Cited by

ally results in waiver, see, ¶ 9 (App. 2022), but we have discretion to decline to apply waiver and decide a case on its merits, see Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“We recognize that courts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds.”)

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

Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, insofar as Danko raises substantive issues.

Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, insofar that true legal issues can be gleaned from Father’s brief.

App. P. 13(a), we nonetheless exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal

Sec., –79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in the exercise of our discretion, we nevertheless address her argument

Adam v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., ().

Sec., –79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in the exercise of our discretion, we nevertheless address her argument

See 6 (an appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain a deficient brief on its merits).

Nevertheless, because we prefer to decide cases on the merits, we would attempt to discern and address the substance of Boles’s arguments, but we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.