Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Butcher, 563 N.W.2d 776.

147 citing documents.

Juan Pachuco Silva, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.6 (Minn. 2017) (declining to reach a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal); (stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(deeming an issue forfeited because the appellant failed to make and develop an argument in their brief), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(an inadequately briefed issue is not properly before this court).
A24-1145 A24-1146 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(holding that issues not briefed are waived).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Relying on, rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But alleged errors not raised in an appellate brief are forfeited, rev. denied (Minn Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(declining to address a forfeited issue); (declining to address an issue for which no argument was developed in the brief), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
A23-1240 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. R. J., Jr., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-81 (Minn. App. 1997) (noting that inadequately briefed issues are waived), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Klaysmat’s rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issue in the absence of adequate briefing.” rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017); (argument waived where “appellant fails to make and develop any argument, other than a general statement”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Nathan Wesley McDonald v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nathan Wesley McDonald v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4 (providing that no further briefs may be filed without leave of appellate court); (stating party may not raise a new argument at oral argument) (citing State v. Bucher , (Minn. App. 2 Under Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (stating that appellate courts will not consider arguments that are unsupported by the record and devoid of legal authority); (deeming an issue waived because appellant failed to make and develop an argument in their brief).
Kristopher Lee Roybal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-81 (Minn. App. 1997) (concluding appellant waived an issue when their brief did not make or develop any argument), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(noting issues not adequately briefed are not properly before an appellate court), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that issues not briefed on appeal are waived), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Butcher , d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997) (noting that is sues not briefed are not properly before an appellate court), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Butcher , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
John Louis Corrigan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Rey , n.3 (Minn. App. 2017) (stating that “issues not briefed are forfeited”) ( review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that appellate court will not decide issues not raised before district court); (stating that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before this court) , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. August.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Butcher , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Butcher , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
He provides no legal support or argument on this issue, however, and therefore it also is waiv ed. See State v. Butcher , , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(criminal), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Merrill , (requiring party challenging constitutionality of statute to prove constitu tional defect beyond a reasonable doubt); (noting that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Butcher , (noting that inadequately 9 briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Butcher , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Butcher , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 776, 781-83 (Minn. App. 1997) (noting that district court must make detailed factual findings on the treaties when interpreting Indian treaties), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(concluding that appellant’s arguments were not properly before the court because appellant failed “to make and develop any argument, other than a general statement”) , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Marchbanks, d at 732 (concluding that the appellant’ s conduct was divisible because he “could unlawfully possess a firearm without possessing any crack cocaine, and conversely, he could possess crack cocaine without possessing a firearm”); (holding offense of possessing uncased firearm was separate from illegal taking of deer and driving after cancellation because, although committed in same time frame, the offenses did not share “an indivisible state of mind”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that review of a rul e 26.01, subdivision 4, proceeding is limited to the dispositive pretrial ruling); (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court); State v. B utcher, (stating that issues not adequately briefed are waived), review denied (Minn. Aug.
A18-1579 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Yang , (holding that issues raised for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief were deemed waived); (noting that inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997) (“Where a defendant asserts error, but fails to address the error in his appellate brief, the issue is deemed waived.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Kevin Scott Karsjens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
David Wayne Benolt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jose Luis Gutierrez. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(Minn. 2002) (stating that because appellant’s pro se supplemental brief contained “no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the alleg ations” those arguments are waived); (noting that appellant failed to provide any authority or argument to support several of his cla ims and therefore those claims were waived); (“Where a defendant asserts error, but fa ils to address the error in hi s appellate brief, the issue is deemed waived.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.