Cited by

16 citation); (stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before the court).

in their briefing”); (explaining that an “issue [that] was not argued in the briefs .

(stating issues not briefed on appeal are waived).

8 (deeming inadequately briefed issue to be forfeited); (holding that where appellant fails to specifically identify exhibits to which he objects, inadequate brief results in forfeiture of issue), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982) (holding that arguments not raised in briefs are forfeited).

57, 62 (Minn. 1940) (“Assignments of error made without any argument or discussion whatever must be deemed abandoned.”); (“This issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived.”).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address inadequately briefed question); (noting that inadequately briefed questions are not properly before an appellate court); n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz in a juvenile-protection appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(concluding that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived).

n.1 (Minn. 1998) (applying the rule that arguments not briefed are waived in an appeal in which the appellant “allude[d] to” an issue but “fail[ed] to address them in the argument portion of his brief”).

(providing that failure to address an argument in a brief is a waiver of that 2 DECISION “[A district] court may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” Minn. R. Crim.

(concluding an issue not briefed is deemed forfeited).

See Melina v. Chaplin , (concluding an issue not briefed is deemed forfeited).

(stating that appellate courts generally consider “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)); (explaining that inadequately briefed arguments are “waived”).

4 Appellants also argue that the district court erred in excluding certain unspecified medical records “on the basis that the authors were not disclosed as experts and did not testify.” Because appellants do not identify what specific documents were excluded or how their exclusion prejudiced appellants

We will not develop Sindy’s argument for her

See Melina v. Chaplin , (concluding an issue not briefed is deemed forfeited).

(stating that self-represented party who appears pro se “is held to the standard of an attorney in presenting his appeal”).

(stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly 10 judicial-proceedings privilege is absolute, grounded in the public policy of encouraging witnesses to testify frankly “without fear of civil liability for their statements” and ensuring that “[t]he final judgment of the tribunal” is bas

(stating that issues not adequately briefed on appeal are waived).

of Minn., n.1 (Minn. App. 1994) (declining to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation); (stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before the court).

(“This issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed [forfeited].”).

(stating that “[t]his issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived.”).

(stating that “[t]his issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived”).

(holding that issues not briefed on appeal are waived); Ward v. El Rancho Manana, Inc., (declining to address an argument that “appellants failed to argue .

(“This issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived.”) .

(“This issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived.”).

(“This issue was not argued in the briefs and accordingly must be deemed waived.”).

(explaining that appellate court review is limited to the district court’s record and arguments made in the brief on appeal); (explaining that error is not presumed on appeal and it is the appellant’s duty to show that the district court erred and that

(holding that issues not briefed on appeal are forfeited).

(explaining that a reviewing court considers only those issues presented to and considered by the district court); (explaining that arguments not briefed are waived); n.2 (Minn. 2022) (demonstrating that appellate courts do not review an argument in which a party supplied only the legal standard without analysis).

v. Witntz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address inadequately briefed question); (noting that inadequately briefed questions are not properly before an appellate court); n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz in a juvenile-protection appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.