Cited by

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250-51 (2004), and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).

The defendant’s remaining arguments are either insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the Towns’ remaining appellate arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250-51 (2004), and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

The mother’s remaining arguments are inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), not preserved, see Bean, 151 N.H. at 250- 51 (2004), and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Any remaining arguments in the mother’s brief are either insufficiently developed, State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not require further discussion, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

8 We have reviewed the remaining appellate arguments and conclude that under the circumstances of this case, they do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the intervenors’ remaining appellate arguments and conclude that they do not warrant extended consideration.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining arguments, and conclude that they are either insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Any remaining issues raised by the plaintiff in its brief either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have 6 reviewed the State’s remaining assertions regarding the trial court’s factual findings and find them to be without merit.

Any remaining issues raised by the wife in her brief either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

The father’s remaining arguments are not adequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

ability to represent himself,” specifically that the trial court “made no inquiry into [his] education, training, legal experience, or even mental health.” To the extent the defendant is arguing that he was incompetent and therefore could not have waived his right to counsel, we find that such an argument is, under the circumstances of this case, without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed Husband’s remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant extended discussion.

Any remaining issues raised by the plaintiffs’ brief do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

2 We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining appellate arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

To the extent that Ventas makes other arguments in its brief, they either are insufficiently developed for our review, see Sabinson v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 160 N.H. 452, 459 (2010), or do not warrant extended consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Any remaining issues raised by the defendants in their brief either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

We conclude that the plaintiff’s remaining arguments are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

To the extent that the plaintiff raises additional issues, we conclude that they are insufficiently developed for our review, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and that they warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

This argument lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

To the extent that the father raises any other issues in his brief, they either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments and 6 conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

While we conclude that the petitioners' remaining arguments do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595 (1993), we turn to some of the points raised by our dissenting colleagues and by the State as amicus curiae.

Any remaining arguments raised by the plaintiff are either not preserved, because the plaintiff did not raise them before the Board in its motion for 7 reconsideration or otherwise, see RSA 541:3,:4 (2007); Appeal of Coffey, 144 N.H. 531, 533 (1999), or do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining appellate arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

In light of our conclusion that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations, we need not address his other arguments because resolution of those issues would have no effect upon the outcome of this case.

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004), that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and that they warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self- represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).

To the extent that the defendants’ brief raises additional issues, we conclude that the record is insufficient to address them, see Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and that they warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

3 Any remaining issues raised by the tenant in his brief either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004), that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and that they warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

a motion for reconsideration.” We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

2 Any remaining issues raised by the husband in his brief are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

To the extent that the parties’ briefs raise additional arguments, they are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or 3 otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

After reviewing the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the defendant’s arguments are, under the circumstances of this case, without merit, and do not warrant further discussion.

To the extent that the appellant’s brief seeks to raise additional arguments, we conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

3 We have considered the husband’s remaining arguments, and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

Any remaining issues raised by the plaintiff in his brief either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Any remaining issues raised by the defendants in their brief are either not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

The remaining issues raised by the plaintiff in her brief are either not sufficiently developed, see Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49, or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Any remaining issues raised by the tenants in their brief are either not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or 3 otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

To the extent that the defendants’ brief raises additional arguments not listed above, they either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the residents’ remaining arguments and conclude that further discussion and analysis will not alter our decision.

We have considered the husband’s remaining arguments, and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

Any remaining arguments raised by the plaintiffs either are not sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Any remaining issues raised by the plaintiff in his brief are either not sufficiently developed, see Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49, or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).