Cited by

That issue, however, is not before us. We conclude that the remaining arguments raised by the parties are meritless and do not warrant further discussion.

We do not reach the plaintiff’s remaining arguments because they are either meritless, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, *211 596 (1993), or raise issues that are unlikely to arise again on remand, Laflamme v. Lewis, 89 N.H. 69, 79, 192 A. 851, 858 (1937).

Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993) (party cannot argue divorce provision restricting right to move violates due process where party requested that very provision).

The petitioners’ remaining arguments are premised on the assumption that the board’s conduct was not statutorily authorized, and we find them without merit in light of the above opinion.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments with respect to summary judgment and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed CFX Bank’s remaining arguments as to why Faith Robin Bursey was • a customer and conclude that they are without merit under the circumstances of this case, and warrant no further discussion.

Finally, we do not address the plaintiff’s remaining arguments because either the record before us does not demonstrate that they were argued before the trial court, and thus we deem them waived, *41 Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995), or they lack merit and warrant no further discussion, Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Finally, we have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining claims of noncompliance and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

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

We have examined the petitioners’ remaining arguments regarding whether or not He-Hea 1108.04 constitutes a need standard and find them to be without merit.

We conclude that the defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit and warrant no further review.

After considering the defendants’ remaining argument, we conclude that it is without merit, warranting no further discussion.

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

We have reviewed the record with respect to the city’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the record with respect to the union’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have considered the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs and find them under the circumstances of this case to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

We find the plaintiff’s remaining arguments to be without merit and warranting no further review.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be meritless, warranting no further consideration.

We find the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them in this case to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We decline to address the defendant’s remaining arguments because they are either meritless, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993), or were not properly preserved for appellate review, see State v. Colbert, 139 N.H. 367, 370, 654 A.2d 963, 965-66 (1995) (issues raised in notice of appeal but not briefed are waived); State v. Ryan, 135 N.H. 587, 588, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992) (preservation of issue for appeal requi

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further review.

However, to the extent that the trial court finds that the taxes assessed on lot 22D did not include taxes due on lot 21b, then the statute applies and Robinson is obligated to pay the plaintiff any sums due pursuant to RSA 498:5-d, I. We have reviewed the record with respect to the parties’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner’s remaining arguments are either meritless and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993), or not supported by developed legal argument and will not be addressed, see Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419, 429, 728 A.2d 215, 222 (1999).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the school district’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

We find the defendant’s remaining arguments to be either so vague or so insubstantial as to be without merit, warranting no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

In light of our holding and a review of the record, we find the plaintiff’s remaining arguments to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

Upon review of the plaintiff’s remaining arguments, we conclude that they are without merit under the circumstances of this case, and warrant no further discussion.

Finally, we have reviewed the remaining arguments in the defendant’s pro se brief and find them to lack merit, warranting no further discussion.

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

We have examined the defendant’s remaining arguments and consider them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the record with respect to the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the record with respect to the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

After considering the State’s remaining arguments, we conclude that they are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have reviewed the record and find that the remaining issue raised before us is, “under the circumstances of this case, without merit, and do[es] not warrant further discussion.” Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue and determine them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993); Lastly, the defendants assert that by refusing to consider evidence of a breach' that occurred after the suit filed by the club commenced, the trial court wrongfully estopped them from claiming the full period of the club’s alleged breach of the condition.

We find they are without merit and deserve no further discussion.

Accordingly, we agree with the *149 superior court’s finding that the petitioners’ “decision to wait until August 6, 1996 to file their appeal does not constitute filing within a reasonable time.” After further review of the record, we conclude that the parties’ remaining arguments are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have reviewed the record with respect to the town’s further arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

Finally, we have reviewed the record with respect to Graves’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit and warranting no further consideration.

The board’s remaining arguments either are not preserved for appeal, see Dube, 140 N.H. at 138, 663 A.2d at 628, or are without merit, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

After further review of the record, we conclude that the parties’ remaining arguments are without merit and warrant no further discussion.

We have considered the additional arguments raised in Dr. Trotzer’s brief and supplemental brief and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.

After reviewing the record and the briefs with respect to the defendant’s remaining arguments, we find them either to be waived, see State v. Ross, 141 N.H. 397, 399, 685 A.2d 1234, 1235 (1996); State v. Devaney, 139 N.H. 473, 474, 657 A.2d 832, 833 (1995), or without merit and warranting no further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595, 596 (1993).

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

We have reviewed the record and find the parties’ remaining arguments to be without merit and warranting no further discussion.

We have reviewed the record with respect to the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit, warranting no further discussion.