Cited by

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

To the extent the plaintiffs raise additional arguments not discussed above, they are not adequately developed for our review, 15 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 defendant’s remaining arguments are not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48, 49 (2003), or do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

The remaining arguments in the father’s brief 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).

To the extent that the defendant’s brief may be construed to raise additional arguments, we conclude that they are inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and 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 does not warrant extended consideration).

We have reviewed Wife’s remaining arguments and 4 conclude that they lack merit and warrant no extended consideration.

6 We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining appellate arguments and conclude that they lack merit and warrant no further consideration.

To the extent that the defendant’s brief may be construed to raise additional arguments, we conclude that they are inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and 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 does not warrant extended consideration).

For the same reason, the defendant’s sixth appellate argument — which challenges the initial ex parte extension of the protective order, granted by Judge Curran, based on alleged or previously addressed misconduct by other judicial officers — warrants no further discussion.

Ct. R. 16-A, lack merit and warrant no extended consideration.

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

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

To the extent that the defendant raises any additional arguments, they are either inadequately 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 CRC’s additional arguments — including that the ordinance is unconstitutional, the Town violated RLUIPA, and the trial court erred in denying its request for attorney’s fees, a builder’s remedy, and additional damages — and determine that they do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and conclude that they warrant no extended discussion.

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the defendant’s argument warrants no further consideration.

We have reviewed the claimant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they warrant no extended consideration.

To the extent that the defendant raises additional arguments 4 in his brief, we conclude that they are inadequately 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).

at 49, or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Under these circumstances, we conclude that Tenants’ arguments regarding a discretionary stay under RSA 540:13-c warrant no extended consideration.

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

Lastly, the remaining arguments advanced by the plaintiffs are either inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), unresolvable on the record before us, see Red Oak, 151 N.H. at 250, or otherwise 2 do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 48, 49 (2003); Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

This argument warrants no further discussion.

We have reviewed the defendants’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are either insufficiently developed for our review, see White v. Auger, 171 N.H. 660, 665 (2019), or lack merit and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and determine that they are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the tenants’ remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

laintiff can establish that she shared a fiduciary relationship with the defendant,” expert testimony was necessary to prove a breach of that duty because “the applicable standard of care in this situation is not something within the ken of an average juror.” We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and determine that they are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

To the extent that the defendant raises additional arguments in her brief, we conclude that they are inadequately 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); 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 does not warrant extended consideration).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and determine that they are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

To the extent the defendant raises other issues in his pro se brief, we conclude that: he has failed to demonstrate that the issues are preserved, see Adams, 169 N.H. at 299; the issues are inadequately briefed, and therefore waived, see State v. Papillon, 173 N.H. 13, 28, n.1 (2020); or they lack merit and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

or court that neither of these contract provisions “addresses how long the Liquidator is obligated to accept the filing of proofs of claim, nor purports to set aside generally applicable limitations the Liquidator may ordinarily impose on the filing of such claims.” We have reviewed Zurich’s remaining arguments and determine that they are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

Keenan v. Fearon, 130 N.H. 494, 499 (1988) (explaining that “off-hand invocations” of the State Constitution supported by neither argument nor authority warrant no extended consideration); Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

We decline to address the plaintiff’s remaining appellate arguments either because they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or they lack merit and do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining appellate argument, and conclude that it lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

3 The defendant’s remaining arguments do not warrant further discussion.

he trial court’s decision to deny her motion to strike the default, but argues only that in denying the motion, the trial court erred by considering objections signed by an attorney who had not appeared.3 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 Father’s remaining arguments related to the UCCJEA and conclude that they lack merit and warrant no extended consideration.

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250-51 (2004), inadequately 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).

The Carrier’s arguments related to “travel time” are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

However, as the trial court correctly explained, being “diagonally across the street” is not the same as being “directly across the street.” We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments on this issue and conclude that they warrant no further discussion.

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

The State’s remaining arguments as to why the trial court did err do not warrant further discussion.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and conclude that they warrant no discussion.

To the extent that Father challenges the application of the amended statute to his case on additional grounds, including that its application violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, we conclude that any such arguments are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

manuel argues, the presence of a first- in-time tie-breaking provision in the notice of offer to sell implies that the Town 1 Emanuel’s argument that the Town cannot consider the bidders’ development plans because the notice of offer to sell provided that the Town may consider such information instead of providing that the Town would consider such information does not warrant further discussion.

Any remaining arguments in the petitioner’s brief 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).

To the extent that the mother raises additional arguments, we conclude that they are inadequately 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).

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