Cited by

Mother asserts that, even if father’s proposed modification was not a de facto custody modification, the endangerment standard still applies, rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities” is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., (applying this aspect of Midway in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., (Minn. 2 The order was amended to include the previously reserved issue of child support, which father does not dispute on appeal.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (explaining that an assignment of error “not supported by any argument or authorities” is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”); (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating “[a]n 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”); see also Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“[E]videntiary rulings are within the district court’s discretion and are also reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities” is forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ; (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Midway Ctr., Inc. , d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975); see Braith v. Fischer , (applying Midway in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“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.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., d 716, 725 (Minn. App. 2001) (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority “is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”); (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Braith v. Fischer , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Midway Ctr., Inc., d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975); (applying Midway in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

d 716, 721 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any 7 argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ; see also Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family -law appeal) , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Loth, d at 546; (applying this concept to a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Midway Ctr., Inc. , Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass’n , Inc. , ; (applying this aspect of Midway in a family law appeal) , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“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 consid ered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , see also Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“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.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 35 (Minn. 1971); see Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

As an initial matter, an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in ap pellant’s brief is waived and will not be 9 considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (applying Schoepke in a family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (deeming argument forfeited for insufficient briefing where no prejudicial error was obvious); (applying Schoepke in a family-law appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.

the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” -65 (Minn. 1944); (applying this concept in a family-law appeal), review 7 denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

See Melius, d at 418 ( requiring appellant to demonstrate both abu se of discretion and prejudice to warrant reversal); (same).

303.03(b) (providing that the court may take “appropriate action” when a party fails to timely respond to a motion); Braith v. Fischer , (recognizing district court’s discretion in 4 procedural rulings), review denied (Minn. Oct.

However, procedural and evidentiary rulings are discretionary with the district court and are “reviewed under an abuse -of-discretion standard.” review denied (Minn. Oct.

-25 (Minn. App. 2001) (declining to address judicial -bias claim not presented to the district court), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

11 time] and we will not overturn its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” 1 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

bvious, this argument is not properly before us. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , (stating that an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by an argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal 6 unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”); Braith v. Fischer , d 716, 725 (Minn. App .

First, while appellant’s reply brief introduced this argument to some degree—stating, because appellant is “disabled under the law,” due to “evident physical injuries that he suffered to his face and mouth,” appellant “should have been offered a different testing method” —arguments appearing for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before us. See Braith v. Fischer , review denied (Minn. Oct.

(“[T]he issue of bias was not presented to the district court and we decline to address the issue.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.

s obvious, this argument is not properly before us. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating that an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not sup ported 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”); Braith v. Fischer , (applying Schoepke in a family law appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (concluding that the issue not properly briefed was waived), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

–25 (Minn. App. 2001) (noting that appellant offered no evidence of bias and was simply dissatisfied with the outcome), review denied (Minn. Oct.

reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

This rule applies in the context of judicial -bias clai ms. See Braith v. Fischer , -25 (Minn. App. 2001) (declining to address judicial -bias claim that was not presented to the district court) , review denied (Minn. Oct.