Opinion ID: 2622975
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Adequately Brief

Text: ¶ 40 Additionally, Ball and Geddes's briefing on the issue of intervention is inadequate. Under rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, petitioners seeking judicial review must identify the legal or factual errors of the lower court or agency. [43] We have consistently declined to review issues that are not adequately briefed. [44] And we have long held that it is improper to mak[e] blanket assertions and leav[e] the responsibility to the court to ferret out evidence from the record to support [them]. [45] In this case, Ball and Geddes's overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court. [46] ¶ 41 After the Commission denied their request to intervene, Ball and Geddes submitted a request for reconsideration to the Commission. In their brief for reconsideration, Ball and Geddes failed to raise or even identify a single error that would have required the Commission to modify its Intervention Order. Rather, Ball and Geddes incorporated by reference the brief they had previously filed with the Commission on December 13, 2005, which included arguments as to reasons the Commission should grant the intervention. Thus, Ball and Geddes essentially asked the Commission to review the previous brief and find some reason to change its Intervention Order. ¶ 42 In its motion to dismiss, Questar highlights this inadequate briefing before the Commission. Questar argues that because Ball and Geddes did not raise any issues of error in their request for reconsideration, they did not preserve any issues for our review. Indeed, Utah Code section 54-7-15 states that [a]n applicant [for reconsideration] may not urge or rely on any ground not set forth in the application in an appeal to any court. [47] ¶ 43 Furthermore, like their request for reconsideration, Ball and Geddes's memorandum opposing summary dismissal of their appeal consists of a single page and does not identify specific issues of error but merely incorporates by reference the same December 13, 2005 brief. Their memorandum further states in reference to that brief that these pleadings, seeking reconsideration, speak for themselves and show the Court that these Petitioners have raised arguments of substantial merit, warranting review in this Court. Ultimately, Ball and Geddes's petition before us amounts to a request that we review their initial request for intervention and find some merit in that argument. Even under a de novo standard of review, such briefing would be inadequate. But here, where we give deference to the Commission's decision and review for substantial evidence in the record, asking us to review the arguments and facts originally submitted to the Commission is clearly inappropriate. Accordingly, had we so chosen, we could have avoided addressing the intervention issue as a result of inadequate briefing.