Cited by

(quotation omitted); (“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

Self- represented litigants, like those represented by counsel, must support their claims with “either arguments or citations to legal authority.” State v. Bartylla

Self-represented litigants must support their claims with “either arguments or citations to legal authority.” State v. Bartylla , .

(concluding that issues “lacking in supportive arguments and/or legal authority” are deemed forfeited unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)); (noting that appellate courts generally consider only issues present

We have considered several cases in which a medical examiner testified that the cause of death was “homicidal violence,” –31 (Minn. 1982), and the admissibility of that opinion was not contested.

Self-represented litigants, like those represented by counsel, m ust support their claims with “either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

We have carefully reviewed those pro se arguments, and we do not “see any obvious prejudicial error.” -23 (Minn. 2008) (affirming with respect to pro se issues “because no prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).

6 This court declines to “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” 6 An order of this court allowed mother to supplement her principal brief with additional arguments made in a motion filed with this court.

-23 (Minn. 2008) (stating that appellate courts “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority,” particularly when “no prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)).

This court does “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108–09 (1977)).

claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”) In addition, which addresses the admissibility of prior convictions to impeach a witness under Minnesot

(“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.” (quotation omitted)); (noting that appellate courts “will not consider [self-represented] claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).

(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

(“[Appellate courts] will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

Further, the cautionary instructions given by the district court “lessen[ed] the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the [ Spreigl] evidence.” (holding that district court’s cautionary instructions regarding permissible uses of Spreigl evidence “minimized” concerns about potential for undue prejudice); (stating that appellate courts

(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1977)).

A reviewing court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (dismissing appellant’s arguments because the self-represented brief contained “no argument[s] or citation[s] to legal authority in support of the allegations”); (“An assignment of e

He appears to argue that a correctional employee attempted to interview Bell while Bell’s public defender was present, which, he contends, would have been an “unlawful act.” “We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” -23 (Minn. 2008).

d 8, 22-23 (Minn. 2008).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 8, 22 (Minn. 2008) (providing that appellate courts “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).

Finally, and in any event, the district court’s repeated cautionary instructions “lessen[ed] the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the [Spreigl] evidence.” (holding that the district court’s cautionary instructions regarding permissible uses of Spreigl evidence “minimized” concerns about the potential for undue prejudice); cf. Buchan, d at 626-27 (concluding that any error in admitti

-23 (Minn. 2008) (stating 26 assertions of error without supporting legal argument or authority are forfeited unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection ); State v. Krosch , (deeming arguments in a pro se brief waived because the brief contained “no argument or cit

A reviewing court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” -20 (Minn. 2002) (dismissing appellant’s arguments because the pro se brief contained “no argument[s] or citation[s] to legal authority in support of the allegations”); d.

See State v. Bartylla , (stating this court will not consider pro se arguments on appeal that are not supported by either arguments or citations to legal authority); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in

(upholding the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 609.117 (2002)).

(explaining, in the context of Spreigl evidence, that “a cautionary instruction lessens the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence” (quotation omitted)); (stating that appellate courts presume the jury followed

(stating appellate court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).

(declining to consider pro se claims on appeal that are not supported “by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).