Cited by

judges, sometimes display’ do not establish bias or partiality.” –67, ¶ 17 (2013) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994)).

ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) requires an argument that includes “contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the [] record.” “We consider waived those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” ¶6 (2013).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (finding arguments not supported by authority were waived).

Appellants also waive “arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” –65 ¶ 6 (2013); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(B) (requiring appellant’s opening brief contain “references to the record on appeal where the particular issue was raised and ruled on, and the applicable standard of appellate review with citation to supporting legal authority”).

(arguments waived when “not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority”).

Failure to make a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules” results in “waive[r] [of] those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” –65 ¶ 6 (2013).

App. P. 13(a)(7) (Opening brief must contain contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with support.); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (considering all inadequately supported arguments waived); ¶¶ 61-62 (App. 2009) (same).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); –65, ¶ 6 (2013).

on which the appellant relies”); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“[W]e consider waived those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.”).

on which appellant relies”); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (holding that arguments on appeal not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or legal authority are waived).

(–65, ¶ 6 (2013); see also Crystal E. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2017) (“[W]e adhere to the policy that it is generally not our role to sua sponte address issues not raised by the appellant.”).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“[W]e consider waived those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.”); Polanco v. Indus.

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); -65, ¶ 6 (2013).

Bank of Ariz., –65 ¶ 6 (2013) (stating that we typically consider waived arguments unsupported by adequate explanation or citations to relevant authorities or the record).

ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (holding that arguments on appeal not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or legal authority are waived).

ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring arguments on appeal to contain “supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which appellant relies”); –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (holding that arguments on appeal not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or legal authority are waived).

An appellant who fails to make a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules” will waive issues and arguments “not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” (–65 ¶ 6).

(quotation omitted); -67, ¶ 17 (1994) (“[E]xpressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what imperfect men and women, even .

We must insist that a bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules be manifest.” ¶ 6 (2013) (cleaned up).

An appellant who does not make a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules” waives those arguments that are “not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” -65, ¶ 6 (2013).