These other potential issues are forfeited. See Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525, 536 (1991) (appellant may not seek reversal on theory not raised in trial court); Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1991) (arguments insufficiently raised may be deemed forfeited). As we shall note, defendant's procedural default is not limited to these potential issues.
Because plaintiff's argument consists of little more than an assertion without reasoning or citation to authority, we deem it forfeited. See Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1991). ¶ 14 In any event, the due-process argument lacks merit.
Because defendant's apparent argument is neither cogently developed nor supported by pertinent authority, we deem it forfeited. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2008); Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1991). ¶ 12 Defendant's brief's "Points and Authorities" section lists as one issue "Whether the $350.
Issues that are raised inadequately are forfeited. Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1991). Plaintiff's pro se status does not free him from these rules.
We find that James has waived this argument because of its utter lack of substance and because he failed to comply with Rule 341(e)(7) (177 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)). "A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and coherent arguments presented; arguments inadequately presented on appeal are waived. [Citation.] * * * A reviewing court will not become an advocate for, as well as the judge of, points the appellant seeks to raise." Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App.3d 317, 325 (1991). We reject James's final argument that the IDPA is barred from seeking recovery from him due to its failure to timely respond to James' demand to admit facts.
Statements unsupported by argument or citation of relevant authority do not merit consideration on review. Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App.3d 317, 325 (1991). A reviewing court will not become an advocate for, as well as the judge of, points the appellant seeks to raise.
A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented, and arguments not adequately presented on appeal may be waived. ( Holmstrom v. Kunis (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 317, 325, 581 N.E.2d 877.) A reviewing court will not become an advocate for, as well as the judge of, points the appellant seeks to raise. ( Holmstrom, 221 Ill. App.3d 317, 581 N.E.2d 877.)
Contentions that are inadequately presented on appeal, such as by the failure to provide coherent argument or cite pertinent authority, do not merit consideration. Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill.App.3d 317, 325 (1991).
A court of review is entitled to have issues on appeal clearly briefed and legal argument presented. Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill.App.3d 317, 325 (1991). As such, we grant defendant's motion to strike those portions of plaintiff's brief which do not conform with Illinois Supreme Court Rules 341(i), 341(h)(6), and 341(h)(7).
A court of review is entitled to have issues on appeal clearly briefed and legal argument presented. Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill.App.3d 317, 325 (1991). The appellate court has no responsibility to search the record and/or craft legal analysis to develop a party's argument when an appellant has not made a good-faith effort to comply with Illinois Supreme Court rules.