Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY BY THE SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND v. Wintz Parcel Dri…, 558 N.W.2d 480.

352 citing documents.

In re the Custody of: O.R.K., Jeremy Peter Kubesh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue not adequately briefed); -65 (Minn. 1994) (“[O]n 13 appeal error is never presumed.
A22-0349 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (stating that we decline to consider inadequately briefed issues); (“[O]n appeal, error is never presumed.
Landform Professional Services, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (stating that appellate courts decline to reach inadequately briefed issues).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew James Beland, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying Wintz in a family law appeal).
In re the Matter of: Matthew Chandler Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach inadequately briefed issue); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (declining to reach issue in the absence of prejudicial error).
In re the Marriage of: Elizabeth Ann Jones Chidothe, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (applying Wintz in a family- law appeal).
In the Matter of Brita Johanna Springstead, on behalf of minor child, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, (declining to reach issue not adequately briefed); d 461, 464- 65 (Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.
A21-1064 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
42 Inc., see Brodsky, d at 479 (applying Wintz to a family-law appeal).
William H. Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 1994).
In re the Marriage of: Allison Catherine Buckner, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); Brodsky, d at 479 (applying Wintz in a family law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Holly Joy Klick, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State, Dep’t of Labor & d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach issue not adequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family law appeal); 6 Mother cites one unpublished case, Robbennolt v. Weigum , WL 1551686, at *2 (Minn. App. Apr.
Kenneth Kuller, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (M inn.
In the Matter of: Heidi Kay Wiplinger obo minor children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an issue not adequately briefed); Melina v. Chaplin , (deeming arguments forfeited on appeal that are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no citation to relevant legal authority).
Sharon Powers-Potter, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (providing that inadequately briefe d issues are not properly before an appellate court); Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc. , (“While an appellant acting pro se is usually accorded some leeway in attempting to compl
In re the Marriage of: Lisa Ranelle Appelhof, petitioner, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); (applying Wintz in a family law appeal).
Katherine Dillard Rice Hayes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an inadequately briefed question) .
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declin ing to review questions that were not adequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).
Shane K. Harris, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (noting that a reviewing court may decline to reach issu es that are not adequately briefed); (stating that a party forfeits a claim by failing to suppor t it with argument or authority), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. L. W. and C. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz in a TPR appeal).
In re the Matter of: Kaitlyn Mae Steffenhagen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: Sarah Meagan Gallo, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc ., (noting that reviewing court may decline to reach issu es that are not adequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); see Brodsky v. 12 Brodsky, (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. M. M. R., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (d eclining to address an inadequately briefed question); In re Child of P.T.
Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
Jay A. Soeffker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue not adequately briefed); d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal erro r is never presumed.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. O. K. and C. L. K., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz in TPR appeal); State, Minn. Pollution Control Agency v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (holding appellate courts may decide n
, A21-0923 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Floyd Joseph Moen, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).
In re the Matter of: Jill Moore, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue not adequately briefed); (same).
In re the Marriage of: Samuel H. Boimah, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., see Brodsky v. Brodsky , d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying Wintz in a family -law appeal); (stating the supreme court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal tha t are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal
In the Matter of: Raymond Semler. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach an inadequately briefed issue); Schoepke v. Alexander Sm ith & Sons Carpet Co. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argu ment or authorities in appella nt’s brief is waived.”); Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless S
Melodie Helquist, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , ; Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (“An assignment 1 Between March 16, 2020, and July 1, 2021, Emergency Executive Order 20-05 allowed ULJs to consider otherwise untimely requests for reconsideration if the relator substantially complied with the
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. J. S. and C. L., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz in TPR appeal); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (holding appellate courts may decide not to entertain an argument when party fails to cite legal authority unless prejudicial error is
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Anne Kiberu-Kalema, n/k/a/ Brenda Anne Kiberu, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to reach an issue “in the absence of adequate briefing”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: H. R. and B. R. (deceased), Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to reach inadequately briefed issues); see also In re Welfare of Child of P.T.
William M. Ross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (workers’ compensation coverage), review granted in part, decision modified
In re the Marriage of: Stacy Ann Rakow, f/k/a Przybilla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and no t supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”); see also State Dep’t of Labor & Indu s. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue).
Builders Association of the Twin Cities, d/b/a Housing First Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel 21 Drivers, Inc. , (d eclining to consider inadequately briefed argument).
In re the Custody of Derek Mausolf and Claire Mausolf, Nicholas Mausolf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., ).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. B. and C. J. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach inadequately briefed issues); n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz in a termination of parental rights appeal).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. M. A., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); In re Welfare of Children of J.B.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. H.-N. and L. V., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue absent adequate briefing); (citing this aspect of Wintz in TPR appeal).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
In the Matter of: Gohar Yesayan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue not adequately briefed); Midway Ctr.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. E. S., M. W. C., and T. … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); (citing this aspect of Wintz in a TPR appeal).
Lee Ray Bolch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach issues that were inadequately briefed).
Michael Nassif, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (concluding that appellate courts decline to reach issues that are inadequately briefed); - 65 ( Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. C. and J. J. A. L., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); In re Welfare of Children of J.B.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Richard Russell Fageroos. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997); (applying Wintz in a civil-commitment matter), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).