Opinion ID: 2571583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary affirmation or additional sanctions

Text: [¶ 11] RTB asserts that Mr. Kinstler's brief fails to meet the requirements of W.R.A.P. 7.01 in several respects, including the lack of a statement of the issues, and the failure to support claims with cogent argument or pertinent authority. On that basis, RTB urges us to affirm the district court's decision summarily, or to impose additional sanctions against Mr. Kinstler. We decline to do so. [¶ 12] Reasonable compliance with applicable procedural rules and requirements is mandatory, but we afford pro se litigants some leniency from the stringent standards applied to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. White v. Table Mt. Ranches Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2006 WY 2, ¶ 8, 125 P.3d 1019, 1021 (Wyo.2006), quoting Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo.2002). Mr. Kinstler's brief presented at least one issue with sufficient support and clarity to allow meaningful review. We have declined to consider those issues that were not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority. Because the technical violations of the appellate rules did not preclude meaningful review, we will not impose additional sanctions. See Furman v. Rural Elec. Co., 869 P.2d 136, 139 (Wyo.1994).