Opinion ID: 2638935
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Casciola's Briefing Is Adequate Only in Regard to His Arguments Concerning Punitive Damages and Piercing the Corporate Veil.

Text: We do not consider arguments that are inadequately briefed. [5] We have held that where a point is specified as error in a brief on appeal, but the point is not given more than cursory statement in the argument portion of the brief, [it] will not be considered by the court but will be treated as abandoned. [6] We apply a more lenient standard to pro se litigants. [7] To avoid waiver, a pro se litigant's briefing must allow his or her opponent and this court to discern the pro se's legal argument. [8] Even a pro se litigant, however, must cite authority and provide a legal theory. [9] Casciola's briefing on appeal is for the most part insufficient and difficult to follow. Because his argument [10] regarding the compensatory award does not allege any errors by the superior court or articulate a legal theory, we will not consider it. But his argument that the superior court erred by piercing the corporate veil and holding him personally liable for Jetbroker's misdeeds and his argument that the punitive damages award was inappropriate outline recognizable legal theories and cite identifiable authorities. Given our lenient stance towards pro se litigants, we will address these two arguments.