The court of appeals has neither duty nor resources to "'sift and glean'" the record for facts supporting a party's argument. Tam v. Luk, 154 Wis. 2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990) (quoted source omitted). Because Moller has not demonstrated that the issue of substantial prejudice was raised before the circuit court, we conclude the issue has been forfeited.

We have no duty to scour the record to review arguments unaccompanied by adequate record citations. See Tam v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990). As a high-volume, appellate court, we are entitled to expect briefing by an attorney that follows the basic Rules of Appellate Procedure.

We have no duty to scour the record to review arguments unaccompanied by adequate record citations. See Tam v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990). As a high-volume, appellate court, we are entitled to expect briefing by an attorney that follows the basic Rules of Appellate Procedure.

For that reason, alone, we could reject Mancl’s arguments. SeeTam v. Luk , 154 Wis. 2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (1990) (an appellate court need not consider arguments not supported by citation to the record indicating the location of documents or testimony relied upon). A. Standard of Review.

The appellant must provide citations to the record in support of its argument. Section 809.19(1)(e), STATS. Failure to cite any record reference demonstrating an objection to claimed error permits us to decline review of the issue on appeal. Tam v.Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n. 5, 453 N.W.2d 158, 162 n. 5 (Ct. App. 1990); § 809.83, STATS. Evidentiary issues are addressed to the trial court's discretion.

We also observe that the arguments in the Alvanoses' brief-in-chief, as well as some of the arguments in their reply brief, are not supported by citations to the record, and may be disregarded on that basis. See Tarn v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990). Nevertheless, we will address the Alvanoses' individual arguments as best we are able to discern them, including those that are improperly raised for the first time in the Alvanoses' reply brief.

Because Barron's characterization of the evidence is inaccurate and unsupported by record citation, it is unnecessary to address it further. SeeTam v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n. 5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct.App. 1990). ¶ 27. Next, Barron argues that although the court "did not comment on the numerous attempts to introduce unsubstantiated and inadmissible evidence by Mr. Urman, nor the violation of the court's order on the motion-in-limine," the court no doubt took this into account when overturning the jury's verdict.

"[W]e decline to embark on our own search of the record, unguided by references and citations to specific testimony," to determine whether this issue was addressed by the trial court. Tam v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n. 5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct.App. 1990). Because there is no indication this matter was presented to the trial court, we do not address it further.

We will not consider this factual assertion because Respondents do not support this assertion with any citation to the record. See Tarn v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990) (this court may decline to consider factual assertions that are unsupported by citations to the record). Because the lack of notice to Latta is dispositive, we express no opinion as to whether the July 27 delivery substantially complied with the required notice to Liegel.

Darnick fails to identify or cite any such statements. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(e); Tarn v. Luk, 154 Wis.2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding that this court will refuse to consider arguments unsupported by citations to the record). Regardless, upon our independent review, we find Darnick's argument meritless.