Court Opinion

ID: 9623061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:27:07.884019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:22.661710
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I base my concurrence on the portion of the opinion pertaining to the denial of appellants’ motion for a remittitur on the failure of the appellant to comply with Appellate Rule 11 (b) (1) [g] requiring in part that:
The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefore, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on

Appellants’ brief devoted one part of one sentence to the contention that it was error to deny the motion for remittitur. For this reason, I would not reach the merits of this contention.1

. Wernberg v. Matanuska Electric Association, 494 P.2d 790, 794 (Alaska 1972); Lewis v. State, 469 P.2d 689, 691, 692 n. 2 (Alaska 1970); Associated Engineers & Contractors, Inc. v. M. & W. Const. Co., 438 P.2d 224, 228 (Alaska 1968).