position or assert error in Michigan

2026“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203 ; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).

2026“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203 ; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).

2026See People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 389 ; 639 NW2d 291 (2001) (recognizing that an appellant may not “announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position”) (citation omitted).

2026See People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 389 ; 639 NW2d 291 (2001) (recognizing that an appellant may not “announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position”) (citation omitted).

2026“It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026“It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024See Mudge v Macomb Co, 458 Mich 87, 105 ; 580 NW2d 845 (1998) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”).

2024See Mudge v Macomb Co, 458 Mich 87, 105 ; 580 NW2d 845 (1998) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”).

2026Even if these text messages were taken at face value as authentic, unadulterated, and complete, Gilliam does not explain how the messages undermine CD’s testimony.5 See People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 559-560 ; 830 NW2d 800 (2013) (stating that an appellant may not simply “announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments”).

2026Even if these text messages were taken at face value as authentic, unadulterated, and complete, Gilliam does not explain how the messages undermine CD’s testimony.5 See People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 559-560 ; 830 NW2d 800 (2013) (stating that an appellant may not simply “announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments”).

2019“An appellant may not . . . give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.” Houghton ex rel Johnson v Keller, 256 Mich App 336, 339 ; 662 NW2d 854 (2003); see also People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 389 ; 639 NW2d 291 (2001) (“[i]t is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position”).

2019“An appellant may not . . . give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.” Houghton ex rel Johnson v Keller, 256 Mich App 336, 339 ; 662 NW2d 854 (2003); see also People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 389 ; 639 NW2d 291 (2001) (“[i]t is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position”).

2023The result reached in this opinion is consistent with the result reached there. -7- Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 251 Mich App 379, 406 ; 651 NW2d 756 (2002) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”).

2023The result reached in this opinion is consistent with the result reached there. -7- Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 251 Mich App 379, 406 ; 651 NW2d 756 (2002) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”).

2025See People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 276 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims . . . .” (citation omitted)).

2025See People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 276 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims . . . .” (citation omitted)).

2024See People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 143 ; 858 NW2d 490 (2014) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” (quotation marks and citation omitted).] With respect to the portion of defendant’s argument pertaining to the prosecutor’s discretion, all challenges for cause on whatever grounds in MCR 2.511(D)(10) necessarily implicate di

2024See People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 143 ; 858 NW2d 490 (2014) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” (quotation marks and citation omitted).] With respect to the portion of defendant’s argument pertaining to the prosecutor’s discretion, all challenges for cause on whatever grounds in MCR 2.511(D)(10) necessarily implicate di

2024“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634, 679 ; 780 NW2d 321 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634, 679 ; 780 NW2d 321 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026An appellant may not “simply announce a position or assert an error in [its] brief and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the claims, or unravel and elaborate the appellant’s arguments, and then search for authority to either sustain or reject the appellant’s position.” DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587 , 594- 595; 741 NW2d 384 (2007).

2026An appellant may not “simply announce a position or assert an error in [its] brief and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the claims, or unravel and elaborate the appellant’s arguments, and then search for authority to either sustain or reject the appellant’s position.” DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587 , 594- 595; 741 NW2d 384 (2007).

2022An appellant may not merely “announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 315 ; 721 NW2d 815 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022An appellant may not merely “announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 315 ; 721 NW2d 815 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024See 1031 Lapeer LLC v Rice, 290 Mich App 225, 233-234 ; 810 NW2d 293 (2010) (stating that an appellant may not “simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the appellant’s claims, unravel and elaborate upon the arguments, and search for the authority to support his or her position”).

2024See 1031 Lapeer LLC v Rice, 290 Mich App 225, 233-234 ; 810 NW2d 293 (2010) (stating that an appellant may not “simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the appellant’s claims, unravel and elaborate upon the arguments, and search for the authority to support his or her position”).

2024See People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 559-560 ; 830 NW2d 800 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (“As we have repeatedly stated, an appellant may not simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”); People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120 , 131 n 36; 771 NW2d 655 (2009) (“Failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment.”).

2024See People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 559-560 ; 830 NW2d 800 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (“As we have repeatedly stated, an appellant may not simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”); People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120 , 131 n 36; 771 NW2d 655 (2009) (“Failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment.”).

2017See Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 388 ; 751 NW2d 431 (2008) (“Trial courts are not the research assistants of the litigants; the parties have a duty to fully present their legal arguments to the court for its resolution of their dispute.”); Mitcham v City of Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203 ; 94 NW2d 388 (1959) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or rejec

2017See Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 388 ; 751 NW2d 431 (2008) (“Trial courts are not the research assistants of the litigants; the parties have a duty to fully present their legal arguments to the court for its resolution of their dispute.”); Mitcham v City of Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203 ; 94 NW2d 388 (1959) (“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or rejec

1986See also, Beaumont v Brown, 125 Mich App 464, 466 ; 336 NW2d 26 (1983); Hull & Smith *480 Horse Vans, Inc v Carras, 144 Mich App 712 ; 376 NW2d 392 (1985).

1986See also, Beaumont v Brown, 125 Mich App 464, 466 ; 336 NW2d 26 (1983); Hull & Smith *480 Horse Vans, Inc v Carras, 144 Mich App 712 ; 376 NW2d 392 (1985).

2018Furthermore, “[i]t is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Goolsby v City of Detroit, 419 Mich 651 , 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018Furthermore, “[i]t is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Goolsby v City of Detroit, 419 Mich 651 , 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022Respondent has not provided any evidence to suggest that petitioner had any control over when respondent took her medication, and “[i]t is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to . . . search for authority either to sustain or reject [her] position.” Innovation Ventures v Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich 491, 518 ; 885 NW2d 861 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022Respondent has not provided any evidence to suggest that petitioner had any control over when respondent took her medication, and “[i]t is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to . . . search for authority either to sustain or reject [her] position.” Innovation Ventures v Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich 491, 518 ; 885 NW2d 861 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025See also In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 670 ; 765 NW2d 44 (2009) (“It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025See also In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 670 ; 765 NW2d 44 (2009) (“It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024Pertinently, defendant cites only Johnson v Johnson, 329 Mich App 110 , 126; 940 NW2d 807 (2019) (stating “[w]hen a party fails to cite any supporting legal authority for its position, the issue is deemed abandoned”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); and Oakland County v Michigan, 325 Mich App 247, 266-267 ; 926 NW2d 11 (2018) (explaining “[i]t is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it to up this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority e

2024Pertinently, defendant cites only Johnson v Johnson, 329 Mich App 110 , 126; 940 NW2d 807 (2019) (stating “[w]hen a party fails to cite any supporting legal authority for its position, the issue is deemed abandoned”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); and Oakland County v Michigan, 325 Mich App 247, 266-267 ; 926 NW2d 11 (2018) (explaining “[i]t is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it to up this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority e

2019“Failure to brief a question on appeal is tantamount to abandoning it.” Id.; see also People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 59 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004) (“Such cursory treatment constitutes abandonment of the issue.”).

2019“Failure to brief a question on appeal is tantamount to abandoning it.” Id.; see also People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 59 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004) (“Such cursory treatment constitutes abandonment of the issue.”).