Opinion ID: 1819410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gilbert's Remaining Arguments

Text: As to Gilbert's remaining arguments, he fails to cite a single authority in support of those arguments. Further, he argues for the first time in his reply brief that this Court should overrule its holding in Tedescki v. Rogina Investment Corp., supra, and that Rogina had a duty to mitigate its damages. This Court will not consider those arguments. `The law of Alabama provides that where no legal authority is cited or argued, the effect is the same as if no argument had been made. ' Bennett v. Bennett, 506 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Ala.Civ. App.1987) (emphasis added). `[A]n argument may not be raised, nor may an argument be supported by citations to authority, for the first time in an appellant's reply brief.' Improved Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks v. Moss, 855 So.2d 1107, 1111 (Ala.Civ.App.2003), abrogated on other grounds, Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638 (Ala.2003). Where an appellant first cites authority for an argument in his reply brief, it is as if the argument was first raised in that reply brief, and it will not be considered. Steele v. Rosenfeld, LLC, 936 So.2d 488, 493 (Ala.2005).