994 P.2d 455, 458 (Colo.App.1999) (stating that an appellate court will not consider issues, arguments, or theories not presented below). 7 . For example, we have always allowed parties to supplement an argument with new cases or relevant legislative history that they did not raise in the district court. 8 . See also United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in Philadelphia, 144 F.2d 626, 630 (3d Cir.1944) (''The appropriate law must be applied in each case and upon a failure to do so appellate courts should remand the cause to the trial court to afford it opportunity to apply the appropriate law, even if the question was not raised in the court below."); Adkins v. Uncle Bart's, Inc., 2000 UT 14, ¶ 40, 1 P.3d 528 (same); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 835 P.2d 165, 168 n. 3 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>). 9 . We do not intend to suggest that counsel
holding that despite the parties failure to address a controlling statute wle consider the statutes effect on this case sua sponte because it is controlling and it would be contrary to public policy to decline to do so recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue holding that effect of suit rather than the purpose for which it was brought is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth