Cited by

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

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (providing 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” (quotation omitted)); (stating that an appellate court does not “

But “[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 omitted).

App. P. 110.01; -83 (Minn. 1988) (“An 17 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 [at the district court].”).

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (concluding that appellate courts only consider issues presented to and considered by district court).

(stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court); (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.”).

(“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)).

Assocs., (“[A]n undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.”); (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered 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.”); Minn. R. Civ.

“[T]his court generally considers only th ose issues argued before and considered by the district court.” ().

(“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)).

(explaining that appellate courts review “issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)).

(“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 omitted)).

ave no postconviction ruling to review.”); (explaining that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”); n.5 (Minn. App. 2022) (“an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court” (), aff’d, d 579 (Minn. 2024); see also Hoyt Inv.

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.”

Indeed, the district court made express findings about the domestic abuse—which occurred before the May 2019 final judgment and decree, when the district court awarded the parties joint legal custody pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon resolution—and Meyer, () (other citations omitted).

Assocs., (“[A]n undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.”); see also Thiele v. Stich , (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

“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.” ( 9 (Minn. 1988)).

(arguments raised for the first time on appeal are generally forfeited); Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop.

n.2 (Minn. App. 1992) (applying Thiele in an appeal from an ALJ’s decision), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

(stating that appellate courts “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)).

Because the record does not indicate that Koch argued to the district court that his complaint raised substantial constitutional or statutory-construction issues, and we decide “only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it,” (quotation omitted), we conclude that Koch forfeited this issue.

Because Atak did not make this argument before the district court

Assocs., (“[A]n undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.”); (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

(providing that issues not raised in the district court are not preserved for appellate review).

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

A party cannot “obtain review by raising the same issue litigated below but under a different theory.” Thiele v. Stich , (applying Thiele to a criminal case).

Thus, the question of the standard for obtaining an evidentiary hearing on a motion to remove a guardian and appoint a (stating that appellate courts address only those questions previously presented to and 2 LSS argues that the district court did not err by dismissing Perna’s petition because it was a petition for guardianship, not to remove a guardian and appoint a successor guardian.

We generally only consider “issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).

Because we generally do not address issues not presented to and considered by the district court, we decline to consider Henry’s tolling argument for the first time on appeal.

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

Further, generally, “litigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories, however erroneous or improvident, upon which the action was actually tried below[,]” and we “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).

See Thiele v. Stich , (“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)).

(“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)).

Thus, because mother neither initially contested the point nor sought relief on the point later, (stating that appellate courts generally do not consider matters not presented to the district court on appeal).

And we “may not base [our] decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” -83 (Minn. 1988).

(“A reviewing court must generally 9 consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotations omitted)).

“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 omitted).

(“Procedurally under [the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA)], when challenging an agency’s enforcement of an unpromulgated rule, a party must first seek a determination from an ALJ.”).