Cited by

-59 (App. 1995); -44 (1945).

See American Law Institute, Principles of Corp. Governance ("Principles") § 1.10 (1994) (stating that a person with less than 25 percent voting shares "is not presumed to be in control of the corporation by virtue solely of ownership"); (noting the Principles "qualif[y] for the deference we traditionally grant to the Restatements").

See Joel Erik Thompson, ¶ 20 (App. 1998); n.4 (App. 1995); n.1A (App. 1987).

n.4 (App. 1995) (stating failure to develop arguments or present supporting authority on appeal waives the issue).

See ARCAP 13(a); n.4 (App. 1995) (stating failure to develop argument or present supporting authority on appeal waives issue).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); n.4 (App. 1995) (stating failure to develop argument or present supporting authority on appeal waives issue).

n.4 (App. 1995); Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13(a)(7).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); n.4 (App. 1995) (failure to develop argument or present supporting authority on appeal waives issue).

§ 19-118(C) also precludes the court from making factual findings regarding the eligibility or lawful registration of circulators based on evidence before it, it raises separation of powers concerns.” We decline to consider the Committee’s passing reference to “separation of powers concerns.” See, n.4 (App. 1995) (declining to consider a “cursory parenthetical assertion” as sufficient to frame an issue for review).

¶27 Husband provides no argument supporting his assertion that the court unfairly divided the parties’ assets,11 and, because he has given us no transcript of the trial, we have no basis on which to evaluate his assertion.12 As the appellant, Husband had the burden to provide this court 11 n.4 (App. 1995) (recognizing that a party who fails to present argument or authority to support a claim of error has waived the claim (citation omitted)).

See Edgar, 457 U.S. at 645; n.1 (App. 1995) (relying on the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 302 and 309 to conclude that “because this lawsuit concerns fiduciary relations between shareholders and management, where there is a choice of law to be made, the law of Nevada, the place of incorporation, should apply”).

See Joel Erik Thompson, ¶ 20, n.4, n.4 (App. 1995); n.1A, n.1A (App. 1987).

A printout of a profile by Forbes magazine listed Husband’s salary for 4 The applicable legal precept here may be summarized by the ancient rule of “sauce for goose.” n.16, n.16 (App. 1995) (“The Oxford English Dictionary 128 (1933) cites Collier 2d Def.

(relying on Principles as authoritative in a different context).

Even assuming arguendo that 10K has not waived this argument by failing to fully present and develop it on appeal, , 154 n. 4, , 540 n. 4 (App.1995), we find no abuse of the court’s discretion in declining to admit evidence of Wolfswinkel’s convictions pursuant to Rule 609.

C. Corporate Opportunity ¶ 33 The' corporate opportunity doctrine “prohibits fiduciary usurpation of a corporate opportunity.” , Tovrea Land & , (searching the record to determine whether the defendant “wrongfully deprived” the plaintiff of a business opportunity).

(citation *207 omitted).

-57 , -43 (App.1995) (finding no error with trial court’s instructions that, viewed as a whole, gave the jury the proper rules to be applied and did not suggest a conclusion contrary to law).

154 n. 4, , 540 n. 4 (App.1995).

-60 , -46 (App.1995) (finding no error in instructions that, viewed as a whole, gave jury proper rules to be applied and did not suggest conclusion contrary to law).

16: See Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. , , (showing proximate injury required for claim of fraudulent misrepresentation); , (action for breach of fiduciary duty requires showing causation of damages); Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. , , (element of consumer fraud action is showing of “consequent and proximate injury”) .