Cited by

“Although some accommodations may be made for [self-represented] litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that [self-represented] litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” (), aff’d

While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

(“[P]ro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”).

While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

Nonetheless, self-represented litigants “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

7 While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

But “[a]lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, we have repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

adequately communicating to the court what it is [they] want[] accomplished and by whom.” Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc., (noting that, generally, self-represented litigants are “held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules”).

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“Although some accommodations may be made for [self-represented] litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that [self-represented] litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

Even so, self-represented litigants “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys,” and the ULJ must remain neutral, even when assisting a self-represented party in the presentation of evidence, Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC

119 (Minn. App. 2001) (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.

While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants,” we have “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

Kropp, d at 653; (“Although some accommodations may be made for [self-represented] litigants, this court has repeatedly 7 emphasized that [self-represented] litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”).

Further, “[a]lthough some accommodations may be made for [self-represented] litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that [they] are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” see also Minn. R. Gen.

“Although some accommodations may be made for [self -represented] litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that [self-represented] litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“[T]his court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

It is true that “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants,” but we have nevertheless “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys[.]”

[such] litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

A self-represented litigant is “generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

An assertion of error not supported by argument or authorities is forfeited and will not be considered “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (holding pro se parties to generally the same standard as attorneys).

While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

We recognize that Post is representing himself on appeal and we afford him some leeway in that effort; but even so, self-represented litigants 7 “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.”

It often is said that “pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

See, e.g., State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“This court will not review issues that are argued under a new theory on appeal or that are unsupported by any argument or authority in a party’s brief.”); d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001) (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”).

And while “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

icial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2025); -77 (Minn. App. 2019) (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, we generally hold them to the same standards as attorneys.” (d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001))).

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”