Cited by

Bartylla, d at 23; (declining to consider allegation made in a self-represented supplemental brief that contained “no argument or citation to legal authority”).6 Affirmed.

Arguments are deemed forfeited when a “brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations.”

v. Anda, (“[R]aising issues for appeal in one’s reply brief is not proper practice and is not to be permitted.” (quotation omitted) ); - 20 (Minn. 2002) (noting that a pro se litigant forfeits any claims made if the litigant fails to provide legal arguments or citation to legal authority in support of those claims unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).

(stating that arguments are forfeited if the “brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”).

“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.” -20 (Minn. 2002) (quoting Louden, d at 166).

(stating that claims deemed forfeited when brief contains no citation to legal authority in support of the claims).

d 713, 719-20 (Minn. 2002) (deeming claims forfeited when unsupported by argument or citation to legal authority).

(“The brief contains no argument or citation to legal autho rity in support of the allegations and we therefore deem them waived.”).4 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A reviewing court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (dismissing appellant’s arguments because the self-represented brief contained “no argument[s] or citation[s] to legal authority in support of the allegations”); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argum

-23 (Minn. 2008) (stating 26 assertions of error without supporting legal argument or authority are forfeited unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection ); State v. Krosch , (deeming arguments in a pro se brief waived because the brief contained “no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”).

A reviewing court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” -20 (Minn. 2002) (dismissing appellant’s arguments because the pro se brief contained “no argument[s] or citation[s] to legal authority in support of the allegations”); d.

(stating that claims deemed forfeited when brief contains no citation to legal authority in support of the claims).

(holding that, in the absence of legal citation to support arguments, the arguments are deemed to have been waived).

(“The brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations and we therefore deem them waived.”).

(concluding that pro se defendant’s assertions are waived if they contain no argument or legal authority to support allegations); Hecker v. Hecker , n.2 (Minn. App. 1996) (requiring that material assertions of fact be supported by citation to the record), aff’d, d 70

See State v. Krosch , - 20 (Minn. 2002) (declining to address arguments in the absence of citations to legal authority); State v. Doppler , (concluding that matters of trial strategy cannot support claims of ineffective assistance).

An appellate court need not “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (“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.”).

His brief, however, “contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of [his] allegations.”

Gbassie’s pro se brief, however, “contains no 13 argument or citation to legal authority in support of [his] allegations.” State v. Krosch

(holding that when a party “fails to provide any authority or argument to support [a] claim,” the claim is forfeited).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (failure to make a timely assertion of a right is a forfeiture of that right).

State v. Krosch , (declining to addre ss pro se arguments that are fu lly addressed in the public defender’s appellate brief).

See State v. Krosch , (refusing to consider pro se brief that contained “no argument or citation to legal authority”).

See State v. Krosch , (declining to consider allegations made in a supplemental brief with “no argument or citation to legal authority”).

5, 1997); d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (stating that arguments are forfeited if the “brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”).

(concluding allegations in a brief unsupported by argument or citation to legal authority were forfeited).