Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770.

208 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Troy James Bonkowske Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Recycling, Inc., d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997) (quotation omitted).
James T. Mattson, James E. Mattson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC, John Falldin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“ 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.” (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W
In Re the Marriage of Joshua Laurance Patterson v. Rebecca Marie Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Amy Alyssa Arnemann, on Behalf of Minor Children v. Samuel Morton Post III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of: Amy Alyssa Arnemann, on Behalf of Minor Children v. Samuel Morton Post III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ).
In re the Custody of the Children of: Nicole Marie Petersen v. Ruby Nivelo, Rafael Silva Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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 litigant
In the Matter of the Arthur F. Symens Revocable Trust created September 21, 2016 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Arthur F. Symens Revocable Trust created September 21, 2016 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 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.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
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
Recycling, Inc., d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997).
Rosa Maria Maldonado Lopez v. Brooke Lea Simpson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted); see State Dep’t of Lab.
Husen A. Guffe v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Recycling, Inc., We note that the ULJ has a duty to assist the parties during proceedings.
Ahmad Daniel v. Honeywell International, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keith Arthur Bowers Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be 10 considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).
Fitness International, LLC v. City Center Ventures, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” ); see also State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant ’s brief is [forfeited] .
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Steven D. Woodke, et al v. Travis Bracha, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
In re the Matter of Michael Wartman, et al., and the Commissioner of Crystal Bay Township, Janet Rothbart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Recycling, Inc. , ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“A reviewing court cannot base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” (quotation omitted)); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that a party’s failure to support an argument with proper “argument or authorities” will not be considered on appeal (quotation omitted)).
James Russell v. Cory T. Axelson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State , Minn. Pollution Control Agency v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
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 not to consider an argument when party fails to cite legal authority unless prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection”).
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 “obvious on mere inspection” ).
Ellis Evans v. Ian Niklas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kathleen Corte v. Matthew Jon Larson, Kylie Rodgers Special Needs Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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 obviou s on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Scot A. Lacek v. Evolutionary Systems Corp Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Modern Recycling , Inc.
State of Minnesota v. James Antrquier Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prej udicial error is obvious on mere i nspection.”) Therefore, because Thomas failed to adequately brief these issues
Lue Yang v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Wat Lao Sirithammaram, Inc., et al v. Mark Vinath Saythong, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 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.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. B. and T. B., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Angela Tehranpour v. Beauty Basics Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We do not consider supposed errors that are mere assertions lacking corresponding argument or cited authority unless prejudicial error is obvious to us. State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
In re: Request for Records by Amina Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Moreover, a n assignment of error in a n appellate brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ).
David Timp, et al v. Deborah Gibbs, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted); see also Moorhead Econ.
Jeremy D. Mount v. Allana M. Mount Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc ., see also, e.g., Dep’t. of Labor & Indus.
Washington County CDA v. Evelyn Baker, Anna Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 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.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Randall Rahn v. Midway Farm Equipment, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that an assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is 11 waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection) ; see also, e.g., State Dep’t. of Labor & Indus.
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner v. Margaret Eleanor Ortner Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unles s 10 prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted); (citing Modern Recycling and concluding that because party’s argument on appeal was not specific, he waived the issue).
In re the matter of: Michael John Hernandez v. Jodie Marie Haaland Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 9 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 inspec tion.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. App. 2007) (citing to Modern Recycling and concluding that because the father’s argument on appeal was not specific, he waived the issue).
In re the Estate of: Pauline Mary Serpico, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Sokkhan Ka v. Lonvigson’s Service Center, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
James M. Erickson v. Darlene P. Klenck, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8, 2017); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (stating that mere assertions of error without supporting legal authority or argument are waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Alyssa Post v. Samuel Morton Post, III Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
In re the Matter of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 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.” (quotation omitted)).
Samuel Zean v. Mary T. Inc., et al. Respondents Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In what constitutes a conclusory assertion, unsupported by specific allegations, appellant contends that he “clearly and unequivocally established and convincingly prove[d] that [Mary T] wrongfully fired him and retaliated against him.” See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 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.” (
Tracy Leigh Thompson o/b/o D. X. T v. David Winfred Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
While such lapses may constitute waiver, see State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., we address the argument in the interests of justice.
Patricia Trelstad v. Titan Development & Investments, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 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.” (quotation omitted)).
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Dezeray Marie Roblero-Barrios Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An argument “based on mere assertion and not 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.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Sharee Nolan v. Rockin Ronny’s Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An assignment of error in a brief based on “ mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived “unless prejudicial error 5 is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Walden Narveson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., State v. Butcher , review denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Custody of A. M. W. Kelly James Wadsen v. Jennifer Maggie Rosenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (explaining that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived” (quotation omitted)).