Cited by

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (“Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant’s position on the issue in question.”).

¶22 A formal doctor-patient relationship “is not the only source of a doctor’s duty toward a patient,” but there is no duty when “the doctor has no intent to treat, care for or otherwise benefit the [examinee].” –96, ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (cleaned up).

(failure to cite relevant authorities, statutes, and portions of record as required by Rule 13(a) “can constitute abandonment and waiver” of claim).

(arguments not developed on appeal deemed waived).

App. P. 13(a)(7) (Opening brief must contain contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with support.); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (considering all inadequately supported arguments waived); ¶¶ 61-62 (App. 2009) (same).

v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2021) (“We may reject an argument based on lack of proper and meaningful argument alone.”); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (explaining that appellants abandon claims when they do not establish their position on a particular issue in question).

¶24 Even assuming Husband has not waived his argument by failing to reference case law or statutes supporting an argument that the superior court misapplied California law, see ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); ¶ 45 (App. 2017); ¶ 62 (App. 2009), we find no reversible error.

Whether a defendant breached the standard of care generally is for the trier of fact to resolve, ¶ 11 (App. 2009), but summary judgment can be granted if “no reasonable juror could conclude that the standard of care was breached.” ¶ 24 (2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rudolph v. Ariz. B.A.S.S.

v. Espiau, –94, ¶ 25 (App. 2021) (Arguments not raised before the superior court are waived.); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (Arguments not developed and supported by authority are waived.).

App. P. 13(a)(7); (failure to present significant arguments supported by authority waives issue on appeal).

¶ 11 (App. 2009) (stating that the elements of negligence besides duty “are factual issues, and are generally within the province of the jury” (citing Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 9)).

¶ 62 (App. 2009); Flood Control Dist.

¶ 54 (App. 2009); Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

¶ 62 (App. 2009); ---, ¶ 8 (App. 2022); ¶ 24 (2017) (noting that courts hold unrepresented litigants to the same standards as attorneys).

–27, ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (explaining issues raised for first time on appeal are generally waived); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (explaining failure to develop argument with citation to record and legal authority can lead to waiver).

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (“Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant’s position on the issue in question.”); see also ARCAP 13(a) (outlining requirements for opening briefs).

See ARCAP 13(a)(5), (7) (appellate brief shall contain citations of legal authorities and references to the record in support of recitation of facts and argument); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to comply with Rule 13 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure can constitute waiver of that claim); ¶ 13 (App. 2008) (self-representing parties “are entitled to no more consideration than if they had been represented by

¶ 62 (App. 2009); ARCAP 13(a)(7).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); ¶ 62 (App. 2009).

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (“Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant’s position on the issue in question.”) (citation omitted).

And though we may assume Plaintiffs have waived their arguments, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to properly develop argument on appeal results in waiver), we exercise our discretion to consider and reject them.