Another rule that is sometimes abused on appeal is ARAP 28 which requires parties to support all of their arguments with supporting law and facts. This is a good idea as well. The appeals court should not be required to do your research for you. However, there have been those cases that are well reasoned and supported yet still thrashed by a stretching of this rule. This rule when taken to the extreme is used to imply that every word of a brief must be footnoted with a dictionary definition. While Bill Clinton may have argued that he could not answer a question until the word "is" was defined for him, the rest of us reguire no such absurdity. This rule has elsewhere been used to prevent consideration of new arguments. If a new argument is made that has never been made before whwre do you cite to for an original thought? And still worse, this rule has been used disingenuously in the hopes that no one will go back and read the well argued brief. After all, the courts publish their own opinions not the lawyers. To find that you will need to do some digging.
These two rules, though well meaning, present special challenges on appeal. Any attorney or litigant on appeal needs to be as careful as possible when navigating these rules.