United States v. Michael Maes

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellate courts will not consider arguments unsupported by authority
• holding that this court “will not consider an inadequately briefed argument.”
• holding that appellate courts will not consider arguments unsupported by authority
• holding “[w]e will not consider an inadequately briefed argument.”
• \We will not consider an inadequately briefed argument.\ (citing Bohn v. Cody, 119 Wn.2d 357, 368, 832 P.2d 71(1992))
• “ ‘placing an argument... in a footnote is, at best, ambiguous or equivocal as to whether the issue is truly intended to be part of the appeal’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).