Cited by

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

255 citing documents.

A18-0489 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1087 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jessica Fisher, Relator, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b); (quot ation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-0564 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 12 108-09, 98 S. Ct. 330, 332 (1977)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christopher Hall Posey, petitioner, Appellant, 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.
, A17-0220, A17-0222 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Bartylla , –23 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson 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. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016