Thacker v. Wentzel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Thacker’s unsupported assertion was too poorly developed to be understood, and therefore he waived his argument
• clarifying that we will not become an advocate for a party and will not address arguments that are inappropriate, too poorly developed, or so improperly expressed that they cannot be understood
• explaining that this court “will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood” (citation omitted)
• noting Court’s preference for deciding cases on their merits
• appellate court will not become an advocate for parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).