Cited by

Accordingly, we deem all challenges to the trial court’s dismissals other than the plaintiff’s challenge to the dismissal of the Monell claim to have been waived.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 2 (2003) (supreme court will not review any issue that defendant did not raise before trial court); In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented parties bound by same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).

Complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court without developed legal argument are insufficient to warrant judicial review.

We confine our review only to those issues that the defendant has fully briefed.

“An argument that is not raised in a party’s notice of appeal is not preserved for appellate review.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

3 To the extent that the landlord also argues that the trial court violated his right to due process, the argument was neither raised in his notice of appeal, nor sufficiently developed in his brief.

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

The plaintiff, Thomas Maniscalco, appeals orders of the Superior Court (MacLeod, J.) dismissing his complaint against defendant E. J. Labonville Trust and entering summary judgment in favor of defendant Labonville, Inc. Complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court without developed legal argument are insufficient to warrant judicial review.

Any remaining arguments in the father’s brief are not adequately developed.

To the extent the plaintiff asserts that granting the motion violated her right to due process, she has not adequately developed the argument.

Complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court without developed legal argument are insufficient to warrant judicial review.

To the extent that the petitioner’s brief raises additional arguments, they are either not sufficiently 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).

Because the plaintiff neither raised this issue in his notice of appeal, nor addressed it in his brief, we decline to consider it.

Finally, any issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

Second, with respect to the defendant’s arguments, we address only those arguments that are preserved, meaning they were raised in the trial court, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003), and sufficiently developed for our review, see id.

The husband did not explain at trial, and does not explain on appeal, why monies that he had been paid in 2014 should have been excluded from his gross income.

The plaintiff’s other arguments are either not sufficiently 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) (stating we confine our review to only those issues that have been fully briefed).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s additional arguments and conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Nor has he adequately developed a constitutional argument on appeal.

We conclude that his remaining arguments were not raised to the trial court, see id., are not sufficiently developed, see State v. 2 Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

See, e.g., State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48-49 (2003) (setting forth general principles of appellate review).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating issues not raised in notice of appeal are not preserved for review).

We will not review any issue that the defendant did not raise in the trial court.

To the extent that the respondent raises additional arguments, they are either not sufficiently 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).

nt to RSA 461-A:21 (Supp. 2014), governing parental rights and responsibilities, “a trial court does not have the jurisdiction to compel one spouse to continue paying for a step-children’s [sic] college expenses absent the parties’ written agreement to do so.” To the extent that the respondent argues RSA 461- A:21 is jurisdictional, she does not develop this argument, and we decline to address it.

3 The petitioner notes that the trial court granted his requested finding regarding the credit card debts, which indicated that they had been “charged off [or] written off.” However, he does not explain the significance of this finding, and, in the absence of any developed argument, we decline to reverse the trial court’s allocation of debt.

We have considered the remaining arguments in the defendant’s supplemental brief and conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

2 We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Assuming, without deciding, that this argument may properly be made in the context of a bench trial, but see State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465-68 (2007) (addressing issue in context of jury trial), and that the defendant 3 preserved the issue for review, but see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (we will not review an issue that appellant did not raise in trial court), we conclude that the trial court’s decision is not contrary to the weight of the evidence, see Spinale, 156 N.H. at 36

Finally, any issue raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal that he has not briefed is deemed waived.

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (declining to review issues that are not fully briefed).

State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating appellate review confined to fully developed legal arguments).

To the extent that the plaintiffs’ brief raises additional arguments, we conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993); see also Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 78 (2006) (noting that “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) (stating that we confine our review to only those issues that have been fully briefed).

We first determine whether this challenge was properly preserved for our review.

The father states that he received personal loans, but does not develop this argument.

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

The remaining issues raised by the plaintiff in his brief are either not sufficiently 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).

Therefore, we decline to address it.

Porter v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 157 (2007); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

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

Moreover, the defendants devoted only one sentence of their brief to this argument, which we conclude is not sufficiently developed to warrant appellate review.

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

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)).

Issues raised in the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal but not addressed in their brief are deemed waived.

Issues raised in the plaintiffs' notice of appeal but not addressed in their brief are deemed waived.

We decline to address arguments raised by the defendant in his notice of appeal but not briefed.

VI, because she did not brief this argument sufficiently for our review.

To the extent that the defendant argues that failure to exclude this evidence violated his rights under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, he has not briefed these arguments and, accordingly, we decline to address them.