Yet, before this court, although the theory is argued, supportive citations were omitted. It is not the responsibility of this court to research and argue a case for any party. Likewise, the brief contains no appendix, or a single-page reference to the record, as also required in Rule 342. (See Consultants Administrators, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 920, 924 n. 6, 431 N.E.2d 1306, cert. denied (1982), 459 U.S. 910, 74 L.Ed.2d 172, 103 S.Ct. 216.) Counsel for appellants is not inexperienced, as our records indicate that at the present time he is attorney of record in seven cases before this court. Rules are important in order to guide an appellant as to what should be in the brief and appendix.
One must state in complete detail from the record how constitutional rights were infringed before a court will consider the constitutional objection. (See People v. Hanserd (1985), 136 Ill. App.3d 928; Consultants Administrators, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 920.) The defendant's general allegation that his fourth amendment rights were violated, without stating the circumstances under which the asserted constitutional rights were infringed, or submitting authority to substantiate the claimed violation, did not adequately raise a constitutional claim.
This court will not prepare and argue a case for an appellant. Consultants Administrators, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 920, 431 N.E.2d 1306. • 2 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant owed a duty to him under the law, and we do not find such a duty to be imposed on the defendant by its property management agreement with the condominium association.
As the Committee Comments indicate and as courts have held, this provision is an application of the general principle that the court will not research and argue a case for an appellant. (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 341(e)(7), Committee Comments, at 476 (Smith-Hurd 1985); Consultants Administrators, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 920, 431 N.E.2d 1306, cert. denied (1982), 459 U.S. 910, 74 L.Ed.2d 172, 103 S.Ct. 216.) Indeed, our supreme court has stated, "[i]t is the duty of attorneys practicing in this court to present to the court the authorities supporting their views and to assist the court in reaching a correct conclusion." ( Kelley v. Kelley (1925), 317 Ill. 104, 107, 147 N.E. 659, 660.) Courts have therefore construed Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (107 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)) as requiring an appellant to not only offer argument on the issue appealed, but also to support that argument with some citation of authority. ( Wilson v. Continental Body Corp. (1981), 93 Ill. App.3d 966, 418 N.E.2d 56.) Consequently, courts, applying the waiver doctrine, have rejected an argument where there is a failure to cite authorities in connection with that argument.
( Wilson v. Continental Body Corp. (1981), 93 Ill. App.3d 966, 969, 418 N.E.2d 56.) Under such circumstances, the reviewing court may deem those issues waived which have not been sufficiently or properly presented. ( Consultants Administrators, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 920, 924, 431 N.E.2d 1306.) However, a reviewing court may override considerations of waiver. Motz v. Central National Bank (1983), 119 Ill. App.3d 601, 608-09, 456 N.E.2d 958.
This court will not research and argue a case for an appellant. ( Consultants Administrators, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 920.) Because no citation to authority has been presented in support of plaintiff's statement, we will therefore not consider it here. We now consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the issue of damages only.