Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Civil Commitment of Travis 767 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(noting that appellate court generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court when “deciding the matter before it”).
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Southcross Commerce Center, LLP v. Tupy Properties, LLC 766 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(holding that an appellate court should not address issue not decided by the district court, especially when the facts are in dispute); Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 254 , (“It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal.”).
In Re the Estate of Grote 766 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Estate of Grote 766 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Howe v. Hauge 766 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Howe v. Hauge 766 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that appellate courts generally do not consider matters not considered by the district court).
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, , 353 n. 8 (Minn.2003) ().
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(holding that a reviewing court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered in the district court).
Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. 763 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. 763 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Because appellant’s *654 argument that he was denied a preter-mination hearing was raised for the first time on appeal, (holding that this court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered by the court below).
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(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).
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger 762 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger 762 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Abbott v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., ().
Abbott v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-83 (Minn.1988) (stating that appellate courts “may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below”); see also Minn.Stat.
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northeast Concrete Products, LLC 756 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northeast Concrete Products, LLC 756 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(holding that an appellate court will only consider matters properly presented to, and considered by, the district court).
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
("Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not to be considered.").
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud 750 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud 750 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2008
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2008
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
We have stated that “a reviewing court must limit itself to a consideration of only those issues which the record shows were, or had to be, presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” Thompson v. Barnes, 294 Minn. 528, 536
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(limiting issues on appeal to those raised and addressed below).
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes 744 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2008
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes 744 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2008
(“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.” (internal quotation omitted)).
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. 741 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2007