Cited by

- 92 (Minn. 2006), aff’d

State v. 8 Wembley, aff’d on other grounds, d 243 (Minn. 2007).

“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.” (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds

The district court granted the CHIPS petition, the children remained in mother’s 1 CornerHouse is “a child advocacy center that often interviews children who are alleged victims of sexual abuse.”

In support of this contention, d 783 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

-92 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d on other grounds

Second, while an expert may not testify directly or indirectly regarding her opinion about the credibility of a sexual-assault victim, - 92 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d, the record shows Staab- Absher did not do so.

-92 (Minn. App. 2006), ajf'd on other grounds

nvites us to examine the evidence in the record , review the district court’s analysis, and then “determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying those claims.” Inasmuch as an appellate court will not address a mere conclusory assertion of error that is not developed into a legal argument, aff’d on other grounds, we will not search for a flaw that the appellant has not identified.

(“The fundamental rule is that assessment of witness credibility is a jury function.” (quotation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds

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.” State v. Wembley , d 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotatio n omitted), aff’d

89 (Minn. App. 2017) (“Arguments are forfe ited if they are presented in a summary and conc lusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming th at errors of law occurred.”); State v. Wembley , (holding that unsupported assignments of error are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”), aff’d

4, 889 (Minn. App. 2017) (“Arguments are forfeited if they are presented in a summary and conclusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming that errors of law occurred.”); (holding that unsupported assignments of error are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”), aff’d

2006) (quotation omitted), aff’d

(stating that assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is “waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”), aff’d, (declining to address issues raised in a brief but not adequately argued or explained).

(providing that an assignment of error in a brief not supported by argument or au thority is waived (unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection)), aff’d

“An assignment of error in a brief based on ‘mere assertion’ and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless pr ejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Wembley , aff’d

“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.” aff’d

“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.” (quotation omitted), aff’d, d 243 (Minn. 2007).

aff’d, (“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.”).

(holding that unsupported assignments of erro r are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”), aff’d

Assignments of error “ based on ‘mere assertion’ and not supported by argument or authority [are] waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Wembley , aff’d

“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.” aff’d

(“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.” (citing State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , )), aff’d

The record establishes that Moore, a convicted sex-offender, violated his probation numerous times: he consumed alcohol; he obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted), aff’d, (Minn. Mar.

(holding that assertions of error without supporting facts are waived) , aff’d

CornerHo use staff interviewed M.G.-B., who disclosed multiple, escalating incidents of sexual contact and penetration by Gbor.1 1 “CornerHouse is a child-advocacy center that , among other things, conducts forensic interviews of children who allegedly have be en sexually abused.” aff’d

d *819 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006), aff'd on other grounds

aff’d on other grounds, d 243 (Minn. 2007).

(“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.” (quotation omitted)), aff'd on other grounds

We will not consider reversing the district court based on a brief that offers only a mere assertion of error unsupported by argument or authority unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” aff’d on other grounds

3 Appellant, in his pro se supplemental brief, asserts that “this is a Brady violation.” “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.” (quotation omitted), aff’d