Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. 741 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2007
Gomez v. David A. Williams Realty & Construction, Inc. 740 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Gomez v. David A. Williams Realty & Construction, Inc. 740 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that this court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered in the district court).
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
( (holding that generally, issues not raised before district court will not be considered on appeal)), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764 738 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764 738 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
(stating that this court generally considers only those issues that were presented and considered by the district court).
Stone v. Jetmar Properties, LLC 733 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Stone v. Jetmar Properties, LLC 733 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
A reviewing court may 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.
Johnson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 732 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Johnson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 732 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brodsky v. Brodsky 733 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brodsky v. Brodsky 733 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating appellate court generally address only issues presented to and considered by the district court).
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.D. 731 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory [on appeal]”); cf. Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, -23 (Minn. 2007) (addressing application of Thiele).
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.D. 731 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that appellate court will not consider matters not argued and considered by district court); Filingson v. Burlington N. R.R.
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that appellate courts review only those issues considered and decided by the district court).
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
And because this court generally considers only those issues argued before and considered by the district court, we decline to address the issue.
Curiskis v. City of Minneapolis 729 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Curiskis v. City of Minneapolis 729 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Generally, a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” (citation omitted).
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson asserts that he first raised the witness credibility issue in the district court by asking the court to amend its findings on the ground “that [appellant] met his evi-dentiary burden of shifting the burden of proof, based upon the testimony of Jeffrey Carlislie [sic].” Jacobson’s request was insufficient to preserve the issue because he did not “assign any error to the district court’s consideration of witness credibility.” In Thiele , we held that an appellate court may not consider a
In Re Block 727 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Block 727 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(holding that reviewing court generally will consider only issues raised and presented to trial court); (holding that issue appellant raised for first time on appeal in reply brief will generally not -be considered), review deni
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 725 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Estate of Sullivan 724 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Estate of Sullivan 724 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(noting that appellate court generally will not consider matters not presented to district court).
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin 723 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2006
(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”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Marriage of Reed v. Albaaj 723 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Reed v. Albaaj 723 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Toth v. Arason 722 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2006
Toth v. Arason 722 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2006
We have said that “a reviewing court generally may consider only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the trial court.” (“Nor may a party obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”).
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that appellate courts generally address only issues presented to and considered by the district court).
In Re the Appeal of the Exclusion of Molnar 720 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Appeal of the Exclusion of Molnar 720 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that appellate courts generally do not consider issues not raised in proceedings below).
Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Jones 720 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Peterson v. Johnson 720 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Jones 720 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that generally appellate courts consider only issues presented to and considered by the district court and that a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory” on appeal).
Peterson v. Johnson 720 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006