Cited by

We have considered these remaining arguments and have concluded that they do not require further discussion.

[¶21] We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and have concluded that they do not require further discussion.

We have considered Mother’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

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

We have reviewed the record and find the parties’ remaining arguments without merit.

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

[¶27] We have considered the Morrises’ argument that the superior court was required to enter judgment in their favor because DRA did not include a counter-affidavit with its objection to the Morrises’ motion for summary judgment and find it to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

Therefore, we cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury’s guilty verdicts were unaffected by the erroneously admitted evidence.2 2 We have considered the State’s remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

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

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

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

3 To the extent that Wife raises additional arguments, they do not warrant further discussion.

[¶23] We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

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

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

We have considered the defendant’s 7 remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

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

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

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

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

4 To the extent that Husband raised an additional argument, it does not warrant further discussion.

We have 4 considered the petitioners’ remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion.

The remaining arguments that the defendant raised regarding whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on the Tumbex charge do not warrant further discussion.

To the extent that the parties raised additional arguments, they do not warrant further discussion.

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

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

3 The remaining arguments raised by the defendant are either not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or without merit, and do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

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

The remaining issues that the defendant raised either do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993), or are waived.

Husband has waived his remaining arguments, see Town of Londonderry v. Mesiti Dev., 168 N.H. 377, 379-80 (2015), or they otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

To the extent Port City raises additional arguments not addressed above, they are deemed waived because they were raised for the first time on appeal in its reply brief, see Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591, 9 617-18 (1987), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

[¶30] We conclude that the husband’s parents’ remaining arguments regarding how they were prejudiced by the trial court order joining them “for discovery purposes only” are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have considered the administrator’s remaining argument and have concluded that it does not warrant further discussion.

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

raises do not warrant further discussion.

[¶27] We have considered the Club’s remaining arguments, and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

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

7 [¶16] We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

The remaining arguments in the plaintiff’s brief either are 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).

The remaining arguments in the plaintiff’s brief either are 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).

[¶15] We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments, and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

The defendant’s remaining arguments are not preserved, see Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, and inadequately developed, see Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49, and we 2 decline to address them, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993); see also Appeal of Omega Entm’t, 156 N.H. 282, 287 (2007) (off-hand invocations of constitutional rights without support by legal argument or authority do not warrant extended consideration).

[¶9] We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and have concluded that they do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining arguments and determine that they lack merit and do not warrant further discussion.

We also conclude that the respondent’s argument that modifying evidence does not violate Rule 8.1(a)’s proscription against making “a false statement of material fact” is without merit, and warrants no further discussion.

To the extent that the Husband challenges the trial court’s orders on additional grounds, including that they violated his constitutional right to due process, we conclude that any such arguments are 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).

at 49 (explaining that complaints about adverse rulings, and off-hand or passing references to constitutional rights, without developed legal argument, are insufficient to warrant appellate review), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

The respondent’s claim that the arrearage obligation is tantamount to an award of “punitive damages” requires no further discussion.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003); Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).