Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 7-8 (Minn.2006) ("A petition for review to this court must specify the legal issues to be reviewed [and we] will generally not address issues that were not specifically raised in the petition for review.” (citations omitted)). Finally, even if Minnesota Power had preserved the constitutional issue, Minnesota Power admitted that it did not introduce evidence of its actual interim rate period costs before the Commission, including costs arising from the decrease in demand for service or environmental mandates. Minnesota Power therefore cannot be said to have sustained its burden of proof such that we could determine whether an unconstitutional taking occurred. See L.A. Gas & Elec. Corp. v. R.R. Comm’n of Cal., 289 U.S. 287, 304-05, 53 S.Ct. 637, 77 L.Ed. 1180 (1933) (<HOLDING>). In short, the constitutional question that
holding that the complainant has the burden of proof to show that confiscation is clearly established holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding that for an initial civil commitment the state has the burden of proof recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it