Cited by

1 (“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.” (d 539, 552 (Minn. 2009))).

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

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke).

5 “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.”

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (“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.”); (applying this aspect of Schoepke).

see also Stone v. Invitation Homes, Inc., d 489, 494 n.6 (Minn. 2024) (explaining that, despite the Minnesota Supreme Court’s use of the term “waived” in previous decisions, “waiver is when a known right is voluntarily relinquished, whereas forfeiture occurs when a party fails to timely a

1(1); (“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.” (Andersen I) (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.” d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

(stating that 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).

“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 .

(holding that arguments not supported by argument are generally forfeited).

d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015).

( reciting principle that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .

See State v. Ali , (“[W]e will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court, even when criminal defendants raise constitutional claims for the first time on appeal.”); –41 (Minn. 2020) (dismissing the defendant’s 10 In re Leslie v. Emerson

d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015) (“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, 915 (Minn. 2015).

See, (explaining that “[a]n 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)).

Schoepke v. Alexander 11 Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke); Ganguli v. Univ.

This court reviews a district court’s “broad discretion to award restitution” for “abuse of that discretion.”

See S tate v. Andersen , (stating that a claim of error “based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .

(holding that an assertion without further argument or supporting authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection).

(observing that arguments based on mere assertion and unsupported by argument or authority are forfeited on appeal).

W e review a restitution order for an abuse of the district court’s “broad discretion.” d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015).

d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015).