Cited by

(stating that “error without prejudice is not ground for reversal” (quotation omitted)); Minn. R. Civ.

P. 61 (requiring district courts to disregard errors that do not affect the parties’ substantial rights); (stating that “error is never presumed” and the appellant must affirmatively show that the district court erred); (refusing to remand for a de minimis, technical error).

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

(instructing that “on appeal error is never presumed,” that “[i]t must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal [,]” and that “the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it” (quotation omitted)).

(holding appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error before we may reverse for a new trial); see also Christie, d at 837-38 n.4 (citation omitted) (stating that arguments without analysis or citation to legal authority are forfeited).

( (stating that “on appeal error is never presumed” (quotation omitted)), aff’d

App. P. 110.01 (stating that the appellate record consists of documents and exhibits “filed in the trial court”); (stating that appellate courts generally limit their consideration to the record in front of the district court at the time of its decision).

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., ().

(stating that an appellant bears the burden on appeal to show error and resulting prejudice).

d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949); see also Bloom v. Hydrotherm, Inc., (stating that on appeal, the appellant has the burden to show error and prejudice), rev. denied (Minn. June 28, 1993).

P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); (noting that “error without prejudice is not ground for reversal” (quotation omitted)).

(stating appellate courts do not assume district court error); d 278, 283 (Minn. App. 1999) (applying Loth); Minn. R. Civ.

See, e.g., Loth v. Loth , (stating appellate courts do not assume district court error); (applying Loth); Minn. R. Civ.

(stating that “error is never presumed” on appeal and “the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it” (quotation omitted)).

see also Bloom v. Hydrotherm, Inc., 2 In her main brief, and more extensively in her reply brief, wife references husband’s petition for an HRO, and the parties’ dissolution proceedings and parenting-time arrangement.

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., d 847, 857 (Minn. 2025); (stating that appellate courts cannot assume district court error).

See, (stating appellate courts do not assume district court error); (applying Loth); Minn. R. Civ.

will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”); () (demonstrating that we do not presume error on appeal), aff’d

P. 61; (noting that “error without prejudice is not ground for reversal” (quotation omitted)).

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted).

In other words, error without prejudice is not ground for reversal.” (quotation omitted).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” -65 (Minn. 1944); (quoting Waters, d at 464).

(stating that “on appeal error is never presumed”).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who 6 relies upon it.” (quotation omitted).

d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Loth v. Loth , (quotation omitted).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted).

27, 2010) (citing Loth v. Loth , ).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949) (quotation omitted).

“[O]n appeal error is never presumed,” (quotation omitted), and inadequately briefed issues are not properly before this court, In re Civ.

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Loth v. Loth , (quotation omitted).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Loth v. Loth , (quotation omitted).

On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court erred because “on appeal error is never presumed.” (quotation omitted).

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., ().

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted).

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who 5 relies upon it.”

(explaining that appellate court review is limited to the district court’s record and arguments made in the brief on appeal); (explaining that error is not presumed on appeal and it is the appellant’s duty to show that the district court erred and that the appellant was prejudiced as a result).

(stating that an appellant has the burden to show error); Boschee, d at 840 (stating that, to obtain a new trial based on an irregularity in the proceedings, the movant “must prove (1) an irregularity occurred and (2) they were deprived of a fair trial”).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted).

See Loth v. Loth , (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.” (quotation omitted)).

(providing that error on appeal is never presumed and it is appellant’s burden to prove error before there can be reversal).