Cited by

(stating that “[a]lthough 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”).

& Indus., v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (stating that appellate courts may “decline to reach [an] issue in the absence of adequate briefing”); (stating “[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, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

However, “[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 “[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.”

Self-represented parties are afforded some leeway but “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

13, 1985), this court has also stated that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules, Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

5; (“[P]ro se 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.”

In short, “[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.”

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach an inadequately briefed issue); (“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.”).

119- 20 (Minn. App. 2001).

(stating that “[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”); See Minn. R. Gen.

(“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, .

While some accommodations may be made for self-represented litigants, we have repeatedly emphasized that self-represented “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.”

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issues that are inadequately briefed); (stating that “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 Midway Ctr.

attorney); (emphasizing that although “some accommodations” can be made for pro se litigants, they 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.”

In so doing, we keep in mind that “pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.”

the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Hansen v. U. S. Bank repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” see also Heinsch v. Lot 27, (noting that “[p]ro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys” and that “[u]nfamiliarity with procedural rules is

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (“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 .”).

Even so, “[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.”

We decline to review his claim because it is not properly before us. Although courts afford some leeway to self-represented parties, they “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

“Although some 6 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 we have repeatedly stated that “ [self- represented] litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

An abuse of discretion 2 While we accord “some leew ay” for pro se appellants, Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc. , they are “g enerally 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.”

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 .” .

Additionally, Reis argues that the distri ct court should have accommodated him because he was a self-represented litigan t. While courts may make “some accommodations” for self-represented litigants, we have “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as atto rneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

from Uganda and presumably has no inherent or learned knowledge of the operation of the court system in this country.” But as the district court noted , “ [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.”

But this court has “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

But we have repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are “generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

al hearing, or the July 30 pretrial hearing wh en the district court ruled that it would permit the children 8 We recognize that mother was self-represente d at trial but this court has “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally he ld to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

However, pro se 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 their evidence.

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

Though courts may make “some accommodations” for self-represented litigants, “this court has repeatedly emphasized that [self-represented] litigants are generally held to the same st andards as attorneys and must comply with co urt rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald