Cited by

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

2 Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (holding that an assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority “will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

An assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see also Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. P’ship, n.2 (Minn. 2012) (“Summary arguments made without citation to legal support are waived.”).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , see also State, Dep ’t of Lab.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating an assignment of error based on a “mere assertion” is forfeited unless prejudicial error is obvious).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971).

This results in forfeiture, and the 7 issue “will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

An assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities” is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., see Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (explaining that “assignment[s] of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief [are] waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating a “mere assertion” in a brief is forfeited unless prejudice is obvious).

And on appeal, “[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.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“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.”).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that “an assignment of error” in a brief “based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or [authority]” is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see also State Dep’t of Lab.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 4 (Minn. 1971); see also State, Dep’t of Lab.

Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (stating that appellate courts generally “decline to reach [an] issue in the absence of adequate briefing”); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“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.”).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

An assertion of error not supported by argument or authorities is forfeited and will not be considered “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (holding pro se parties to generally the same standard as attorneys).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see also State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.

And “[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.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

An assignment of error in a brief “based on mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ).

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an 16 assignment of error based on a “mere assertion” is forfeited unless prejudicial error is obvious).

Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., ; see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an assignment of error in a brief “based on mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (explaining that an assignment of error “not supported by any argument or authorities” is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”); (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d at 480; Brodsky, d at 479; see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that inadequately briefed issues are forfeited and “will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (explaining that appellate courts generally do not consider assignments of error “based on mere assertion”).

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating “[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”); see also Braith v. Fischer , (Minn. App. 200

Arguments based on “mere assertion” and unsupported by legal authority are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 13

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or 3 authorities in appellant’s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that forfeited issues may be reviewed if “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

d 385, 402 (Minn. App. 2025) (explaining that “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” (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2025); -77 (Minn. App. 2019) (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, we generally hold them to the same standards as

17, 2012); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“[A]ssignment 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.”).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

And “[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.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., n.3 (Minn. 2015) (observing that “the United States Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between forfeiture and waiver” by “explaining that[,] whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, w

Finally, the county acknowledges that even forfeited issues may be reviewed if “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 643, 650 (Minn. 2021) (applying this standard of review).