COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 3, 2009 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Nilima Mehra appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after a jury found that Terry L. Nicholson did not install the light fixture that struck Mehra when it fell from her kitchen ceiling. Because Mehra makes no developed or coherent appellate argument, we affirm.
¶2 Mehra alleged that Nicholson had installed a ceiling fan and light fixture in Mehra’s kitchen that later fell from the ceiling and struck Mehra in the head, causing her injury. Mehra sued Nicholson, his employer, Quale & Associates, d/b/a Handyman Connection, and their insurer, Continental Casualty Company. The case was tried to a jury. Mehra testified that Nicholson installed the light fixture that fell, while Nicholson testified that he repaired a light fixture in a hallway and installed two shop lights in Mehra’s basement. Nicholson denied ever installing or repairing the light fixture that fell. The jury was asked specifically whether Nicholson had installed the light fixture that fell, and the jury answered, “no.” The jury also awarded Mehra $0 in damages for past pain, suffering, and disability, and $0 for past loss of earning capacity.
¶3 In a motion after verdict, Mehra asked for a new trial because Nicholson lied and because one of the medical witnesses falsely testified that Mehra had carpal tunnel syndrome, thus providing a medical explanation for some of Mehra’s medical issues that she attributed to being struck by the fixture. The trial court rejected Mehra’s challenge to the credibility assessments made by the jury and concluded that sufficient evidence supported the verdict. Accordingly, the trial court denied Mehra’s motion and a judgment of dismissal was entered.
¶4 In her appellate brief, Mehra spends twenty-seven pages
detailing the trial testimony, evidentiary rulings, and argument that took
place over the three-day jury trial.
Throughout those twenty-seven pages, Mehra includes what can best be
described as a running editorial commentary, pointing out the evidence she
believes to be incredible and the trial court rulings she believes were
incorrect. In no instance, however, does
Mehra make any coherent legal argument.
Her brief contains no citation to legal authority. The “Argument” section of her brief takes
up one-half page and consists of seven single-sentence “questions” that imply
that the trial judge was biased against her and that the judge purposely misled
the jury in order to protect Nicholson and his attorney. For relief, Mehra requests that Nicholson be
“criminally charged for his N-A-S-T-Y Intentions to destroy her newly remodeled
kitchen”; that Nicholson’s employer “be penalized for sending worthless workers
to hurt citizens[’] homes”; that Nicholson’s lawyer be disbarred “for his sly,
manipulative ways”; that the trial judge be “remove[d] from the bench”; and
that she receive damages for lost wages, medical expenses, and pain, grief and
suffering.
¶5 We are not required to consider undeveloped arguments, Truttschel
v. Martin, 208 Wis. 2d 361, 369, 560 N.W.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1997),
and we may decline to review issues which are inadequately briefed, State
v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App.
1992). Arguments unsupported by
reference to legal authority need not be considered.
¶6 We conclude that Mehra failed to adequately develop any legal arguments. For this court to consider her arguments, we would first have to develop them further for her and we cannot be both judges and advocates. See id. We therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2007-08).