Case Name: CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. NORTHERN CORPORATION, Appellee. NORTHERN CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant, v. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Cross-Appellee
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Alaska
Decision Date: 1977-05-20
Citations: 563 P.2d 883
Docket Number: Nos. 2779, 2891
Parties: CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. NORTHERN CORPORATION, Appellee. NORTHERN CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant, v. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Cross-Appellee.
Judges: Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINOWITZ, CONNOR and BURKE, Justices.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 563
Pages: 883–884

Head Matter:
CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. NORTHERN CORPORATION, Appellee. NORTHERN CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant, v. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 2779, 2891.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
May 20, 1977.
Sanford M. Gibbs, Hagans, Smith & Brown, Anchorage, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Donna C. Willard, Richmond, Willoughby & Willard, Anchorage, Bruce T. Rinker, De-Garmo, Leedy, Oles & Morrison, Seattle, Wash., and Peter B. Walton, Anchorage, for appellee and cross-appellant.
Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINOWITZ, CONNOR and BURKE, Justices.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REHEARING
RABINOWITZ, Justice.
Cross-appellant Northern Corporation has filed a petition for rehearing in this matter contending that it should be granted rehearing on the issue of damages sustained because Chugach allegedly required it to remain in readiness to perform. Our study of the petition has not persuaded us to modify our decision in this matter.
Northern's 14th point in its cross-appeal reads:
The trial court erred in not concluding that Northern Corporation kept its equip ment on the job site throughout the summer and fall of 1967 only as a result of the insistence of Chugach Electric.
However, Northern's brief does not discuss this point. Our prior decisions have held that either cursory treatment of, or failure to argue, a point on appeal constitutes an abandonment of the particular point in question. See, e. g., Kenai Power Corp. v. Strandberg, 415 P.2d 659, 660 (Alaska 1966); DeArmond v. Alaska State Development Corp., 376 P.2d 717, 725 (Alaska 1962); Veal v. Newlin, Inc., 367 P.2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1961).
ERWIN, Justice, not participating.
. See Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. Northern Corp., 562 P.2d 1053, Opinion No. 1408 (Alaska 1977).
. Northern's brief asserts that damages were erroneously computed, however, not for this particular reason.