Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77.

121 citing documents.

Danielle DePietto, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dustin Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting argument is waived if not briefed).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But we conclude it is in the interests of justice to consider this issue because the error is “obvious on mere inspection.” (citing Minn. R. Civ.
In the Matter of: Bret William Smith v. Timothy Patrick Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of: Bret William Smith v. Timothy Patrick Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.”
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC v. Les Nielsen 886 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2016
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC v. Les Nielsen 886 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2016
n.8 (Minn. 1997) (“[I]ssues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.”) ().
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Shawn R. Dooling, Bruce Polikowsky v. Caeasar Investment, LLC, (Intervenor). Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Shawn R. Dooling, Bruce Polikowsky v. Caeasar Investment, LLC, (Intervenor). Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 Haley, (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
In Re the Custody of: A. J. O. David Ortiz v. Sarah Judith Un Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the Custody of: A. J. O. David Ortiz v. Sarah Judith Un Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners' Association, and third party v. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners' Association, and third party v. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Whether a duty exists “is a legal question to be determined by the judge, not the jury.” d 77, 81 (Minn. 1987).
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is a legal question to be determined by the judge, not the jury.”
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“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)).
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief ...
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating that “issues not argued in *197 briefs must be deemed waived on appeal”) (quotation omitted); -80 (Minn.App.2007) (granting respondent’s motion to strike materials from appellant’s appendix that were stricken by district court because appellant waived hi
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Servs., Inc., (concluding that “the [district] court erred in submitting plaintiffs negligence claim to the jury because Service-Master failed to establish that Sentry owed it a duty”); (stating that the district court erred by allowing the existence of a duty to go to the jury).
Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M. 791 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Adoption of T.A.M. ex rel. J.M.J. v. L.A.M. 791 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
("A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (holding that issues not argued in appellate briefs are usually deemed waived).
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that issues not briefed are waived); , 717 n. 2 (Minn.App.1990) (stating arguments not made in appellant’s brief may not be revived in a reply brief), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Brodsky v. Brodsky 733 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brodsky v. Brodsky 733 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(noting argument is waived if not briefed).
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
see State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus.
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 676 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2004
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 676 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2004
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 664 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 664 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 650 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2002
Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 650 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2002
Swarthout v. Mutual Service Life Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2001