Cited by

Because the plaintiffs cite no legal authority that there is a constitutional basis for this contention, we find this argument to be without merit and decline to consider it further.

We have reviewed the father’s remaining arguments and hold that they lack merit and warrant no extended consideration.

of Adjustment, 154 N.H. 773, 776 (2007), or under the circumstances of this case, are without merit and do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

*734 We have reviewed the remainder of the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning Shepherd and conclude that they lack merit and warrant no extended discussion.

We have reviewed the remainder of the plaintiffs' arguments concerning Shepherd and conclude that they lack merit and warrant no extended discussion.

The respondent's remaining arguments are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The respondent’s remaining arguments are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that this argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant further discussion.

Although the defendant raises additional arguments in his pro se brief, we conclude that they lack merit and warrant no extended consideration.

The defendant’s remaining arguments are either inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or are without merit, warranting no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

The remaining arguments presented in this appeal are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The remainder of Chocorua's arguments on this issue are without merit and sufficient basis in the record, and, thus, do not warrant further consideration.

The remainder of Chocorua’s arguments on this issue are without merit and sufficient basis in the record, and, thus, do not warrant further consideration.

This argument, therefore, lacks merit and warrants no extended consideration.

The respondents' remaining arguments regarding this issue are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The respondents’ remaining arguments regarding this issue are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We conclude that these arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

The defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue, regarding our holdings in State v. Gosselin and State v. Zankowski, are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

We conclude that this argument lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

The defendants’ remaining arguments on this issue are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

We *471 conclude that these arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

§ 302.56 (2005), limit the trial court’s discretion in the calculation of child support, are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

The defendant’s other arguments on appeal are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

The State’s remaining arguments on this issue are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

The defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

Motion Motors v. Berwick, 150 N.H. 771, 781 (2004); see also Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Although the defendant raises several other arguments on appeal, we find that these arguments are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We find this argument without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We find the remaining arguments raised by the plaintiff to be without merit and warrant no further discussion.

] to submit to another breath test, coupled with [his] otherwise cooperative response to all the other requests by the officer, shows a causal connection between the [PBT and his refusal].” Since the plaintiff does not claim error with the manner in which either the PBT was administered or the second breath test was requested, his final argument is without merit and warrants no further discussion.

We find the petitioner’s argument regarding the federal anti-alienation provision, see 42 U.S.C.§ 407(a) (2000), to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

Although the petitioner makes additional arguments to deviate from the child support guidelines, we find that those arguments are unpersuasive and warrant no further discussion.

Town of Nottingham v. Bonser, 146 N.H. 418, 430 (2001); Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

We need not address Motion Motors’ remaining arguments because they were either not properly raised below and preserved for appeal, or they lack merit and warrant no further discussion.

We conclude that the issues raised in it have no merit and warrant no further discussion.

Moreover, we find Cooley’s remaining claim, that the plaintiff caused the error and thus waived its right to appeal, to *be without merit and to warrant no further discussion.

The remaining issues raised by the landlord either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our rulings above.

This argument is without merit, and does not warrant further discussion.

Having reviewed the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that Jacobson’s remaining arguments warrant no further discussion.

Because this argument is without merit, it does not warrant further discussion.

We have considered the Bonsers’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

This argument lacks merit and warrants no further discussion.

Finally, having reviewed the record regarding the city’s remaining arguments, we conclude that they either have been waived or are without *74 merit and warrant no further discussion.

*91 We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

This argument is plainly without merit and warrants no further discussion.

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

aside from his Apprendi argument, we decline to address his remaining arguments because they either are cursory in nature, State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or are wholly lacking in merit, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

After review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that this argument is without merit and warrants no further discussion.

The petitioners’ remaining arguments lack merit and warrant no further discussion.