Cited by

Ctr., (discussing mental health and medical providers’ mandatory duty to report); Waters v. O’Connor, n.8 (App. 2004) (footnote discussing scope of clergy duty to disclose); ¶¶ 9-17 (App. 2002) (addressing marital privilege in prosecution for abuse); State v. Wilso

Ctr., (appeals court generally does not consider arguments raised for first time in motion for reconsideration, in part because opposing party may have been “deprived of the opportunity to respond to these arguments”).

Ctr., ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (“Generally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.”).

Ctr., ¶ 18 n.8 (App. 2010).

Ctr., ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (in the context of motions for reconsideration, “when a new [constitutional] argument is raised for the first time .

¶27 ¶ 36 (App. 2010), we held that “in treating an alleged victim of abuse, a health care professional owes no duty of care to an alleged third-party 1 Because we affirm the court’s grant of summary judgment on all negligence claims asserted, the issue of the motion to strike the standard of care expert for t

-38, ¶¶ 18, 21 (App. 2010) (declining to consider an argument raised on appeal when the appellant only raised the issue for the first time in a motion for reconsideration and the appellees had been "deprived of the opportunity to respond").

(considering an argument raised for the first time on appeal because the trial court presumably considered the argument on its merits); -38, ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (noting that we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration because the “prevailing party below is routinely deprived of the opportunity to fairly respond”) (quoting Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App

The general principle that this court will not consider an issue not raised below is jurisprudential, not substantive, Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9, n.9 (1995); further, in our discretion, we may consider constitutional arguments not properly raised before the trial court

¶ 18, (explaining that we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration because “when a new argument is raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, the prevailing party below is routinely deprived of the opportunity to f

(issue waived when first raised in motion for reconsideration); -94, -68 (App. 1997) (issue waived when first raised in motion for new trial).

“Generally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.” *562 ¶ 18

We are not bound, however, by the decisions of the courts of other states, nor those of the federal district courts

Advocacy Ctr., -91 (App. 2010), the Bennetts suggest we should decline to consider the claim of attorney-client privilege because the Salvation Army did not cite and rely on § 12-2234, the statute governing the privilege, until it filed its motion for reconsideration.

-41, ¶ 32 , -94 (App.2010) (citation omitted) (declining to impose duties set forth in cases from other jurisdictions, noting that “we are not bound by the decisions of other states”); -92, ¶ 68 , -25 (1999) (noting that “while Wash