Cited by

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

206 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of 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: 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted); see State Dep’t of Lab.
Husen A. Guffe, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Recycling, Inc., We note that the ULJ has a duty to assist the parties during proceedings.
Ahmad Daniel, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Steven D. Woodke, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
In re the Matter of Michael Wartman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Recycling, Inc. , ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kathleen Corte, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Modern Recycling , Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Wat Lao Sirithammaram, Inc., et al., Respondents, 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, Relator, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted); see also Moorhead Econ.
Jeremy D. Mount, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc ., see also, e.g., Dep’t. of Labor & Indus.
Washington County CDA, Respondent, 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, Relator, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
James M. Erickson, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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., petitioner, Respondent, 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, Relator, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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)).
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.