Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): if they are to be successful in this appeal. It is important to note initially that the “Corrected Release” executed by the appellants is of no consequence to this appeal. By failing to assert the validity of the “corrected” releases in their point relied on or their argument, the appellants have abandoned any claim that the “Corrected Release” has legal force or effect in its own right which can be asserted against the respondent. See Black v. Cowan Const. Co., 738 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo.App.1987) (in applying Rule 84.04(d) which mandates that the point relied on contain the action or ruling of the court sought to be reviewed, the Court stated that violations of Rule 84.04(d) can cause abandonment of an argument on appeal); see also Cox v. Crider, 721 S.W.2d 220, 225 (Mo.App.1986), (<HOLDING>). Further, the original release executed by the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court is not required to review an appellants point relied on which appears without citation of applicable or relevant authority (B) holding that the governments failure to argue harmless error results in a waiver of the argument (C) holding that the failure to identify or argue an issue in an opening brief constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal (D) holding that if an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority his action is state action (E) holding that a failure to argue a point of error on appeal or produce supportive authority or state that there is no supporting authority acts as abandonment
Output (English): holding that the failure to identify or argue an issue in an opening brief constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal