Cited by

(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in 7 I. The evidence is sufficient to support Garcia Ortiz’s conviction.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating a “mere assertion” in a brief is forfeited unless prejudice is obvious); -65 (Minn. 1944) (stating that “on appeal error is never presumed.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (holding that mere assertion of an error unsupported by arguments or authorities is forfeited and will not be considered).

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., see also State, Dep’t of Lab.

On appeal, Williams does not identify any applicable authority or provide legal analysis to support his assertion that the state is responsible for the delay in bringing his case to trial because it “did nothing to bring [Williams] to trial when they knew where he was.” 1 See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that assertion of 1 The only case Williams cites is State v. Colbert, a nonprecedential decision from this court.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an assignment of error in a 19 argument when it denied Lonergan’s prehearing motion.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an assignment of error based on “mere assertion” and unsupported by any authority is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

(observing that arguments based on mere assertion and unsupported by argument or authority are forfeited on appeal); 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.”).

See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“ 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.” (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., )).