Appellant’s reliance on two cases that purportedly hold otherwise is misplaced. In Elwell v. Cnty. of Hennepin, the issue was whether the trial court had sufficient opportunity to consider a constitutional issue, not an evidentia-ry ruling. 301 Minn. 63, 68, 221 N.W.2d 538, 542 (1974). On appeal, the court concluded that the parties had preserved the issue because they fully briefed it below and the trial court discussed it at length. Id. Likewise, Kitchar v. Kitchar is inappo-site because it involved evidence that was not discovered until after trial. 553 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). Because appellant failed to object to exhibit 19 at trial, she has waived review of it on appeal. See In re Welfare of. T.D., 731 N.W.2d 548, 553 (Minn.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). In any event, any error regarding its
holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial holding that failure to object to trial court about violations of federal and state due process waived appellate review of those claims holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal holding that parent waived appellate review of evidentiary ruling by failing to object until posttrial motion holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court