Cited by

See 10 ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (holding that “[m]erely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient,” and therefore appellant waived argument that was not supported by argument or authority).

Although we could treat every issue as waived on that basis, ¶ 33 (App. 2011), in our discretion, we address the arguments we can identify, specifically, that the superior court erred in entering the judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

Decision of the Court Schwartz, ¶ 33 (App. 2011); ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A).

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

The superior court “is in the best position to observe and assess the conduct of the parties before it.” ¶ 38 (App. 2011).

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

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

¶ 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.