Cited by

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating that we do not address arguments that “were not sufficiently developed for appellate review”).

Matthew has not, however, adequately developed this argument in his brief, and we therefore deem it waived.

Any issues the defendant raised in his notice of appeal but did not brief are deemed waived.

We note that this argument is not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003), and does not constitute plain error, see State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591 (2011) (“For the purposes of the plain error rule, an error is plain if it was or should have been obvious in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the contrary.”); State v. Scott Chandler, No. 2021-0515 (non-p

Any issues the respondent raised in his notices of appeal but did not brief are deemed waived.

State v. 2 Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (observing that we will not review any issue that was not first raised before the trial court).

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (declining to address arguments that were not sufficiently developed for appellate review).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (declining to address arguments that were not sufficiently developed for appellate review); State v. Newton, 175 N.H. 279, 290 (2022) (“A blanket assertion, without developed legal argument is insufficient to warrant judicial review.”).

Boyle v. City of Portsmouth, 172 N.H. 781, 787 (2020) (listing four factors and declining party’s request that we revisit a prior ruling because party failed to address any of the factors); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[W]e confine our review to only those issues that the defendant has fully briefed.”).

We decline to address the plaintiff’s remaining arguments because they were not preserved or not sufficiently developed for our review.

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 therefore deem this argument waived.

To the extent that the tenant in his brief seeks to raise other issues, we conclude that his arguments are undeveloped and warrant no further consideration.

ssociate informed the police that in February 2019 — less than two 1 Although the defendant appended the sentencing decisions for both his first-degree murder and falsification of physical evidence convictions to his notice of appeal, the defendant does not raise any arguments related to his conviction for falsification of physical evidence in his brief and, therefore, we deem this issue waived.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“Thus, we confine our review to only those issues that the defendant has fully briefed.”).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and confined our review to those issues that she has fully briefed.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48-49 (2003) (explaining that we will not review any issue not raised or objected to in the trial court, and that we also will not review complaints about adverse rulings, or off-hand or passing references to constitutional rights, without developed legal argument).

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014); see also State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (explaining that issues raised without developed legal argument do not warrant appellate review).

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).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003); Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591, 617-18 (1987).

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).

Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014); see also State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (explaining that issues raised without developed legal argument do not warrant appellate review).

In this case, the defendant has failed to develop a legal argument to support his assertion that RSA 173-B:9 is unconstitutional.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (stating that we generally will not review issues that were not raised at trial).

Any remaining arguments in the plaintiff’s brief are insufficiently developed to warrant further review.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48-49 (2003) (holding that we will not review any issue that was not raised before the trial court and that an argument that is not raised in a party’s notice of appeal is not preserved for appellate review).

Any issue raised in the notice of appeal, but not briefed, is deemed waived.

To the extent the defendant raises additional arguments in his brief, the arguments are not sufficiently developed.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[I]n the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review.”) (quotation omitted); see also Keenan v. Fearon, 130 N.H. 494, 499 (1988) (observing that “off-hand invocations

We agree with the State that, because the defendant did not raise this issue in his notice of appeal, it is not preserved.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[I]n the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review.”) (quotation omitted); see also Keenan v. Fearon, 130 N.H. 494, 499 (1988) (observing that “off-hand invocations

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (observing that “we will not review any issue that the defendant did not raise before the trial court,” and that “[t]he general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review” (quotation omitted)).

Any issues raised in the notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

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).

The mother’s remaining arguments — alleging constitutional violations and purportedly discriminatory decisions by the trial court — either are not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003), are not adequately developed for our review, see id.

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

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (declining to review any issue that is not “fully briefed” or “is not raised in a party’s notice of appeal”).

Any remaining arguments in the defendant’s brief are insufficiently 2 developed and warrant no further review.

Issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal that it has not briefed are waived.

Any remaining arguments in the defendant’s brief are insufficiently developed.

Accordingly, we decline to review the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Because the father’s remaining arguments were either not preserved or were not sufficiently developed for appellate review, we decline to address them.

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).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (without developed legal 4 argument, “a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court” is insufficient to warrant appellate review).

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).

4, nothing in the record establishes Charles Cote’s lack of capacity to understand the hearing notice, and as the trial court found, the plaintiffs “opened and viewed the Notice of Hearing on March 21, 2023 at 12:53 PM.” To the extent that the plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the electronic filing system or the notice they received, their argument is not sufficiently developed.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[A] mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review.” (quotation omitted)).

Estate of Day, 162 N.H. at 422; Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).