Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wembley, 728 N.W.2d 243.

121 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
aff’d, (“An assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority [need not be considered] unless prejudicial error is so obvious on mere inspection.”) (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Janice M. Halverson v. Elm Creek Courthome Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Janice M. Halverson v. Elm Creek Courthome Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 4 mere inspection.” (quotation omitted), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[a]n assignment of error in a brief based on ‘mere assertion’ and not supported by argument or authority is waived”), aff’d
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006), 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)).
Jacquet Deon Munn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jacquet Deon Munn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“An assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported 5 by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”) (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. William Martin Odette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Martin Odette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“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
John Christian Richmond v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Christian Richmond v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Wembley, 4 (“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
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that an expert violated the rule against vouching but did not cause unfair prejudice because a video-taped interview provided the jury with an independent basis of knowledge), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.” 9 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted), aff’d
Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Minn. Stat. § 590.01-.11 v. Modern Recycling, Inc., )), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Richard John McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lee Weseman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lee Weseman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“An assignment of error in a brief based on a ‘mere assertion’ and not supported by argument or authority is 5 waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
deeming arguments set out in pro se supplemental brief waived because “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); (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
State of Minnesota v. Richard John McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ent or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); (stating that appellant’s allegation 7 of error by the district court based on “mere assertion” and not supported by legal argument or authority is waived unless the prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
out in pro se supplemental brief would not be considered because the “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); (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
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“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).
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that expert’s testimony violated vouching prohibition but was not unfairly prejudicial because the jury was able to independently judge child witness’s credibility), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
brief waived because “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal 13 authority in support of the allegations”); (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
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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).
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. E. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. E. M. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotations omitted)); (“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
State of Minnesota v. Elvis Joko Porte Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elvis Joko Porte Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying the rule that arguments that are based on “mere assertion” are waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Jared Armand Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jared Armand Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 11 783, 795 (Minn. App. 2006) (“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
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by