Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of ANI's Motion for a Directed Verdict

Text: ANI moved for a directed verdict on many of the claims in the State's complaint. It appeals the denial of this motion. [21] ANI's brief merely lists the provisions of the Act under which a violation was charged. ANI provides no substantive discussion of the issue, and instead asserts that its superior court motion is incorporated by reference because it is so long and detailed. This practice does not satisfy Appellate Rule 212(c)(1)[i], which requires that the appellant's brief contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor. We need not consider arguments which a party on appeal merely adopts and incorporates by reference to its lower court memoranda. Tenala, Ltd. v. Fowler, 921 P.2d 1114, 1124 (Alaska 1996) (citing Bidwell v. Scheele, 355 P.2d 584, 587-88 (Alaska 1960)); Brandon v. State, 778 P.2d 221, 229 n. 1 (Alaska App. 1989). Nothing about ANI's terse and cursory treatment of the issue on appeal suggests any reason to reverse. Moreover, ANI's reply brief makes no attempt to rebut the State's substantive arguments on this issue. ANI has not demonstrated on appeal that the evidence does not support the claims which were the subject of its motion. It has not established that reasonable persons could not differ. It was not error to deny ANI's directed verdict motion.