Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, et al., City of Coon Rapids, et al., Hicken, Scott, H…, 890 N.W.2d 437.

81 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Sarah Meagan Gallo v. Robert Warren Gallo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Joel Clarence Velisek Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
In re the Marriage of: John Edward Warrington v. Karen Lee Warrington Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017) (“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by 14 Karen also argues that, even if the statutory presumptions under section 518A.39, subd.
David William Reynolds v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Docks of White Bear Lake, LLC v. Dockside Waterski Company, d/b/a Tally's Dockside, and City of White Bear … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017) (“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.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
S. K v. Minnesota Department of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Joseph D. Roach v. Lapp, Libra, Thomson, Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Mitchell Wilfred Suess v. Wesley W. Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (stating that “assignment of error based on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority, is forfeited”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Daniel Raymond Jacobs v. Zdenka Irena Fenikova Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But an assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is 7 forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
Maine Heights LLC v. Mohammed Hayat, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Debra Sakrison v. City of Gilbert Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Mark R. Krampf v. University of Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“This de novo review in cludes our interpretation of the MGDPA.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
Philip Carlson, Virginia Carlson v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Bryan Crane, Karen Crane Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Further, on appeal, a party must make more than “[a]n assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authority,” or the argument “is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Ruth Crosby v. Champagne D’Argent Rabbit Federation Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (“An assignment of error on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or au thority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”) (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , ), review denied (Minn
In re the Guardianship of: Jack Earl Kestner, Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“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.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Donald L. Bryant v. Joshua W. Bryant, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” Scheffler v. Cit y of Anoka , , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki v. David Victor Rucki, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , 1 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Wilson v. Todd Joseph Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of: Kathryn M. Larson, on behalf of Minor Child v. Keith Norman Marohn Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development, LLC v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The lack of standing bars judicial consideration of a claim.” Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Apr.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Courtney Thompson, Gabriela Von Mende, et al./counterclaim plaintiffs/third party plaintiffs, vs. … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We base our review on the undisputed facts and construe any 6 disputed evidence in favor of the nonmoving party.” d 437, 443 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Karl Ackerson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that “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”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking v. Audra Jo Buxengard f/k/a Audra Jo Freking Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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.” Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
East View Information Services, Inc. v. Xigent Solutions, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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.” 51 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Ahmed Said v. Davin Branwall Minn. Ct. App. 2018
App. P. 128.05 (emphasis added); see also Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Apr.
Jody L. Wiza, d/b/a Shack Bar, LLC v. City Council of the City of Dover, Minnesota, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (“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.”) 6 III.
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger v. Richard C. Dreger Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Steven Uhr v. University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the matter of the Administrative Citation: RFS 14-1071686, June 02, 2016, 4037 Washburn Avenue South, Issued to: … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because her assertion is unsupported by argument or legal authority, it “need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, review denied (Minn. Apr.
Dr. Jonathan Peterson v. Ruth Martinez, in her Official Capacity, et al., The Professional Renewal Center Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of: Loan Group I of the trusteeship created by Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation relating … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.