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.”).

-04, ¶ 54, -88 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

Id.; ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (holding that failure to support arguments with legal authority may constitute waiver and abandonment of that claim) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).

(addressing merits of waived issue partially “in the interests of judicial economy”); , (addressing merits of issue not raised below partially because ap-pellee had not argued waiver).

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (holding the failure to comply with ARCAP 13 can constitute waiver of that claim).

Id.; ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (holding that failure to support 3 CARAVETTA v. DUICK, et al. Decision of the Court Pursuant to A.R.S.

¶ 62, (holding the failure to comply with ARCAP 13 can constitute waiver of that claim).

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

¶ 62 (App. 2009); accord Ariz. R. Civ.

See Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Serv., Inc., ¶ 15, (stating“determinations of duty should not be based on a ‘fact-specific analysis’ of the relationship between the parties”); ¶ 27, (“It is essential for both courts and parties not to conflate the legal determination of duty and the factual determinations of standard of care, breach, and causation.”).

¶ 29, (finding § 457 “instructive” on whether substantial evidence supported jury’s determination that independent medical examiner’s negligence increased the risk of, and proximately caused, workers’ compensation claimant’s death); ¶¶ 17–18, 8

801(c), 802; ¶ 28 (2007); ¶ 45 (App. 2009) (explaining police reports properly excluded as hearsay).2 As a corollary, a witness’s “hearsay 2 ¶ 52 (2006), the State argues that the Confrontation Clause and rules of evidence do not apply to a trial on aggravators.

¶ 62, see also Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.

Although we could consider Mother’s appellate arguments waived,2 we will address her claims about the dismissal of her modification 2 See ARCAP 13(a)(7) (a brief must set forth arguments containing citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to support arguments with legal authority may constitute waiver and abandonment of that claim).

¶ 52, (“The trial judge is in the best position to ‘decide whether the misconduct materially affected the rights of the aggrieved party.’”) (citations omitted).

¶ 62 (App. 2009) (noting ARCAP 13(a)(6) “requires the appellant to provide ‘citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on’” and “[f]ailure to do so can constitute abandonment and waiver of that claim”) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).

¶ 62, see also Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.

¶ 62 (App. 2009); ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (opening brief must include “contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record”).

See ARCAP 13(a)(6), (7); ¶ 62

“The existence of a duty is a question of law that we review de novo.” Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12, ( ¶ 11, ).