Cited by

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

2745 citing documents.

O'Brian v. Commissioner of Public Safety 552 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
O'Brian v. Commissioner of Public Safety 552 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(this court can only consider matters presented to and considered by the district court).
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 548 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 548 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(restricting this court to review only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it).
Hooper v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hooper v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
We are mindful of the prohibition against addressing matters not considered by the district court, but note that when an issue not determined by the district court is dis-positive as to one party to an appeal, we may address that issue.
Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. M.A. Mortenson Companies 545 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. M.A. Mortenson Companies 545 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Because this court may consider only issues presented to and considered by the district court, we do not address the other issues raised by some of the respondents.
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(appellate court generally considers only issues presented to and considered by trial court).
In Re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation 540 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation 540 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Therefore, (generally, appellate courts do not address issues not presented to and decided by trial court).
Rouland v. Thorson 542 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rouland v. Thorson 542 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1 Finally, there is no merit to father’s argument that there may be no modification in a non-public assistance case without a showing of need.
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Saunders 542 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Matter of Kindt 542 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Matter of Kindt 542 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Dullard, d at 442 (stating that, when the district court sits in an appellate capacity, the court of appeals reviews the agency’s record); Herman, d at 348-49 (holding that evidence regarding post-agency-hearing occurrences has no bearing on the propriety of the agency’s decision); (declining to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal).
State v. Saunders 542 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
110.01 (record on appeal includes trial court papers, exhibits and transcript); (appellate court may not consider “matters not produced and received in evidence below”).
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(reviewing court must generally consider only those issues presented to and considered by the trial court).
Skoglund v. Brady 541 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Skoglund v. Brady 541 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(issue not raised or argued to district court will not be decided for first time on appeal).
Faimon v. Winona State University 540 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Faimon v. Winona State University 540 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
HYLAND HILL NO. CONDO ASS'N v. Hyland 538 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
HYLAND HILL NO. CONDO ASS'N v. Hyland 538 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Polaris Industries, L.P. v. Continental Insurance Co. 539 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Manderfeld v. Krovitz 539 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Polaris Industries, L.P. v. Continental Insurance Co. 539 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Manderfeld v. Krovitz 539 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kittler v. Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling 535 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kittler v. Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling 535 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
3 .Although appellants had not raised their "solicitation” argument when opposing respondents’ motion for summary judgment, the district court noted in its memorandum that "the letter was clearly a solicitation for additional clients.” *656 While mindful of the prohibition against reviewing matters not presented to and considered by a district court, we address this issue because the district court obviously did so, even though it was not presented by the parties.
In Re Public Conservatorship of Foster 535 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Heyer v. Moldenhauer 538 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re Public Conservatorship of Foster 535 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Heyer v. Moldenhauer 538 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(reviewing court should consider only issues presented to and considered by the district court).
Hyland Hill North Condominium Ass'n v. Hyland Hill Co. 538 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hyland Hill North Condominium Ass'n v. Hyland Hill Co. 538 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Taylor v. City of New London 536 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Taylor v. City of New London 536 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, P.A. 534 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Imprint Tech. v. ECONOMIC SEC. COM'R 535 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Imprint Technologies, Inc. v. Commissioner of Economic Security 535 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Imprint Tech. v. ECONOMIC SEC. COM'R 535 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(appellate courts will not entertain arguments made for the first time on appeal).