Cited by

will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” see also State v. Fleming , () (explaining that we do not presume error on appeal), aff’d

(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief .

State v. Myhre , (stating that an issue is forfeited when it is not adequately argued or explained); Louden v. Louden , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief .

But it is well settled that, “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless 14 prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” -20 (Minn. 2002) (quoting Louden, d at 166).

But it is well settled that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspect ion.”

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

But “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” see also Surf & Sand, d 782, 788 (Minn. App. 1990) (affirming when a claim of error was not supported by argument or authority and “inspection” showed no “obvious prejudice”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Co., (holding the damages decision in the first appeal was the law of the case in the second appeal because no new facts were established).

() (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules .”).

(stating that this court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant ’s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

An appellate court need not “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

2008) (stating that this court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

(stating that this court need “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” d 164, 166 (Minn. 1946).

(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in [a party’s] brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

(explaining that an argument is forfeited when it is a mere assertion of error and prejudicial error is not “obvious on mere inspection”).

This court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority .” - 23 (Minn. 2008); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be c onsidered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (citations omitted); see also State v. Myhre , (stating that an issue is forfeited when it is not adequately argued or explained); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief .

We will, however, consider an allegation of reversible error if it “ is obvious on mere inspection.” (quoting Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, ).

at 23 (quoting Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, ).

Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

See Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in 4 appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

(stating that appellate courts will not consider claims set out in a pro se supplemental brief that include “no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); see also Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief .

See Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere 13 inspection.”); In re E

Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339

is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection’ ”) (quoting Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , ).

Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , -33 (Minn.2009); , 675 n. 3 (Minn.2008).

(deeming arguments set out in the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief waived because “[t]he brief eontain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allega *23 tions”); see also Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

See Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339 , (issues insufficiently briefed are deemed waived “and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

In Louden v. Louden, we concluded that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” 221 Minn. 338, 339 , , 166 (1946).