Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8.

257 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Carlos Kendall Duncan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Bartylla , (stating appellate courts “will n o t consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Bartylla , -23 (Minn. 2008) (holding pro se claims waive d because they lacked “supportive arguments and/or legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Alan Jon Nagle Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Dmitri M. Medvedovski v. Nadezhda Ivanovna Medvedovski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(appellate courts “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
Roy A. Day on behalf of himself and as class action on behalf of others similarly situated v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(Appellate courts “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Nissalke v. State 920 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 2018
Nissalke v. State 920 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 2018
State v. Bartylla , , 22 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Clayton Francis Marshalek Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Sean Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Glen Dale Acon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citation s to legal authority.”
State of Minnesota v. Davon Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Bartylla , (stating that this court “ will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority ”); (rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).
State of Minnesota v. Alexis Giovanni Barrow Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Bartylla, 8 (declining to “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Christopher Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And “[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either argument s or citations to legal authority.” d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (determining arguments in an appellant’s pro se supplemental brief waived because the “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations.”).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Ray Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Lee Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(appellate courts “will not consider pro se arguments on appeal th at are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”) Affirmed.
State of Minnesota v. Casimir Robert Krithers Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that an incarcerated prisoner has a lower expectation of privacy than a probationer, parolee, or conditional releasee); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 524, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 3199 (1984) (stating that “while persons imprisone d for crime enjoy many protections of the Constitution
State of Minnesota v. Albert George McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jessica Fisher v. TCG, Inc., d/b/a Humera, Inginaire, Binesta and Jurisin, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(a ppellate courts “will not consider 7 pro se arguments on appeal that are unsupporte d by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Allen St. Claire Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Stevie Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court does “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are 16 unsupported by either argument s or citations to legal authority.” State v. Bartylla
State of Minnesota v. Vollie Andre Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Chevelle Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
24, 2007) ; see also State v. Bartylla , -23 (Minn. 2008) (declining to consider pro se claims on appeal that are lacking in supportive arguments or legal authority ).
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Sontoya , , 876 (Minn. 2010) (declining to address a pro se claim on the merits where the pro se defendant did not cite in his pro se brief either the record or legal authority); State v. Bartylla , , 22 (Minn. 2008) (noting that "[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority").
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan David Janssen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b); (quot ation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Jockieth Malone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Dale David Lott Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Walter Marquetta Humphrey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Raymond Burke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Philip George Kruse v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A17-0552), and State of Minnesota (A17-0564), vs. Philip George Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 12 108-09, 98 S. Ct. 330, 332 (1977)).
State of Minnesota v. Ramone Lamont Newell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christopher Hall Posey v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not su pported by any argument or authorities in 4 appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. Bartylla , –23 (M inn.
A17-0222 State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Lydell Collier, and Emanuel Lydell Collier, vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, vs Floyd Erik Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Albert Genchi-Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Zane Robert Stigen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Grant Lloyd Greenwood Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either argum ents or citations to legal authority.”), cert denied, 556 U.S. 1134 (2009).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Marlin Morey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Saleem McKeever Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Bartylla , –23 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Scott Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-34 (Minn. 2008) (declining to review pro se issues that “are lacking in supporting arguments and/or legal authority” and that do not reveal “prejudicial error .
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”); (deeming pro se argument that included “no argument or citation to legal authority” forfeited).
In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal of Gary L. Johnson and In the Matter of the SIRS … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal of Gary L. Johnson and In the Matter of the SIRS … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016