Cited by

11 mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that 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 Sm ith & Sons Carpet Co.

Schoepke v. Al exander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (noting 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 me re inspection).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

Because father cites no supporting legal authority, and because no error on this point is obvious, this argument is not properly before us. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (stating that an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by an argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal 6 unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”); Braith v. Fischer , d 716, 725 (Minn. App .

Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), review denied (Minn. Apr.

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

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see Ganguli v. Univ.

Because husband failed to cite any supporting legal authority and because no error on this point is obvious, this argument is not properly before us. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not sup ported 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”); Braith v. Fischer , (a

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

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Williams v. Nat'l Football League , 582 F.3d 863 , 880 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that party asserting preemption bears burden of persuasion); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co ., 290 Minn. 518 , , 135 (1971) (holding that assignment of error based on "mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities" is waived "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 waived “unless prejudicial error 5 is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 290 Minn. 518, 519- 20, (“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 inspecti on.”).

“An assignment of error based on mere asserti on and not supporte d 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., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20, d.

“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., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20

“An assignme nt of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argum ent or authorities in appellant’ 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., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 290 Minn. 518, 519 -20, (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 8 supported by any argument or authorities in appellan t’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., 290 Minn. 518, 519

Although appella nt is a pro se litigant, this court generally holds pro se litigants to the same standard as attorneys, and arguments unsupported by authorities or argument are “not [] considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection,” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20

is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519 -20

of Minn. , n.1 (Minn. App. 1994) (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 290 Minn. 518, 519, ).

Because her assertion is unsupported by argument or legal authority, it “need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, review denied (Minn. Apr.

Moreover, “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assert ion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless 9 prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20

“[M]ere assertions” of error that are unsupported by argument or authority are waived and should not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, Yusuf v. Masterson Personnel, Inc.

State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, d 133, 135 (1971)).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, d 133, 135 (1971).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20, (“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.” (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-520, see also Gummow, d at 34.

“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., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, (“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.”).