Opinion ID: 2627367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the State waive its right to appeal by failing to appear at either of the two motion hearings?

Text: [¶13] The Division filed an Answer to Petition for Relief of Duty to Register. The record is unclear whether the Division received notice of the hearing in which this matter was decided, but the Division denies ever having received such notice. The appellee asserts that the Division waived its right to challenge the district court's determination because it failed to appear at the hearing. In support of its position, the appellee offers two unpublished United States District Court cases for the District of Colorado, Namoko v. Cornish and Dell'Ollio Law Firm, No. 07-CV-0225-WDM-CBS, 2008 WL 2037980, at  (D. Colo. Apr 21, 2008) and Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Western Int'l Grain Co., No. 07-CV-01028-RPM-CBS, 2008 WL 926545, at  (D. Colo. April 7, 2008). It is unclear what specific legal principle or concept the appellee hopes us to glean from these two cases, as he fails to cite to any specific portion of either case. After reading both cases, we find them to be irrelevant to the facts presented here and thus we will not consider the appellee's argument on this issue any further as it is unsupported by cogent legal argument or citation to authority. Abitbol v. State, 2008 WY 28. ¶ 19, 178 P.3d 415, 420 (Wyo. 2008). In particular, the appellee presents no authority for the proposition that failure to attend a hearing constitutes waiver of the right to appeal a decision resulting from that hearing.