Cited by

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

352 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 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 133, 135 (1971).
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20
Ronald Dallmann v. Tom Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul J. Krause v. City of Elk River Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ronald Dallmann v. Tom Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”).
Paul J. Krause v. City of Elk River Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, (holding 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).
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, (holding that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authority” is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ); (applying this rule in the criminal context), aff’d on other grounds, d 243 (Minn. 2007).
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”).
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, (“[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.”).
Michael Thomas Pruden v. One 2003 Jeep, VIN: 1J4GL58KX3W534613, MN License: KJK 096 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Thomas Pruden v. One 2003 Jeep, VIN: 1J4GL58KX3W534613, MN License: KJK 096 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But they waived this argument both because they did not raise it in the district court, see Woodruff, d at 13–14 (), and because they fail to identify any supporting constitutional principle on appeal, see Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20
Construction Services, Inc. of Duluth v. Town of Alborn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Construction Services, Inc. of Duluth v. Town of Alborn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, (declaring that argument based on “mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).
John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita v. Thomas Parrish Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita v. Thomas Parrish Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20, (declaring that argument based on “mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in [a] 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
Mahmood Khan, Relator v. Minneapolis City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mahmood Khan, Relator v. Minneapolis City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.”), (Minn.
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Modern Recycling, Inc., (“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 7 obvious on mere inspection.”) (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519–20, ).
Sergey Porada, Yelena Kurdyumova v. Terry I. Monroe, Marc L. Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sergey Porada, Yelena Kurdyumova v. Terry I. Monroe, Marc L. Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.”).
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Kimberly Sue Wirth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.”).
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach issues in the absence of adequate briefing); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20 , (“[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.”).
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20 , (declaring that argument based on “mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities ...
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
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.”).
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
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.”).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Frelix 764 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Frelix 764 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20 , (providing that “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived,” unless prejudicial error is obvious).