Cited by

(“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)).

d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015).

( (stating that questions concerning the authority of the court to order restitution are questions of law subject to de novo review)).

See Thiele, d at 582; (“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.”).

7 “A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”

(“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)); (not

And , here again, 11 the state fails to provide any legal support for its argument beyond “mere assertion.” (quotation omitted) (“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.”).

“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).

(considering arguments not supported by legal authority to be forfeited).

(stating that “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is 7 Patton’s Plea Was Voluntary “To determine whether a plea is voluntary, the court examines what the parties reasonably understood to be the terms of the plea agre

$200 in lost wages for traveling to pick up the vehicle.1 “A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”

(“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)).

is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted).

6 obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted).

(“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)).

(“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)).

er 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 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 om

Accordingly, appellate courts do not consider arguments when a party “cites no authority and provides no further argument to support [an] assertion.”

In light of these deficiencies, and because “prejudicial error is [not] obvious on mere inspection,” (quotation omitted), McNally’s fraud argument is forfeited.

An assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or legal authority is forfeited unless prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke); -52 (Minn. App. 2017) (same), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“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).

“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.”

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke); (same), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

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 appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).

“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).