Cited by

(discussing issues “unsupported by argument or authority”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(explaining that assignments of error on mere assertion are forfeited unless prejudicial error is obvious), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“To demonstrate an injury-in -fact, the plaintiff must point to an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendants’ challenged action and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

does not authorize OAH to find that unpromulgated rules exceed agencies’ statutory authority.

4 DECISION As a preliminary matter, we note that assignments of error in a brief “based on mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., -52 (Minn. App. 2017) (applying this aspect of Schoepke), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

See Schoepke, d at 135; (noting that a party forfeits a claim by failing to support it with authority), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(explaining that arguments made without supporting authority need not be considered), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

An “assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

4 Mere assertions of error without supporting legal authority or legal argument are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (noting that a party forfeits a claim by failing to support it with authority), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(appellate argument that lacks supporting authority “is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

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.

But, as discussed above, that case is distinguishable from the facts before us. And “[a]n assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

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

(“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

Mere assertions of error without supporting legal authority or legal argument are forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

rev. denied (Minn. 3 Apr.

“ An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“The lack of standing bars judicial consideration of a claim.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“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).

“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

9 rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

An assignment of error that is based on “mere assertion” and is unsupported by legal authority is forfeited and need not be considered “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

of Am., or cite any legal authority in his appellate brief, d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

20, 2017); Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (citation omitted) ( “An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on 6 with the child at the time of removal because “home” connotes an existing social unit .

And an inadequately briefed issue is not grounds for reversal unless error is “obvious on mere inspection.” , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“The lack of standing bars judicial consideration of a claim.” Scheffler v. City of Anoka , d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Apr.

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

Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (stating that an argument based on mere assertion withou t citation to authority is forfeited), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (noting that a reviewing court may decline to reach issu es that are not adequately briefed); (stating that a party forfeits a claim by failing to suppor t it with argument or authority), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Scheffler v. City of Anoka , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

See Grunig, d at 136 (requiring adequate legal support for appellate c onsideration of newly raised issue); see also Scheffler v. City of Anoka , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.