Cited by

¶ 33 (App. 2011); ¶ 5 n.2 (App. 2015).

v. Ball, ¶ 16 (App. 2022) (“[W]e construe ambiguous contract provisions against the drafter.”); ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (A property settlement agreement that is incorporated, but not merged, into a dissolution decree “retains its independent contractual status and is subject to the rights and limitations of contract law.”).

See Odom, 216 Ariz. at 535 ¶ 18; ¶ 33 (App. 2011).

“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.” ¶ 33 (App. 2011).

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.” (citation omitted)).

-90, ¶ 20-21 (App. 2011) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating payments by employer into deferred compensation plan as employee’s income for spousal maintenance purposes); ¶ 6 (1999) (noting that, when determining child support, court may

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”); see also Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.

Moreover, “[m]erely mentioning an argument in an appellate brief is insufficient.” ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (citing cases).

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).

“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.” ¶ 33 (App. 2011).

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).

DANKO v. JACKSON Decision of the Court ¶18 Nonetheless, because “resolution of cases on their merits is preferred,” ¶ 9 (App. 2013), we will, in the exercise of our discretion, address the substance of the arguments presented to the extent they are developed sufficiently for us to do so, ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).

¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth the appellant’s position on the issues raised;” a failure to do so “constitutes abandonment and a waiver”) (citations omitted); Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.

§ 25-324.” ¶ 39 (App. 2011).

See, ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”); Delmastro & ¶ 7 n.2 (App. 2011) (noting failure to cite the record adequately is “an appropriate ground for this court to find an appellant’s argument waived”); Ace Auto.