Cited by

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating that we confine our review on appeal to those issues that are fully briefed).

Any remaining arguments raised by the defendant are not sufficiently developed.

By not challenging the October 19, 2020 order in her 2020 appeal, the defendant effectively waived any issues she could have raised regarding that order, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating that issues not raised in notice of appeal or raised in a notice of appeal but not briefed are waived), and the trial court, therefore, correctly observed the October 29, 2020 motion for reconsideration was “now moot as [the defendant] unsuccessfully appealed the ruling at issue.” We conclu

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).

This argument is insufficiently briefed for our review.

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).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (explaining that off-hand or passing references to constitutional rights, without developed legal argument, are insufficient to warrant judicial review).

Any 11 issues raised in the notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

argues that the trial court deprived him of due process, he has not sufficiently developed the argument to warrant appellate review.

To the extent that the defendant implies that his trial attorneys’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because they advised him not to testify, he fails to develop that argument sufficiently for our review.

Any issue raised in the notice of appeal that was not briefed is deemed waived.

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

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).

“[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.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

However, the petitioner’s passing references to constitutional provisions without application of the text of those provisions to the executive branch’s exercise of its clemency power in this case does not develop a legal argument sufficiently for our review.

Therefore, to the extent the defendant seeks to appeal his criminal mischief convictions, his arguments are not sufficiently developed for appellate review.

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).

The defendant’s remaining arguments are either not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003), inadequately developed, see id.

Under these circumstances, any issue regarding the default judgment and award of attorney’s fees is waived.

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. 47, 49 (2003) (declining to address arguments “not sufficiently developed for appellate review”).

To the extent the defendant is raising additional arguments in his brief, the arguments are not sufficiently developed to warrant judicial review.

However, because Mother did not raise this constitutional argument in the trial court, or adequately develop it on appeal, we decline to address it.

The defendant’s remaining arguments warrant no 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).

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

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[W]e confine our review to only those issues that [have been] fully briefed.”).

Because we confine “our review to only those issues that the defendant has fully briefed,” we decline to address these arguments.

Any issues Mother raised in her notice of appeal, but did not brief, are deemed waived.

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)).

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).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[W]e confine our review to only those issues that [have been] fully briefed.”).

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

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004), are inadequately developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or are not relevant to the issues on appeal.

it “would have called [Mr.] Asbury to testify had there been sufficient time, but the examiner cut the hearing short and did not allow [the petitioner] to present more than two witnesses.” To the extent that the petitioner argues that the bureau erred by “cut[ting] the hearing short,” we conclude that any such argument is not preserved and is insufficiently developed, and we decline to address it.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating that arguments that are not fully developed are waived).

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

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (quotation omitted).

We note that the defendant, in her brief, does not challenge the merits of the 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).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (noting that, generally, “we will not review any issue that the defendant did not raise before the trial court.”) The trial court hypothesized that “if the State provides discovery of documents that are subject to mandatory public disclosure under the Right to Know statute,.

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).

id.; State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (declining to review any issue not raised in the trial court and not sufficiently developed for appellate review).

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

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).

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).

We decline to address the defendant’s remaining arguments either because they are not preserved or are insufficiently developed for our review.

Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by developed legal argument are waived.

A list of challenges to adverse rulings by the trial court without developed legal argument is insufficient to permit judicial review.

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).

However, his appellate brief consists of a single, hand-written page that fails to develop any legal argument, and amounts to “a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (quotation omitted).