Court Opinion

ID: 9798550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 05:10:17.538589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:24.758900
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 32] I concur in Part II of the majority opinion affirming the district court’s granting of the defendants’ Rule 50 motion and dismissing Jeff Trosen’s legal claims. I dissent from Part III because Jeff Tro-sen did not brief the dismissal of his equitable claims. Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. See State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10, 727 N.W.2d 769 *697(“Issues not briefed by an appellant are deemed abandoned, and thereby become the law of the case and will not be considered on appeal.”). Accordingly, this Court’s decision on dismissal of the equitable claims is an improper advisory opinion. See Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19-21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially).
[¶ 38] Daniel J. Crothers