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: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An assignment of error in a 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., (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Medical License of S. Fred Everett, M.D., Year of Birth: 1935, License Number: … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Medical License of S. Fred Everett, M.D., Year of Birth: 1935, License Number: … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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)).
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Dean M. Haupt, Relator v. Menard, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dean M. Haupt, Relator v. Menard, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address issue absent adequate briefing); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating assignment of error in brief based on mere assertion is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).
Capital One Bank, N. A. v. Don T. Mashak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Capital One Bank, N. A. v. Don T. Mashak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 6 on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Kristin Marie Poeschel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 871 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristin Marie Poeschel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 871 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Minn. Stat. § 590.01-.11 v. Modern Recycling, Inc., )), aff’d on other grounds
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: I. M. W. and R. J. M., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: I. M. W. and R. J. M., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
Estate of Lawrence A. Werner by Vivian Eileen Werner, Personal Representative v. Kreg A. Werner, and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Estate of Lawrence A. Werner by Vivian Eileen Werner, Personal Representative v. Kreg A. Werner, and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because no prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection,” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted), we decline to consider whether the district court erred by finding insufficient proof of these claims.
State of Minnesota v. Logan Nicholas Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Logan Nicholas Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that we will not consider arguments lacking support or authority on appeal).
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Kristin Holly Scherman, on behalf of minor child, A. S. v. Tad Gregory … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Kristin Holly Scherman, on behalf of minor child, A. S. v. Tad Gregory … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to reach an inadequately briefed issue); see also State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (holding that assignment of 7 error unsupported by argument or assertion is waived unless error and prejudice are obvious).
In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ); (applying this rule in the criminal context), aff’d on other grounds, d 243 (Minn. 2007).
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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)).
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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 waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
Rahn's Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., ELI Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rahn's Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., ELI Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by 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)).
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (deeming arguments unsupported by legal authority to be waived unless prejudicial error is “obvious” upon “mere inspection”); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that we will not consider arguments lacking supporting arguments or authority unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita v. Thomas Parrish Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John R. Voita, Special Administrator of the Estate of Vivian P. Voita v. Thomas Parrish Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, ).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But he provides no support for his argument beyond a brief assertion that “the current use of the conviction in this case is a present violation of Crawford.” This court will not consider “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities,” unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 Civil Commitment of: Brenda Sue Loewen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brenda Sue Loewen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An appellant must demonstrate that the district court erred, Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass’n, Inc., and arguments that amount to mere assertions are waived unless a prejudicial error is readily apparent, State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 7 obvious on mere inspection.”) (quoting Schoepke