Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/726668.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,538 chars

60 An appellant's briefs must present "argument in support of the issues
presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to
relevant parts of the record." RAP 10.3(a)(6). "Unsubstantiated assignments of
error are deemed abandoned." Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conserv. Coal..
176 Wn. App. 38, 54, 308 P.3d 745 (2013).
61 See Collev v. Peacehealth. 177 Wn. App. 717, 727, 312 P.3d 989
(2013) (holding that error in admitting evidence on collateral issue did not require
reversal).
62 The County did produce exhibit 458 in discovery, contrary to Marin's
statement. And it did not offer exhibits 629 or 630 into evidence. The trial court
invited Marin to submit briefing on those exhibits' admissibility, but Marin never
did so.
-26-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 27

Marin also waived his claim that the trial court's imposition of costs was

unauthorized. His only argument—that "[s]tatute[s] authorized few of the

costs"—is too vague to permit review.63

Marin assigns error to several other trial court actions. But he fails to

support these claims too, effectively waiving them.

CONCLUSION

Because Marin failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine

issue of material fact as to every element of a disparate treatment claim and

because Marin's numerous other arguments also lack merit, we affirm.

WE CONCUR:

63 See RAP 10.3(a)(6); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boslev. 118
Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).
-27-