Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

Manor v. Gales 649 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that courts should decline to address issues not raised in the trial court).
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Custody of NAK 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
In Re Custody of NAK 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
Because the issue was not presented below, Knauff is barred from raising the issue on appeal, or on remand
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nolte v. Mehrens 648 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that reviewing court generally considers only those issues presented to and considered by district court).
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that assignment of error based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Alpha Systems Integration, Inc. v. Silicon Graphics, Inc. 646 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Woehrle v. City of Mankato 647 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that this court will generally consider only those issues that were raised and argued in the court below).
Alpha Systems Integration, Inc. v. Silicon Graphics, Inc. 646 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that appellate courts will not review matters not argued and considered in the court below).
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Will & Appointment of Estate of Kipke v. Kipka 645 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Will & Appointment of Estate of Kipke v. Kipka 645 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees, AFSCME Union Local 3456 v. Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission 645 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nieszner v. St. Paul School District No. 625 643 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees, AFSCME Union Local 3456 v. Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission 645 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Nieszner v. St. Paul School District No. 625 643 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(issues raised below will not be heard on appeal under new theory).
Oak Glen of Edina v. Brewington 642 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Oak Glen of Edina v. Brewington 642 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(appeal); Minnesota Mut.
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
P. 56.03; (placing the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial on the moving party).
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Couillard 641 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Couillard 641 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In general, this court will refuse to address “an argument raised for the first time on appeal, particularly when it was not included in the brief.” Majestic, (), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“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.” -83 (Minn.1988).
State v. Carroll 639 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Carroll 639 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(reviewing court must generally consider only those issues presented to and decided by district court).
Pratt Investment Co. v. Kennedy 636 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Pratt Investment Co. v. Kennedy 636 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(reviewing court generally considers only those issues presented and considered by trial court).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”).
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
North Star Mutual Insurance Co v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 634 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Estate of Lund 633 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Estate of Lund 633 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(issues not argued should not be considered).