Last week the Utah Supreme Court held that the state’s court of appeals had not erred when it refused to consider a laches argument on the ground that it had not been adequately briefed. Wrote the court:
“We have repeatedly warned that [appellate courts] will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed, and that we are not a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.” An adequately briefed argument contains “the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, including the grounds for reviewing any issue not preserved in the trial court, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.””Mere bald citation to authority, devoid of any analysis, is not adequate. And we may refuse, sua sponte, to consider inadequately briefed issues.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 2014 UT 21, ¶ 20 (citations omitted).