Opinion ID: 1122978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: SEARLE AND McNABB FAILED TO COMPLY WITH I.A.R. 35 CONCERNING THEIR I.R.C.P. 68 ISSUE.

Text: In their initial brief on appeal, Searle and McNabb list as an additional issue on appeal an award of all costs incurred after their offer of judgment of $455,000 on October 20, 1993. They do not, however, cite authority, nor do they argue this issue in either of their briefs. The only other mention of the issue is in the conclusion in their initial brief, where they state, as follows: In the event that the ultimate award is less than Searles' Rule 68 offer of judgment ..., Respondents seek an award of their costs. In addition, the offer of judgment is not part of the record before us. I.A.R. 35(a)(6) requires that the argument portion of the appellant's brief contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the transcript and record relied upon. Apparently, Searle and McNabb intended the I.R.C.P. 68 issue to be part of their cross-appeal. We do not address the issue because Searle and McNabb have not complied with I.A.R. 35(a)(6).