Cited by

DISCUSSION ¶9 The Sheas challenge the dismissal of their complaint and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the County.1 1 To the extent the Sheas attempt to raise an additional issue in their reply brief about whether the Department’s proceedings denied them procedural due process, that argument is waived, ¶ 91 (App. 2007), and as explained below, we lack jurisdiction to consider it.

n. 11 (App.2007) (arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived).

¶ 50 (App. 2007) ("[I]t must be shown that the defendants knew the conduct they allegedly aided and abetted was a tort.").

¶ 11 (2017); ¶ 25 (App. 2007).

See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, ¶ 99 (App. 2007).

¶ 91 (App. 2007) (holding that appellate court will not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief on appeal).

¶ 17 (App. 2019); ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (court to address issues likely to arise on remand); ¶ 98 (App. 2007).

¶ 40 n.11 (App. 2007) (finding an issue waived because it was not raised in the opening brief).

¶ 40, n.11 (App. 2007) (issues not raised in opening briefs may be waived).

¶ 96 (App. 2007) (“[P]unitive damages are not recoverable in every fraud case, even though fraud is an intentional tort”) (citation omitted); (“Just a simple showing of actionable fraud .

¶ 91 (App. 2007) (court does not address arguments made for the first time in reply brief).

We review the denial of a motion for new trial based on the verdict being against the weight of the evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 25 (App. 2007), which occurs when “the record fails to provide substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding,” Flying Diamond Airpark, ¶ 27 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

¶ 91 (App. 2007) (recognizing that we generally do “not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief”).

App. P. 13(c) ; see also Dawson v. Withycombe , , ¶ 91

See State v. Abdi , , 366, ¶ 18, , 214 (App. 2011) (court to address issues likely to arise on remand); Dawson v. Withycombe , , 113, ¶ 98, , 1063 (App. 2007).

¶ 91 (App. 2007); see Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 26 (App. 2007).3 Because the superior court never made a finding of fraud, nor explained what clear and convincing evidence was adduced to support such a finding, the majority attempts to fill in the gaps in the superior court's decision.

“We will not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief.” ¶ 91 (App. 2007).