Cited by

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

206 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We will refuse to consider propositions that are unsupported by legal argument or authority “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Nimco Osman, Relator v. Supershuttle International, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nimco Osman, Relator v. Supershuttle International, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that an assignment of error based on a mere assertion unsupported by argument or citation to authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection); State Dep’t of Labor and Indus.
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Irrevocable Trust of Kristin N. Kuelbs, Donald C. Hill and Edwardena C. Hill, Trustees In … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of Adeline v. Dorosh. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ecause issues not briefed on appeal are waived, including issues alluded to, but not argued, n.1 (Minn. 1998), and “[a]n assignment of error 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 re the Irrevocable Trust of Kristin N. Kuelbs, Donald C. Hill and Edwardena C. Hill, Trustees In … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We will refuse to consider propositions that are unsupported by legal argument or authority “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities” is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection, State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted), and because no error is obvious, Stansberry has waived this argument.
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (refusing to consider issues raised for first time on appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See State v. Modem Recycling, Inc., (stating that an assignment of error in a brief only based on assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“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); see also Ganguli v. Univ.
In re the Rental Dwelling License held by Khan 804 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Rental Dwelling License held by Khan 804 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Modem Recycling, Inc., see also Ganguli v. Univ.
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See State by Humphrey v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that assignment of error in brief based on “mere” assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived (quotation omitted)).
Buscher v. MONTAG DEVELOPMENT, INC. 770 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Buscher v. MONTAG DEVELOPMENT, INC. 770 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (declining to address issue based on mere assertion of error and unsupported by argument or authority).
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A claim that is based on “mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities” is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20 , ).
Karnewie-Tuah v. Frazier 757 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Karnewie-Tuah v. Frazier 757 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Modem Recycling, Inc.
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address issue absent adequate briefing); State v. Modem Recycling, Inc., (stating assignment of error in brief based on mere assertion is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc.
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
of Minn., , 919 n. 1 (Minn.App.1994); see also State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (refusing to consider issues raised for first time on appeal).
State v. Dahl 676 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Dahl 676 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating *311 assignment of error in brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Modern, Recycling, Inc.
State v. Arkell 657 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Arkell 657 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., -72 (Minn.App.1997) (reviewing de novo district court’s application of responsible-corporate-officer doctrine making corporate officer personally liable for administrative penalty against corporation).
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that appellate courts generally will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that assignment of error based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”).
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
North Star Mutual Insurance Co v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 634 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
North Star Mutual Insurance Co v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 634 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
But "[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities * * ⅜ is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived).