Cited by

¶ 14, 5 DOMINGUEZ v. ROWLAND/VANDERMEER Decision of the Court n.3 (App. 2011) (“[T]he argument fails to make any citations to the record or to the relevant authority.

Though such appeals are discouraged, the policy barring them is procedural; “a court does not lack the power to change a ruling simply because it ruled on the question at an earlier stage, especially where a substantial change has occurred in the evidence.” –59, ¶ 8 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

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.

Thus, “[p]romissory estoppel provides an equitable remedy that renders a promise enforceable.” ¶ 14 (App. 2011).

¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2011) (appellate court may disregard facts not supported with appropriate citations to the record).

¶ 16 (App. 2011).2 Even absent waiver, on the record provided, Malik has shown no error.

Avitia argues we should apply the “law of the case” doctrine, -59, ¶¶ 7-9 (App. 2011), to preclude Crisis Prep from arguing that no duty existed.

See Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, ¶ 15 (App. 2004) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal generally deemed waived); ¶ 14 n.3 (App. 2011) (arguments that are unsupported by citation to the record are deemed waived).

¶ 16 (App. 2011); Polanco v. Indus.

¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2011); Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.

¶ 14 n.3 (App. 2011); Polanco v. Indus.

¶ 18 n.5 (App. 2011); ARCAP 13(a)(7).

¶ 16 (App. 2011) (failure to develop and support arguments waives issue on appeal).

We review the trial court's conclusions of law de novo, Sholes v. Fernando , , 458, ¶ 6, while reviewing its factual findings for clear error, State v. Herrera , , 648

“[E]ven where conflicting evidence exists, this court will not reweigh the evidence and we affirm the trial court’s ruling [if] substantial evidence supports it.” ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (citation and internal quotations omitted).