2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The city's consolidated appeal of the judgments relating to the special assessment and to costs and disbursements follows. DECISION I As a preliminary, procedural matter, the city argues for the first time on appeal that Sheehy is precluded from challenging the city's assessment because Schwab's appraisal is based on the earlier 2006 condemnation award, which, it argues, has collateral - estoppel effect in this proceeding. As the city acknowledges, it did not raise this argument before the district court. This court will not generally address issues not raised before, and considered by, the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). The city argues, however, that because the preclusive effect of the 2006 condemnation award is dispositive, it may be considered for the first time on appellate review. See Watson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 566 N.W.2d 683, 687 (Minn. 1997) (stating that issues not raised before district court may be considered on appeal if they are "plainly decisive of the entire controversy on its merits" and when "there is no possible advantage or disadvantage to either party in not having had a prior ruling by the [district] court" (quotation omitted)). We reject this argument for two reasons. First, even if all of the requirements for applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel are satisfied, the district court still has discretion to decline to apply the doctrine. Pope Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Pryzmus, 682 N.W.2d 666, 669 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004); see AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corrs. Bd., 356 N.W.2d 295, 299 (Minn. 1984) (stating that collateral estoppel is not rigidly applied and is rejected or 7 20