Cited by

(indicating that assertions without “argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations” are deemed waived).

(indicating that allegations of error not supported by “argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations” are waived).

-20 (Minn. 2002) (providing that allegations ma de without argument or cita tion to legal authorities are forfeited).

(noting that allegations of error without “argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations” are deemed waived).

“Claims contained in a pro se supplemental brief with ‘no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations’ are deemed waived.” (d 713, 719-20 (Minn. 2002)).

See State v. Krosch , (deeming allegations of wrongdoing by trial counsel forfeited when unsupported by “argument or citation to legal authority”).

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

(refusing to consider argumen ts raised in a pro se supplemental brief because it contained “no argument or citation to legal authority”).

See State v. Krosch , (refusing to consider arguments raised in pro se brief because it contained “no argument or citation to legal authority”).

(refusing to consider pro se supplemental brief because it contained “no argument or citation to legal a uthority”).

(deeming pro se arguments waived for failure t o cite legal authority to support the claims).

See State v. Krosch , (deeming allegations of wrongdoing by trial counsel and district court to be forfeited when unsupported by “argument or citation to legal authority”).

See State v. Krosch , (holding if the b rief does not contain an argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations raised, the allegation is deemed waived); (“Arguments are forfeited if they are presented in a su mmary and conclusory fo

(“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)).

(deeming allegations of 13 wrongdoing by trial counsel and the district court to be forfei ted when unsupported by “argument or citation to legal authority”).

The state argues that this “conclusory assertion, made without argument or citation to authority, cannot serve as the sole basis to trigger appellate scrutiny of whether that evidence was admissible.” d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002).

(stating that, becau se appellant’s pro se suppleme ntal brief contained no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the alleg ations, those arguments are waived).

See State v. Krosch , (stating that because appellant’s pro se supplemental brief contained “no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the alleg ations” those arguments are waived); (noting that appellant failed to provide any authority or argument to supp

(stating that an appellate court may deem issues raised in a brief, but not adequately argued or explained, forfeited on appeal); State v. Krosch , (stating that allegations set out in a pro se supplemental brief are considered waived when “[t]he brief contains no argument or citation to legal authorit y in support of the allegations”).

And “[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either argument s or citations to legal authority.” d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (determining arguments in an appellant’s pro se supplemental brief waived because the “brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations.”).

( holding that a pro se defendant’ s assertions are deemed waived if they contain no argument or legal authority to support the allegations).

(stating that pro se claims that do not include analysis or legal authority are waived).

State v. Krosch , -19 (Minn. 2002) (noting that due process is not implicated when the state fails to collect evidence).

deem [the issues] waived.”

Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. P'ship , , 600 n.2 (Minn. 2012) ("Summary arguments made without citation to legal support are waived.") (citing State v. Krosch , , 719 (Minn. 2002) ).

(quotation omitted) ); see also State v. Krosch , , 719 (Minn. 2002) ("The brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations and we therefore deem them waived.").

In re Conduct of Karasov , n.12 (Minn. 2011); see also State v. Krosch , (stating that arguments are forfeited if the “brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or au

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.”); (deeming arguments set out in the pro se supplemental brief forfeited because “[t]he brief contain[ed] no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations”).

Appellant does not provide argument or citation to legal authority to support his claims, and we therefore decline to consider them unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted); State v. Krosch , -20 (Minn. 2002).

State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., -79 (Minn. 2015).

(“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”); (deeming pro se argument that included “no argument or citation to legal authority” forfeited).

No due process violation arises from evidence that was never seen or possessed by the police because “it would be illogical to impose an obligation on the state to preserve evidence that it does not possess.”