McCleeary v. Wirtz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a “subject will not be considered” where a “random discussion” is not supported by a legal argument and citation to authority
• holding that a “subject will not be considered” where a “random discussion” is not supported by a legal argument and citation to authority
• holding “subject [would] not be considered” where the plaintiff engaged only in a “random discussion of their trial difficulty” and failed to assign an issue, advance an argument, or cite authority “in support of the speculative position taken”
• noting “random discussion” of an issue “will not be considered” on appeal
• noting “random discussion” of an issue “will not be considered” on appeal
• “[T]he cited rule allows nothing more than [c]orrection of a record already made, not the [m]aking of an additional 6 record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).