Cited by

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

79 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Docks of White Bear Lake, LLC, Appellant, 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., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Joseph D. Roach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, 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: 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Mark R. Krampf, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“This de novo review in cludes our interpretation of the MGDPA.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
Philip Carlson, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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
A19-1067 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, Respondent, 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: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , 1 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Scheffler v. City of Anoka , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of: 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, Relator, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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., Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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, Relator, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Steven Uhr, Appellant, 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, Appellant, 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.