Opinion ID: 1243690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: special employer status

Text: In addition, Walker asserts that General did not become his special employer. He contends that if General did not intend to abide by the height restriction imposed by SOS, General committed fraud at the inception and failed to have the requisite intent to form a contract with SOS or an employment contract with Walker. Inasmuch as Walker has failed to properly brief this argument, we decline to address its merits. Rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a party's argument section of his or her brief contain the contentions of the appellant ... with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. See State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 966 (Utah 1989); State v. Amicone, 689 P.2d 1341, 1344 (Utah 1984). A brief must contain some support for each contention. Wareham, 772 P.2d at 966. Walker's briefs wholly fail to cite to the record or a single case in support of this contention. We therefore do not address it.