Cited by

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).

Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (stating that appellate courts “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.”).

4 DECISION As a preliminary matter, we note that assignments of error in a brief “based on mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., -52 (Minn. App. 2017) (applying this aspect of Schoepke), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

See 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.”).

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.”).

“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 16 inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

Arguments “ 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.

See Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d at 480; see also 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 waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

is waived 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., (holding that an appellate assignment of error made by mere assertion is forfeited unless error is obvious on mere inspection).

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

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that assignments of error based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority are typically forfeited “unless prejudicial error is 12 obvious on mere inspection”).

” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

(stating that this court reviews a grant of a motion to dismiss “to determine whether the pleadings set forth a legally sufficient claim for relief”); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an argument based on “mere 8 assertion” unsupported by legal authority is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).3 Due Process Lentz further argues that the district court erred in granting Minnesota Housing’s motion to dismiss because foreclosure by

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

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

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 waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (arguments that are no more than a “mere assertion,” are unavailing).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see also Custom Farm Servs., (declining to consider an allegation of error in the absence of a transcript).

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 waived .

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 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 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 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 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., accord State, Dep’t of Lab.

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., and argument without legal 49 support is not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion “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.

“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.” 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 waived and will not be 25 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., (explaining that assertions unsupported by legal argument and authority are forfeited); -51 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Schoepke in a juvenile-protection appeal).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (noting that a party forfeits a claim by failing to support it with authority), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

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 waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

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.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorit[y] in appellant’s brief is waived .

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

26, 2017) (noting a party forfeits a claim by failing to support it with authority); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived.”).

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.

eet its burden on this statutory ground.” Mother has forfeited this contention because “[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.” J.H., d at 602 n.7 (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ) (other citation omitted).

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

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

In contrast here, Yusuf does not point to any cases to support his contention that DHS made a “sudden decision to develop and aggressively enforce its own definition of ‘primary residence.’” See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorit[y] is waived .

An assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or legal authority is forfeited unless prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke); -52 (Minn. App. 2017) (same), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.