Cited by

(affirming judgment despite deficiencies of brief given judicial preference to resolve matters on their merits).

(“Although we agree with appellee’s counsel that appellant’s opening brief is grossly deficient, we are loathe to penalize appellant by complete rejection.”).

We agree with Green Cross’s characterization of the Trust’s brief but decline to reject the Trust’s appeal on this basis, and we rely on our record review for the necessary facts, ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2011); State Farm Mut.

Comm’n, ¶ 6 n.2 (App. 2007), and instead exercise our discretion to decide Doria’s appeal on the merits

Although we could summarily reject Father’s appeal on that basis, we decline to do so and instead address the merits of the arguments we can identify presented in Father’s appeal.

Although we could summarily reject Father’s appeal, we will address the merits of the arguments we can identify presented in Father’s appeal.

§ 12-543(3); see also, Coronado Dev’t. Corp. v. Superior Court, supra; , (statute of limitations in a fraud case begins to run when the plaintiff by reasonable diligence could have learned of the fraud, whether or not he actually learned of it).

an be tolled by plaintiff s reasonable failure to discover the facts giving rise to those claims); , (action against an accountant); , (claim against a lawyer); , (cause of action against a surgeon); , (cause of action in fraud accrued at the time plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered the fraudulent act); Walker v. Walker, 18 Ariz.App.

Guerin v. American Smelting & Refining Co., , 236 P. 684 (1925)