The Ernst Haas Studio, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Palm Press, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where a brief does not sufficiently address an argument, courts are under no obligation to “scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate”
• holding that “new arguments may not be made in a reply brief”
• “Arguments made for the first time in a reply brief need not be considered by a court .... ”
• “A reasonable reader of the Brief is left without a hint of the legal theory proposed as a basis for reversal.”
• “[N]ew arguments may not be made in a reply brief.”
• “new arguments may not be made in a reply brief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).