R.T.& R.H., LLC v. Lehi City
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---R.T. & R.H., LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lehi City, Defendant and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20070189-CA F I L E D (September 20, 2007) 2007 UT App 308 ----Fourth District, Provo Department, 050403514 The Honorable James R. Taylor Attorneys: E. Craig Smay, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Jody K. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and McHugh. PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court judgment. We affirm on the basis that Appellant's claims are inadequately briefed. "It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998); see also Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 313 (Utah 1998) (declining to address appellant's claim on appeal due to inadequate analysis). Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(9) states that the argument in the appellant's brief "shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, including the grounds for reviewing any issue not preserved in the trial court, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). Compliance with this rule "is mandatory, and failure to conform to these requirements may carry serious consequences. For example, 'briefs which are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court.'" Beehive Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 2004 UT 18,¶12, 89 P.3d 131 (quoting Utah R. App. P. 24(j)). Appellant's brief fails to comply with rule 24(a)(9). Appellant alleges that the district court erred in some manner when it dismissed Appellant's claims pursuant to an order granting summary judgment. However, there is little or no explanation as to how or why the district court erred. Appellant sets forth bare assertions such as "genuine issues of material fact remain," but fails to describe what issues it refers to, or why such issues require reversal of the district court's decision to grant summary judgment. "'To permit meaningful appellate review, briefs must comply with the briefing requirements sufficiently to enable us to understand . . . what particular errors were allegedly made, where in the record those errors can be found, and why, under applicable authorities, those errors are material ones necessitating reversal or other relief.'" State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135,¶13, 47 P.3d 107 (alteration in original) (quoting Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct. App. 1996)). When a party does not offer any meaningful analysis regarding a claim, we decline to reach the merits. See Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305. Because Appellant's brief fails to explain why this court should reverse the district court decision, we decline to reach the merits of Appellant's claims. Affirmed. WE CONCUR: ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge ----I DISSENT: ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge 20070189-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
