Opinion ID: 2621435
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juab County

Text: ¶ 27 Plaintiffs also appeal the dismissal of Juab County. The basis for their appeal, however, is unclear. We agree with Juab County that plaintiffs have not adequately briefed their appeal of the district court's order dismissing Juab County. ¶ 28 An appellant's brief must comply with rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Under rule 24, the brief must contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. Utah R.App. P. 24(a)(9). We have on many occasions declined to address inadequately briefed arguments. See, e.g., Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 313 (Utah 1998) (declining to address an issue on appeal where the appellant's brief lacked any reference to legal authority in support of his contention); State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998) (declining to address an issue where the brief's analysis was so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court). ¶ 29 Plaintiffs' briefing on Juab County's dismissal does not comply with rule 24. Indeed, plaintiffs fail to articulate any reason why the district court erred in dismissing Juab County or any theory as to how Juab County could be liable for Davis' death. Although we have occasionally addressed inadequately briefed arguments, we see no reason to do so in this case. See State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44, ¶ 8, 1 P.3d 1108 (addressing a criminal defendant's inadequately briefed argument in the interests of justice). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Juab County.