Cited by

does not constitute an agreement to apply the best -interests standard, “enforcing negotiated settlement agreements is a positive public policy.” We decline to address father’s public-policy argument because “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” Sefkow v. Sefkow , (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (affirming district court despite a

“The deprivation of fundamental rights is subject to strict scrutiny and may only be upheld if justified by a compelling state interest.” rev. denied 25 (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Furthermore, we “defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order.” d 151, 162 (Minn. App. 2000).

3d 152, 163 (Minn. App. 2024) (noting that a parent’s custodial rights “must be balanced against the state’s interest in ensuring child welfare”); (“[S]tates may intrude on parental rights in order to protect the ‘general interest in the youth’s well-being.’” (quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944))); -64 (Minn. App. 2000) (concluding the best interests of a child is a compelling state interest justifying infringement on a mother’s fundamental right to travel), rev. denied (Mi

(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”); rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); -40 (Minn. App. 2005) (“Although these concerns are not without merit, we are bound to follow Minnesota Supreme Court precedent.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 2005).

But “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors[,] it cannot create public policy.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”); (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

CS-4 (Minn. 1988) (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”); (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000) ; (affirming a district court despite appellant’s “meritorious policy arguments” for reversal, no

After considering this binding caselaw, we conclude that it is unclear whether the Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling, and because we are not a policy-making court, LaChappelle v. Mitten , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), and “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them,” rather than creating new law, we decline the invitation to adopt cross-jurisdictional class-action to

”); (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.

We add that the policy concern York espouses is not immediately compelling on its face and that, in any event, as we repeated in LaChapelle v. Mitten , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), our role is to correct legal errors, not establish public policy.

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

MAJ argues that “this Court should employ the correct (and simpler) legal framework—despite the parties’ presentation of the issues” and that “ [p]ublic policy supports imposing a duty on school bus drivers.” But this court “cannot create public policy.” LaChapelle v. Mitten , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

“We defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order.”

d 151, 159 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.” 10 , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Interpretation of an ambiguous stipulated order is a question of fact, see Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., (contract), and “[w]e defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order,” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“Construction of its own decree by the trial court must be given great weight in determining the intent of the trial court.”).

1, 2012) ; (stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); see also Binkley v. Allina Health Sys.

Regardless of how meritorious these arguments may be, “this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); see also Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid- Am.

(stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

sponder s are neither trained nor armed in anticipation of situations like 7 the one in this case and that they are “being forced [to] deal with chaos and violence far beyond the scope of anticipated fire and medical service.” Although Zepeda may raise a valid concern, “this court is limited in its function to correcting errors,” and “it cannot create public policy.” d 151, 159 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

The Court’s granting of a minor’s name change over the objection of one parent is exercised with “great caution and only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.” Quoting Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36

d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); -61 (Minn. 2000) (applying this aspect of Thiele in child-custody matter).

4725 v. City of Brainerd, d 151, 159 (Minn. App. 2000) (stating that this court “is limited in its function to correcting errors” and “cannot create public policy”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

18, 1987); see also, (stating that because of this court’s limited function “it cannot create public policy”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

LaChapelle v. Mitten , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

But “[a]n appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received into evidence below.” (-83 (Minn. 1988)), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

“The deprivation of fundamental rights is subject to strict scrutiny and may only be upheld if justified by a compelling state interest.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

19, 2013); LaChapelle v. Mitten , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”) , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000) .

See LaChapelle v. Mitten , (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

As a general rule, “We defer to a district court’s interpretation of its o wn order.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

3 See LaChapelle v. Mitten , (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

15, 2015); (rejecting First Amendment challenge to injunction against publication of pictures of a father’s children); -64 (Minn. App. 2000) (best interests of the child are a compelling state interest justifying infringement on a mothe r’s constitutional right to travel), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (holding that being exposed to a third religion was not in the best

that any missed testing will be treated as a positive test result.” (stating that this court defers to a district court’s interpretation of its own order), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000) .

review denied (Minn. May 8 16, 2000).

(stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its 7 function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

LaChapelle v. Mitten , , 159 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

The remedy for unwise or inexpedient legislation is political and not judicial."); see also LaChapelle v. Mitten , , 159 (Minn. App. 2000) (explaining that when a statute is clear, the court need not, and cannot, look beyond its plain language and rejecting appellant's policy arguments), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).