consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)); (holding that in reviewing a district court’s dec

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court); see also Minn. Sands, d at 199 n.15 (declining to consider the argument that the law at issue imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce where the argum

We do not base our decisions on matters outside the record on appeal and do “not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” -83 (Minn. 1988); d 166, 177 (Minn. App. 2007) (granting a motion to strike documents not considered by decision-maker who made the decision being reviewed).

(“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were 2 Appellant relatedly argues that certain comments that the district court made about his behavior demonstrate bias.

Stich, -83 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted).

First, Breitkreutz did not raise this issue in the district court, and it is not 12 (holding that appellate courts generally do not consider issues that were not raised in and decided by the district court).

-83 (Minn. 1988) (“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.” (emphasis added); see also Minn. R. Civ.

App. P. 110.01; -83 (Minn. 1988) (“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.”).

(holding that appellate courts generally review only “those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it”).

(“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 19 omitted)).

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

The supreme court has identified circumstances in which equitable tolling may be permitted: when the plaintiff can show that they were prevented from timely filing by “paramount authority” or circumstances completely out of the plaintiff’s control; or when -83 (Minn. 1988).

“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (stating that an appellate court generally will not “decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regard

see also Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., -24 (Minn. 2013) (recognizing that claims of res judicata and collateral estoppel may be forfeited if not adequately raised in district court); (Minn. App. 2007

A party also may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” ().

- 83 (Minn. 1988) (“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.”) ; see 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)).

“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).

ate does not have authorit[y] over the district court judge and cannot consolidate the child support subject matter issue to be addressed under the child custody and parenting time subject matter.” “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.” (quotations omitted).

First, a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal, “[n]or may a party obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”

(noting appellate courts cannot consider facts outside the record); see Minn. R. Civ.

We first address Lighthouse’s position that Bjorkman’s argument is forfeited 4 and then turn to Bjorkman’s argument that the district court abused its discretion.

(“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)).