Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133.

352 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. D. J., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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., n.7 (Minn. App. 2021) (applying Schoepke in an appeal from a termination of parental rights), rev. denied (Dec.
In re the Matter of: Matthew Chandler Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach inadequately briefed issue); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (declining to reach issue in the absence of prejudicial error).
In re the Marriage of: Elizabeth Ann Jones Chidothe, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any 7 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 also Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family -law appeal) , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Estate of Kenneth Edwin Ohlund, a/k/a Kenneth E. Ohlund, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Joseph Eilefson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Similarly, Eilefson failed to brief this issue adequately and no “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see also Ganguli v. Univ .
In re the Marriage of: Heather Elizabeth Wray-Isquierdo, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Lisa Ranelle Appelhof, petitioner, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , see State Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Thus, this question is not properly before this court, and we need not address it: “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., see Minn. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating 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).
In re the Matter of: Kaitlyn Mae Steffenhagen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Larry John Laver, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
James Russell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Nicholas David Wivinus, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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 consid ered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , see also Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of: Raymond Semler. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach an inadequately briefed issue); Schoepke v. Alexander Sm ith & Sons Carpet Co. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argu ment or authorities in appella nt’s brief is waived.”); Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , (rejecting the relator’s argument of an unfair hearing in the absence of prejudice)
Melodie Helquist, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , ; Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment 1 Between March 16, 2020, and July 1, 2021, Emergency Executive Order 20-05 allowed ULJs to consider otherwise untimely requests for reconsideration if the relator substantially complied with the statutory deadline.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. , 35 (Minn. 1971); see Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Gary Gruett, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”).
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Scott Jovaag, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
As an initial matter, an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in ap pellant’s brief is waived and will not be 9 considered on appeal 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.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“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” (quotation omitted)); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
City of Hutchinson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Heather Mary Zigan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(ap plying Thiele in an HRO appeal); see also 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 will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”) .
In re the Marriage of: Stacy Ann Rakow, f/k/a Przybilla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and no t 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 State Dep’t of Labor & Indu s. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
Kevin Makowski, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (explaining that assertion s of error unsupported by authorities in appellant’s brief are “waived .
A. A. F., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not su pported by any argume nt or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).
Mower County Health and Human Services, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (deeming argument forfeited for insufficient briefing where no prejudicial error was obvious); (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Suleiman Iraad, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1 We observe that Iraad’s appellate brief is inadequately briefed and that he is only entitled to relief if “prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection.” See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Kenneth Salway, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Tonia N. Williams, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And while sh e presented evidence of one Carpet Co.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In the Matter of: Justin Bennek. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see Ganguli v. Univ.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment of error based on mere assert ion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived an d will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).
Sandra Theis-Walz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. C. and J. J. A. L., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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., (apply ing Schoepke in a CHIPS case).
Kristen Glaros Hanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Knife River Corporation-North Central, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .
Sandra May Schumann, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”).
In re the Estate of Vernon G. Engelkes, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see Ganguli v. Univ.
Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Laurie Jatho, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In the Matter of: Chelsey Lynn Ness, and On Behalf of the Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Moreover, “[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.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In re: Request for Records by Amina Mohamed. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Moreover, a n assignment of error in a n appellate brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ).
Gail Marie Peterson, and o/b/o minor child, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In re the matter of: Eric Thurman Clinton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 obvio us on mere inspection.”).
In re the Billie V. Darkenwald Revocable Trust, dated January 21, 1983, restated February 5, 1999, as amended, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
of Minn., n.1 (Minn. App. 1994) (declin ing to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke).
Ruth Crosby, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or au thority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”) (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , ), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minor Children v. Braend , see also Schoepke v. Alexander Sm ith & 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.”).
Linde Sayen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying Schoepke).