Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 430 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility Anchor | green | “it is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant's case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” | 197 |
| 2 | Bean v. Bean | green | “courts have routinely held that the failure to make appropriate references to the record and to cite relevant authority in the argument section of the brief as required by rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a waiver of the issue.” | 63 |
| 3 | Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility | green | “where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” | 42 |
| 4 | Irvin v. City of Clarksville | green | “pro se litigants who invoke the complex and sometimes technical procedures of the courts assume a very heavy burden.” | 27 |
| 5 | Crowe v. Birmingham & Northwestern Railway Co. | green | “appellate courts may properly decline to consider issues that have not been raised and briefed in accordance with the applicable rules.” | 19 |
| 6 | Charlotte Scott Forbess v. Michael E. Forbess | green | “this court has repeatedly held that a party's failure to cite authority for its arguments or to argue the issues in the body of its brief constitute a waiver on appeal.” | 18 |
| 7 | Charlotte Scott Forbess v. Michael E. Forbess | green | “courts have routinely held that the failure to make appropriate references to the record and to cite relevant authority in the argument section of the brief as required by rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a waiver of the issue.” | 16 |
| 8 | Bean v. Bean | green | “the supreme court has held that it will not find this court in error for not considering a case on its merits where the plaintiff did not comply with the rules of this court.” | 15 |
| 9 | Chiozza v. Chiozza | green | “pro se litigants must comply with the same substantive and procedural law to which represented parties must adhere.” | 13 |
| 10 | Newcomb v. Kohler Co. | green | “courts have routinely held that the failure to make appropriate references to the record and to cite relevant authority in the argument section of the brief as required by rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a waiver of the issue.” | 12 |
| 11 | Branum v. Akins | green | “where a party makes no legal argument and cites no authority in support of a position, such issue is deemed waived and will not be considered on appeal.” | 8 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.