Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brooks v. State, 897 N.W.2d 811.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“An assignment of error based on mere 19 assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Sheila Maurise Burski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Consequently, (stating that this court generally considers only those issues that were presented to the district court); see also Brooks v. State , -19 (Minn. App. 2017) (declining to consider arguments “based on mere assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument”).
State of Minnesota v. Raymont Michael Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymont Michael Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
supplemental brief that are unsupported by either arguments or citation to legal authority are forfeited,” and “will not [be] considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” -51 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted); -19 (Minn. App. 2017) (declining to consider arguments “based on mere assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument”).
In the Matter of: Kaycee Houde v. David Fryxell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Kaycee Houde v. David Fryxell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And “issues not adequately briefed are waived.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Lewison Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Lewison Minn. Ct. App. 2023
supplemental brief that are unsupported by either arguments or citation to legal authority are forfeited,” and “will not [be] considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” -51 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted); -19 (Minn. App. 2017) (declining to consider arguments “based on mere assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
supplemental brief that are unsupported by either arguments or citation to legal authority are forfeited,” and “will not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” - 51 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted) ; see also Brooks v. State , (declining to consider arguments “based on mere assertion”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Brooks v. State , d 811, 818 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. B. and T. B., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In addition, “issues not adequately briefed are waived.” Brooks v. State , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by legal authority or argument i s waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Sokkhan Ka, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Moreover, “issues not adequa tely briefed are waived.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Stanley Paul Wenell-Jack, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[I]ssues not adequately briefed are waived.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
James M. Erickson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[I]ssues not adequately briefed are waived.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[I]ssues not adequately briefed are waived.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[I]ssues not adequately briefed are waived.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Richard Willmar Rapatt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
”2 , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 811, 819 (Minn. App. 2017) (“[I]ssues not adequately briefed are waived.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-19 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Aug.