Opinion ID: 2625491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Inequitable Enforcement

Text: [¶ 11] Ms. White claims, for the first time in this appeal, that continuing to enforce the permanent injunction against her would inequitably burden her under the relative hardship doctrine. [5] We will not consider this argument further because it is based on assertions and averments unsupported by the record and we will not consider such an argument for the first time on appeal. Carabajal v. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 2005 WY 119, ¶ 20, 119 P.3d 947, 954 (Wyo.2005). While Ms. White is correct that we may consider some issues for the first time on appeal, see id., we will decline to weigh the relative hardship of continued enforcement of the permanent restraining order because there is no evidence in the record upon which we could base a decision.