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 v. Edward Chidothe 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 v. Park Nicollet Health Services 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 v. Christian Matthew Isquierdo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera v. Joel Wayne Biebighauser, County of Dakota 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 v. Joseph Theodore Appelhof, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , see State Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes v. Augustus Conrade Thomas 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 v. Nancy Johnston, et al 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 v. Christian Castrillon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Larry John Laver v. Jennifer Culver 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 v. Shawn Douglas Hager Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
James Russell v. Cory T. Axelson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Nicholas David Wivinus v. Nicole Lynette Nelson Anderson 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 v. ISD 709 Duluth Public Schools, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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: J.H., Parent 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 v. Victoria Labriola, et al 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 v. Melissa Jo Helene Jovaag 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 v. Ramon Heriberto Oscar Martinez Salazar 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 v. Mohammed Shahidullah, AKA Sam Ulland, RE: The Hazardous Building located at 430 Waters St. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Heather Mary Zigan v. Louis Leroy Gray 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 v. Ryan Frank Przybilla 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 v. Children’s Minnesota, The Children’s Heart Clinic, Children’s Respiratory & Critical Care Specialists 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 v. Minnesota Department of Health 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, April Ann Rowe v. Michael Paul Osborn 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 v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Tandem Products, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Tonia N. Williams v. Minnesota Board of Nursing Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And while sh e presented evidence of one Carpet Co.
State of Minnesota v. Edward Earl Williams 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 v. Allison Ann Mastin 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 v. Coborn’s, Inc., et al., James Roberts 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., Midwest Investment Services, LLC v. CBS Construction Services, Inc., et al., Brandon M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Knife River Corporation-North Central v. Whited Township 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 v. Dana Scott Wiberg 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 v. Marina Y. Siruk Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
Laurie Jatho, et al v. Northeast Title Company 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 v. Hope Michelle Wolfe 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: Lisa Marie Kent v. Brenton Jackson Kent 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 v. Preston David Vaughn Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.
In re the matter of: Eric Thurman Clinton v. Gabriela Kathleen Linder 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 v. Champagne D’Argent Rabbit Federation 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: Tonia Lynn McRunnel and on behalf of minor children v. Adam Joseph McRunnel 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 v. Michael Sayen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying Schoepke).