Cited by

Under the “discovery rule,” however, a limitations statute “does not begin to run until the plaintiff possesses a minimum knowledge sufficient to recognize that a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 57 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (noting that a failure to comply with ARCAP 13(a)(7) “can constitute abandonment and waiver of the party’s claims”).

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (explaining that failure to present and address arguments supported by authority can constitute abandonment and waiver of the claim).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7) (requiring references to the record and citations supporting legal authority in Appellant’s opening brief); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (holding that failure to comply with ARCAP 13(a)(7) resulted in waiver of an argument).

(providing that failure to develop argument and support it with authority can constitute abandonment and waiver).

¶ 56 (App. 2009) (affirmative defense of statute of limitations is waived unless raised).

¶ 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.