N.M. R. App. P. 12-318
N.M. R. App. P. 12-318
Committee commentary. - In 2016, the committee renumbered Rule 12-213 NMRA and placed it in the general provisions article as Rule 12-318 NMRA.
In an effort to provide additional options for producing more readable documents, the 2007 amendments to this rule allow practitioners to exceed the traditional page limitations for a brief if the brief complies with the type-volume limitations set forth in the new Subparagraph (F)(3) of the rule. Specifically, briefs in chief, answer briefs, and amicus briefs that exceed the traditional thirty-five (35) page limit may not contain more than eleven thousand (11,000) words or one thousand two hundred (1,200) lines in the body of the brief, depending on whether a proportionally-spaced or monospaced type style or typeface is used. See Subparagraph (F)(1) for a definition of the body of the brief. Similarly, if the body of the reply brief exceeds the traditional fifteen (15) page limit, the body of the brief may not contain more than four thousand four hundred (4,400) words or four hundred eighty (480) lines, again depending on whether a proportionally-spaced or monospaced type style or typeface is used. If a proportionally-spaced type style or typeface is used, the word-count limit applies. If a monospaced type style or typeface is used, the line-count limit applies. In either case, if the traditional page limit is exceeded, a statement of compliance must be included as provided by Paragraph G of this rule to show that the brief complies with the applicable type-volume limitation.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 07-8300-024 effective November 1, 2007; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2016.]
.ANNOTATIONS The 2018 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 18-8300-016, effective December 31, 2018, provided rules for filing consolidated answer briefs and consolidated reply briefs, provided sanctions for the failure to comply with the requirements of this rule, and made non-substantive language changes; in Paragraph A, after "order", deleted "herein", and after "indicated", added "in this rule"; in Paragraph B, added the first two sentences which provide for consolidated answer briefs; in Paragraph C, after "each answer brief", added "but is encouraged to consolidate arguments into a single reply brief when appropriate. A consolidated reply brief shall be titled as such on its cover page", and after "(4)", added of this rule"; and added Paragraph J. The 2016 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective December 31, 2016, removed the provision relating to requests for oral argument, which was duplicative of provisions in Rule 12-319, made stylistic and technical changes, and revised the committee commentary; in the heading, deleted "12-213" and added "12-318"; in Paragraph (A), in the introductory sentence, after "shall contain", added "the following"; in Subparagraph (A)(1)(c), after "contained", deleted "subparagraph (2) of Paragraph F" and added "Subparagraph (F)(2)"; in Subparagraph (A)(3), deleted "Such" and added "This", after "factual representation", added "in accordance with the citation format found in the Appendix to Rule 23-112 NMRA", and after "evidence bearing", deleted "upon" and added "on"; in Subparagraph (A)(4), after "finding, or", deleted "such" and added "the"; deleted Subparagraph (A)(6); in Paragraph (C), deleted "Such" and added "The reply", after "Subparagraphs", added "(A)", after "(4)", deleted "of Paragraph A", and deleted the last sentence of the paragraph relating to the format for requests for oral argument; in Subparagraph (D)(2), after "attaching a copy", deleted "thereto"; in Subparagraph (F)(1), after "argument", added "if any"; in Subparagraph (F)(2), in two places, after "Subparagraph", added "(F)", and after "(3)", deleted "of Paragraph F"; in Paragraph (G), deleted "Pursuant to Sub-subparagraph (c) of Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A" and added "Under Subparagraph (A)(1)(c)", after "limitations of Subparagraph", added "(F)", after "(2)", deleted "of Paragraph F", after "with the limitations", deleted "Paragraph F" and added "Subparagraph (F)(3)"; in Paragraph I, after the first two occurrences of "(20) days after", deleted "such"; and in the committee commentary, changed the format for certain references to provisions within the rule. The 2010 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 10-8300-001, effective April 12, 2010, in Paragraph A, added Subparagraph (6); in Paragraph C, added the last sentence; and in Paragraph F, in Subparagraph (1), after "signature blocks", added "statement regarding oral argument". The 2005 amendment, effective March 15, 2005, added the last sentence of Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A for transcript references when the transcript is a digital trancripts and other electronic recording. The 2003 amendment, effective November 1, 2003, substituted "twenty (20)" for "ten (10)" in the last sentence of Paragraph H. The 1999 amendment, effective for cases filed on and after January 1, 2000, in Paragraph A(1), added the second sentence. The 1998 amendment, effective for cases filed on and after July 1, 1998, in Paragraph H, deleted "and shall be due at the time set forth herein" at the end of the first sentence, added the second and third sentences, and substituted "forty-five (45) days" for "thirty (30) days" in two places. The 1997 amendment, effective January 1, 1997, rewrote Subparagraph A(1) to delete the former Subparagraph (a) designation and added the last sentence, redesignated former Subparagraph A(1)(b) as Subparagraph A(2); deleted former Subparagraph A(1)(c) relating to transcripts as audio recordings, redesignated former Subparagraphs A(2) to A(4) as Subparagraphs A(3) to A(5); added the last sentence in Subparagraph A(3); in Subparagraph A(4), inserted "with respect to each issue presented" and "a statement of the standard of review" and substituted "and a statement explaining how the issue was preserved" for "with respect to each issue presented and how preserved" in the first sentence, and deleted "the summary of proceedings includes the substance of the evidence hearing upon the proposition, and" following "unless" in the last sentence; and substituted "Subparagraphs (2) and (4)" for "Subparagraphs (1) and (3)" in Paragraph C. The 1993 amendment, effective September 1, 1993, substituted "after counsel's" for "after his" in the first sentence of Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph D; and deleted "his" preceding "brief in chief" in the second sentence of Paragraph H. The 1991 amendment, effective for cases filed in the supreme court and court of appeals on and after September 1, 1991, in Subparagraph (3) of Paragraph A, substituted "unless the summary of proceedings includes" for "unless the party so contending shall have included in his summary of proceedings", "the argument" for "in his argument" and "facts which are not supported by substantial evidence" for "facts not proved which require the relief sought". Recompilations. - Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, 12-213 NMRA was recompiled and amended as 12-318 NMRA, effective December 31, 2016.
For docketing statement, see Rule 12-208 NMRA. For number of copies, see Rule 12-306 NMRA. For citations in pleadings and other papers filed in appellate and other New Mexico courts, see Rule 23-112 NMRA. For the definition and related discussion of "proportionally-spaced" type style or typeface, see Rule 12-305(C)(1) NMRA and commentary. For the definition and related discussion of "monospaced" type style or typeface, see Rule 12-305(C)(2) NMRA and commentary. For federal rules, see Fed. R. App. P. Rules 28 and 31. I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Appellate rules do not address footnotes. Murken v. Solv-Ex Corp., 2005-NMCA-137, 138 N.M. 653, 124 P.3d 1192. Footnotes. - A brief violates the rules where the footnotes do not consist of permissible type size and are not double spaced, and because if the footnotes were placed in the text of the brief, it would undoubtedly exceed 35 pages. Murken v. Solv-Ex Corp., 2005-NMCA-137, 138 N.M. 653, 124 P.3d 1192. Compliance with rule required. - Where defendants have failed to comply with this rule, or to indicate that the issue sought to be argued on appeal is jurisdictional, or that the issue was properly preserved for appellate review, an appellate court may decline to address such contention on appeal. State v. Goss, 1991-NMCA-003, 111 N.M. 530, 807 P.2d 228. Once a case is assigned to a nonsummary calendar, the parties are expected to comply fully with the appellate rules with respect to briefs. State v. Gonzales, 1991-NMCA-007, 111 N.M. 590, 808 P.2d 40. Noncompliance with this rule does not require the appellate court to disregard an issue. State v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109, 122 N.M. 476, 927 P.2d 31. Excessive use of footnotes, where much of the argument and most of the case citations are contained in footnotes rather than in the body of the brief, is not encouraged, because it violates the spirit of the page-limitation requirement of this rule. Schmidt v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 1987-NMCA-046, 105 N.M. 681, 736 P.2d 135. Appeal by gas utility. - Gas utility which filed brief prior to the filing of brief by the public service commission was the appellant and the commission was the appellee in view of former Section 62-11-7 NMSA 1978 (prior to 1965 amendment) (see now Section 62-11-1 NMSA 1978) and the order in which the parties appealed and filed briefs, on appeal after gas utility secured reversal and remand of order of commission pursuant to Section 62-11-5 NMSA 1978. Moyston v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1966-NMSC-062, 76 N.M. 146, 412 P.2d 840. Contempt proceedings were deemed proper for a violation of former Rule 501, N.M.R. App. P. (Crim.) (see now this rule). In re Avallone, 1978-NMSC-056, 91 N.M. 777, 581 P.2d 870. II. BRIEF IN CHIEF. A. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS. Duty of party to indicate all relevant evidence. - A party is required to point out all evidence bearing on a proposition. Luxton v. Luxton, 1982-NMSC-087, 98 N.M. 276, 648 P.2d 315. Brief must contain references to record and standard of review. - Motor vehicle division's failure to include in its brief references to the record to support its factual allegations and its failure to state the applicable standard of review were in violation of this rule. Medrow v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1998-NMCA-173, 126 N.M. 332, 968 P.2d 1195. Purpose of stating facts. - Purpose of the statement of facts required under former rule was to make known to the appellate court the trial court's appraisal of the facts and disposition of the issues and to aid the court in determining the questions at issue in the appeal; all pertinent facts were to be included in this statement. Stanton v. Bokum, 1959-NMSC-091, 66 N.M. 256, 346 P.2d 1039. Facts on which case to be determined. - Statement of facts required to be incorporated in appellant's brief under former rule had reference to the facts upon which the case was to be determined in the supreme court. Cullender v. Doyal, 1940-NMSC-045, 44 N.M. 491, 105 P.2d 326. Ultimate facts found in trial to court. - Statement of facts required to be incorporated in an appellant's brief under former rule if the issue had been tried to the court, related to the ultimate facts found in the decision of the court, which possibly could be better stated in narrative form than by merely copying the findings into the brief. Hopkins v. Martinez, 1963-NMSC-188, 73 N.M. 275, 387 P.2d 852; Provencio v. Price, 1953-NMSC-004, 57 N.M. 40, 253 P.2d 582. Evidentiary facts supporting jury verdict. - In causes tried to a jury, only such evidentiary facts as tended to support the verdict were to be incorporated into statement of facts required by former rule. Provencio v. Price, 1953-NMSC-004, 57 N.M. 40, 253 P.2d 582. Brief and concise summary of facts. - By the statement of the facts former rule contemplated a brief and concise summary of facts essential to aiding the court and counsel to understand at the outset the questions at issue together with the appraisal of facts and disposition of the issues by the lower court, and ordinarily the testimony was not to be reviewed at this point in the brief. Henderson v. Texas-New Mexico Pipe Line Co., 1942-NMSC-060, 46 N.M. 458, 131 P.2d 269. Facts in conflict pertinent to the appeal were to be summed up in statement of proceedings, but not to be set forth either verbatim or in narrative form. Allen v. Williams, 1966-NMSC-251, 77 N.M. 189, 420 P.2d 774. Statement of the material facts in conflict, not a detailed or argumentative description of the evidence, was all that was required or permitted in the statement of proceedings under former rule. Allen v. Williams, 1966-NMSC-251, 77 N.M. 189, 420 P.2d 774. When precisely followed format not necessary. - Where defendant had not followed precisely the format of former Rule 9(m)(2), N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule), but the brief in chief clearly defined the matters appealed, the supreme court reviewed on the merits a workman's compensation award. Fitch v. Sam Tanksley Trucking Co., 1980-NMCA-150, 95 N.M. 477, 623 P.2d 991. Statement adequate for review of legal questions. - Although appellants failed to include a statement of facts in brief, as required by former rule, where questions raised by the appeal were almost exclusively legal ones, statement which was included in brief, denominated "Statement of Facts," served the necessary purpose of placing material facts before court. New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Local 890 Int'l Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, 1953-NMSC-087, 57 N.M. 617, 261 P.2d 648. Where the transcripts and briefs in a case were sufficient to present the essential question for review on the merits, notwithstanding a technical violation of former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule), that issue was reviewed. Huckins v. Ritter, 1983-NMSC-033, 99 N.M. 560, 661 P.2d 52. Substantial compliance with requirements. - Although plaintiff did not expressly challenge certain of the defendant's stated findings of fact in his brief-in-chief, the fact that he did so in his reply brief was adequate to preserve the contested findings for review. Johnsen v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 1998-NMCA-097, 125 N.M. 456, 963 P.2d 533, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 322, 961 P.2d 167. B. ATTACK ON FINDINGS. Multiple convictions supported by indicia of separateness. - Where the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses supported viewing defendant's acts as separate and defendant offered no witnesses to rebut such testimony, having held that defendant's three convictions were supported by sufficient indicia of separateness, it was not incompetent for counsel to argue otherwise at trial. State v. Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, 137 N.M. 92, 107 P.3d 532, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-003. Generalized attack on findings of fact is not proper. Kerr v. Akard Bros. Trucking Co., 1963-NMSC-185, 73 N.M. 50, 385 P.2d 570. Generalized attack on the findings must fail under the provisions of the rules and decisions. State ex rel. Thornton v. Hesselden Constr. Co., 1969 -NMSC-036, 80 N.M. 121, 452 P.2d 190. Generalized attack on findings of trial court made by appellants in brief on appeal from judgment quieting title, amounting for the most part only to a statement that the court's findings were wrong while those proposed by appellants were correct, was in direct violation of the rules governing preparation of briefs. Giovannini v. Turrietta, 1966-NMSC-103, 76 N.M. 344, 414 P.2d 855. Where plaintiff's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence amounted to a generalized attack upon a county board's property valuation, failing to specifically refer to the board's findings or the substance of the evidence contained in the record, but merely urging the court to find her cited testimony as more accurate, plaintiff was bound by the county board's findings on appeal. Maloof v. San Juan Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1992-NMCA-127, 114 N.M. 755, 845 P.2d 849. Direct attack required. - Findings of fact by district court will not be set aside on appeal unless there is a direct attack upon same following applicable rule. Arias v. Springer, 1938-NMSC-025, 42 N.M. 350, 78 P.2d 153. Precise ground for challenge to be stated. - Mere challenge of a finding by parenthetical note in the statement of proceedings was not sufficient to raise an issue on appeal; the burden was on appellant to state in argument the precise ground or grounds for challenging the findings. McLam v. McLam, 1973-NMSC-050, 85 N.M. 196, 510 P.2d 914. Findings refused below to be set out. - Where appellant desires supreme court to review requested findings refused by the trial court, the substance thereof must be set out in appellant's brief; otherwise, the court cannot consider an assignment of error based on that ground. Hugh K. Gale Post No. 2182 VFW v. Norris, 1949-NMSC-003, 53 N.M. 58, 201 P.2d 777. But not for summary judgment. - Since no findings of fact were required on entry of summary judgment, requirement under former rule of summary of requested findings was not applicable; but if reasons for grant of summary judgment were known, reference to transcript to show proof of asserted facts and statement of substance of evidence bearing upon proposition would be called for. Wilson v. Albuquerque Bd. of Realtors, 1970-NMSC-096, 81 N.M. 657, 472 P.2d 371, overruled on other grounds Garrett v. Nissen Corp., 1972-NMSC-046, 84 N.M. 16, 498 P.2d 1359. Or attack on legal issues. - Points relied on by appellants were in the nature of attacks on the trial court's rulings on legal issues, and accordingly could be advanced without findings or requested findings with reference thereto. State ex rel. Garcia v. Martinez, 1969-NMSC-129, 80 N.M. 659, 459 P.2d 458. Applicability of Subparagraph A(4) to rulings on matters of law. - Subparagraph A(4) of this rule did not apply where the rulings by the trial court were matters of law, and there were no factual findings the appellants were required to specifically attack. Bernal v. Nieto, 1997-NMCA-067, 123 N.M. 621, 943 P.2d 1338. Citation of objectionable testimony necessary. - Where the brief does not cite the objectionable testimony, the court is unable to determine whether it is prejudicial. Montgomery v. Karavas, 1941-NMSC-020, 45 N.M. 287, 114 P.2d 776; Williams v. Selby, 1933-NMSC-071, 37 N.M. 474, 24 P.2d 728. Failure to sustain burden. - Where taxpayer faults the hearing officer for determining that taxpayer's failure to apply on time under 7-9F-9 NMSA 1978 was due to negligence and not malfeasance and criminal conduct, because the hearing officer determined that while employee's acts of embezzlement and forgery were crimes, his failure to file the tax credit application was merely negligent, and taxpayer, not the department, had to bear the responsibility for that negligence, taxpayer did not sustain his burdens under Paragraph A(3) and (4) of this rule. Team Specialty Products, Inc v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2005-NMCA-020, 137 N.M. 50, 107 P.3d 4. Challenge to sufficiency of evidence. - A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under a whole record review involves a two-step process. The party challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a proposition must set forth substance of all evidence bearing upon the proposition. Once the challenging party has set forth the substance of all the pertinent evidence, the party must then demonstrate why, unbalanced, the evidence fails to support the finding made. Martinez v. Southwest Landfills, Inc., 1993-NMCA-020, 115 N.M. 181, 848 P.2d 1108. Substantial evidence claims are reviewed only if the appellant apprises the court of all evidence bearing upon the issue, both that which is favorable and that which is contrary to appellant's position. Chavez v. S.E.D. Labs., 2000 -NMCA-034, 128 N.M. 768, 999 P.2d 412. Failure to include in briefs the substance of the evidence bearing on a proposition can result in a finding that the challenging party has waived the contention. Murillo v. Payroll Express, 1995-NMCA-062, 120 N.M. 333, 901 P.2d 751. Substance of pertinent evidence to be stated. - Party contending that findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence must state the substance of all evidence bearing upon the proposition. Rael v. Cisneros, 1971-NMSC-073, 82 N.M. 705, 487 P.2d 133; Blake v. Blake, 1985-NMCA-009, 102 N.M. 354, 695 P.2d 838; Kincaid v. Wek Drilling Co., 1984-NMSC-046, 1989-NMCA-111, 109 N.M. 480, 786 P.2d 1214. A party contending that a finding of fact was not supported by substantial evidence complied with former Rule 9(d), N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule) by referring to only a substantial portion of the material evidence in the transcript bearing on the proposition. Danzer v. Professional Insurors, Inc., 1984-NMSC-046, 101 N.M. 178, 679 P.2d 1276. In an attack on the findings, the party must copy the findings setting out the substance of all the evidence, or note the pages of the transcript where such evidence as is mentioned can be found. Bogle v. Potter, 1961-NMSC-025, 68 N.M. 239, 360 P.2d 650. Where appellants did not point out the facts on which their claim that the amount of punitive damages was excessive was based, supreme court would not consider that portion of the judgment. Hudson v. Otero, 1969-NMSC-125, 80 N.M. 668, 459 P.2d 830. Where brief failed to state substance of all evidence of significance with reference to the transaction involved in the suit, it did not comply with requirements of former rule. Davis v. Campbell, 1948-NMSC-041, 52 N.M. 272, 197 P.2d 430. The supreme court need not entertain a challenge to a trial court's finding of fact where the party challenging the finding fails to set out the substance of the evidence bearing upon the proposition. Homes ex rel. Marilynn v. Robinson, 1991-NMSC-019, 111 N.M. 517, 807 P.2d 215. With references to transcript. - Assertions of fact must be accompanied by references to transcript. Wilson v. Albuquerque Bd. of Realtors, 1970-NMSC-096, 81 N.M. 657, 472 P.2d 371, overruled on other grounds Garrett v. Nissen Corp., 1972-NMSC-046, 84 N.M. 16, 498 P.2d 1359. Where appellant totally failed to accompany assertions of fact with transcript references as required by former rule, the findings of the trial court on that issue would not be disturbed. Gonzales v. Gonzales, 1973-NMSC-045, 85 N.M. 67, 509 P.2d 259. Where defendant did not state the substance of all the evidence bearing upon their claimed issue, with proper references to the transcript, the trial court's findings would be deemed to be supported by substantial evidence. General Foods Corp. v. Henderson, 1973-NMSC-009, 84 N.M. 508, 505 P.2d 851. Where plaintiff sued board of realtors alleging a combination in restraint of trade, but made no reference in the transcript to items which tended to show or raise a factual issue as to lack of justification for the board's practices, trial court's summary judgment would be affirmed on procedural grounds by the court of appeals. Wilson v. Albuquerque Bd. of Realtors, 1971-NMCA-090, 82 N.M. 717, 487 P.2d 145. Court would not consider contention which was not supported by transcript references to evidence. Bank of N.M. v. Rice, 1967-NMSC-109, 78 N.M. 170, 429 P.2d 368. Failure to comply with requirement that substance of all pertinent evidence be stated in brief with proper references to transcript, would result in trial court findings being left undisturbed. Galvan v. Miller, 1968-NMSC-139, 79 N.M. 540, 445 P.2d 961; Davis v. Rayburn, 1947-NMSC-041, 51 N.M. 309, 183 P.2d 615; Scott v. Homestake-Sapin, 1963-NMSC-122, 72 N.M. 268, 383 P.2d 239; Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Suburban Tel. Co., 1963 -NMSC-120, 72 N.M. 411, 384 P.2d 684, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 376 U.S. 648, 84 S. Ct. 982, 11 L. Ed. 2d 979 (1964); Giovannini v. Turrietta, 1966-NMSC-103, 76 N.M. 344, 414 P.2d 855. Where defendant failed to make reference to the trial transcript to support asserting that administrator had authority to endorse trust fund checks, it failed to comply with former appellate rule and court could disregard asserted fact. Cooper v. Bank of N.M., 1966-NMSC-247, 77 N.M. 398, 423 P.2d 431. Court was bound by trial court's findings, where claimant's brief did not refer to transcript to show proof of facts asserted and did not state substance of all evidence pertinent to the particular issues raised. Ledbetter v. Lanham Constr. Co., 1966 -NMSC-058, 76 N.M. 132, 412 P.2d 559. Where appellant failed to make specific references in record to recorded agreement relied on to establish lien interest, it would not be considered by the supreme court on appeal from judgment quieting title. Bintliff v. Setliff, 1965-NMSC-105, 75 N.M. 448, 405 P.2d 931. Attack on the finding of the trial court would not be considered on appeal because of the failure to make references to the record where the testimony pertaining thereto was found. Irwin v. Lamar, 1964-NMSC-253, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400. Where appellant's counsel conceded in oral argument that all of the evidence, or the substance thereof, bearing upon the findings had not been included in the brief, and transcript references were not made to such evidence, the decision of the supreme court would be based on trial court's findings. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Suburban Tel. Co., 1963 -NMSC-120, 72 N.M. 411, 384 P.2d 684, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 376 U.S. 648, 84 S. Ct. 982, 11 L. Ed. 2d 979 (1964). Where counsel fails to make a resume of the evidence, which statements of evidence should be supported by proper references to transcript, the supreme court will not ordinarily entertain a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings. Loveridge v. Loveridge, 1948-NMSC-044, 52 N.M. 353, 198 P.2d 444. Evidence supporting verdict to be discussed. - Court would not disturb trial court's findings, where brief directed attention to contrary evidence, but neglected to point out the evidence tending to support findings in the trial court. Gish v. Hart, 1966-NMSC-028, 75 N.M. 765, 411 P.2d 349; Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Suburban Tel. Co., 1963 -NMSC-120, 72 N.M. 411, 384 P.2d 684, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 376 U.S. 648, 84 S. Ct. 982, 11 L. Ed. 2d 979 (1964). When there was no discussion by claimant of the evidence which sustained the verdict, the claimant would fail, because he had not complied with former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule). Minor v. Homestake-Sapin Partners Mine, 1961-NMSC-111, 69 N.M. 72, 364 P.2d 134. Where a party only referred to sections of a transcript where evidence could be found which was contrary to the trial court's findings, she did not comply with former Rule 9(d), N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule), since she did not set out all the evidence "bearing upon the proposition" in the brief, and, therefore, her exception cannot be entertained. Henderson v. Henderson, 93 N.M. 405, 1979-NMSC-075, 600 P.2d 1195. Appellant is bound by findings not properly attacked in brief. State ex rel. Thornton v. Hesselden Constr. Co., 1969 -NMSC-036, 80 N.M. 121, 452 P.2d 190. Where no proper attack is directed at the findings of fact made by the trial court, such findings are the facts upon which the appeal must be determined. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Pelletier, 1966-NMSC-141, 76 N.M. 555, 417 P.2d 46. Failure of plaintiff to set out substance of evidence bearing upon findings of fact attacked, requested findings and conclusions and allegedly erroneous findings of trial court, and use of generalized attack on court's findings and conclusions, was in direct violation of the decisions interpreting the rules governing the preparation of briefs; facts not properly attacked would remain as the basis upon which court would determine the issues presented. Michael v. Bauman, 1966-NMSC-079, 76 N.M. 225, 413 P.2d 888. In workman's compensation case, where the only effort made to attack the findings was to relate a portion of the testimony which according to the claimant required different findings, there was no compliance with former rule, and therefore, the findings made by the trial court were the findings before the reviewing court. Scott v. Homestake-Sapin, 1963-NMSC-122, 72 N.M. 268, 383 P.2d 239. Where appellant did not call attention to other evidence with proper references to the transcript, the court would consider the statement of the relevant testimony complete. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1966 -NMSC-146, 76 N.M. 587, 417 P.2d 68. Where brief makes no effort to review evidence, trial court findings accepted. - Where the defendant's brief makes no effort to review the evidence, merely stating that the defendant wished without briefing the matter to have the court of appeals decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction, the court of appeals will not review the evidence, but rather, will accept the findings of the trial court. City of Farmington v. Sandoval, 1977-NMCA-022, 90 N.M. 246, 561 P.2d 945. When the brief fails to review or provide transcript references to the evidence, the court of appeals will accept the findings of the trial court. Olguin v. Manning, 1986-NMCA-102, 104 N.M. 791, 727 P.2d 556. Defendant was precluded from questioning trial court's findings of fact by reason of failure to challenge such findings on appeal as required. Macnair v. Stueber, 1972-NMSC-059, 84 N.M. 93, 500 P.2d 178. Where plaintiff failed to attack any challenged findings in his brief, his appeal was not meritorious, as he failed to comply with former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule). Martinez v. Driver Mechenbier, Inc., 1977-NMCA-031, 90 N.M. 282, 562 P.2d 843. Failure of district court to incorporate requested findings of fact in decision was not properly before appellate court, where appellant neglected to follow up assignment of such error and totally disregarded former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule). Floeck v. Bureau of Revenue, 1940-NMSC-014, 44 N.M. 194, 100 P.2d 225. Requested findings contrary to unchallenged findings and conclusions cannot raise issue on appeal. Trujillo v. Tanuz, 1973-NMCA-048, 85 N.M. 35, 508 P.2d 1332; Prager v. Prager, 1969-NMSC-149, 80 N.M. 773, 461 P.2d 906. Findings not attacked on appeal are accepted by supreme court as the basis for decision. Kerr v. Akard Bros. Trucking Co., 1963-NMSC-185, 73 N.M. 50, 385 P.2d 570; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Price, 1984-NMCA-036, 101 N.M. 438, 684 P.2d 524, overruled on other grounds Ellingwood v. N.N. Investors Life Ins. Co., 1991 -NMSC-006, 111 N.M. 301, 805 P.2d 70. Where none of the facts found by the trial court as recited were directly attacked, they would be accepted as true by court on appeal. City of Roswell v. Reynolds, 1974-NMSC-044, 86 N.M. 249, 522 P.2d 796. Facts found by the trial court and not challenged become the facts in appellate court. Ojinaga v. Dressman, 1972-NMCA-017, 83 N.M. 508, 494 P.2d 170; Scott v. Jordan, 1983-NMCA-022, 99 N.M. 567, 661 P.2d 59. Where appellant has not attacked any of the findings of fact made by the trial court, said findings must be accepted by the appellate court and are the facts upon which the case rests in that court. Cooper v. Bank of N.M., 1966-NMSC-247, 77 N.M. 398, 423 P.2d 431. Where record on appeal did not contain a bill of exceptions required by former rules and was devoid of any evidence, injunction challenged for insufficiency of evidence would be affirmed. General Servs. Corp. v. Board of Comm'rs, 1965-NMSC-112, 75 N.M. 550, 408 P.2d 51. Where extensive findings of fact made by trial court were not attacked either by point or argument on grounds of lack of substantial evidence, the facts so found would be accepted by the supreme court as the basis for decision. Petty v. Williams, 1963-NMSC-018, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376. Where appellant's proposed finding directly conflicted with that of the trial court, which was not attacked and was supported by substantial evidence, trial court's finding would be accepted by appellate court. Hyde v. Anderson, 1961-NMSC-005, 68 N.M. 50, 358 P.2d 619. And conclusive on appeal. - Where there is no attack on the findings, direct or otherwise, and appellants do not raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, trial court's findings are conclusive on appeal. Swallows v. Sierra, 1961-NMSC-063, 68 N.M. 338, 362 P.2d 391. Since defendant did not challenge any findings of the trial court pursuant to former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule), the trial court's findings were conclusive on appeal. American Gen. Cos. v. Jaramillo, 1975-NMCA-092, 88 N.M. 182, 538 P.2d 1204. Where appellant failed in brief to make reference to a finding of fact of the trial court which was challenged, or did not intend to challenge any finding, the trial court's findings would be conclusive on appeal. Springer Corp. v. American Leasing Co., 1969-NMSC-121, 80 N.M. 609, 459 P.2d 135. Where appellants do not question or attack findings made by the trial court, they are the facts of the case binding on supreme court. Webb v. Hamilton, 1968-NMSC-008, 78 N.M. 647, 436 P.2d 507, overruled on other grounds American Tank and Steel Corp. v. Thompson, 1977-NMSC-052, 90 N.M. 513, 565 P.2d 1030. Findings not objected to are facts upon which case rests on appeal. Lerma v. Romero, 1974-NMSC-089, 87 N.M. 3, 528 P.2d 647; Cochran v. Gordon, 1967-NMSC-014, 77 N.M. 358, 423 P.2d 43; Reed v. Nevins, 1967-NMSC-065, 77 N.M. 587, 425 P.2d 813; Gallegos v. Kennedy, 1968-NMSC-170, 79 N.M. 590, 446 P.2d 642; Vaughan v. Wolfe, 1969-NMSC-019, 80 N.M. 141, 452 P.2d 475; Armijo v. Via Dev. Corp., 1970 -NMSC-015, 81 N.M. 262, 466 P.2d 108; Begay v. First Nat'l Bank, 1972-NMCA-084, 84 N.M. 83, 499 P.2d 1005, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 77, 499 P.2d 999. Unless findings are directly attacked, they are facts in appellate court. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Sherman, 1971-NMSC-009, 82 N.M. 316, 481 P.2d 104; Hutchison v. Boney, 1963-NMSC-040, 72 N.M. 194, 382 P.2d 525; Morris v. Merchant, 1967-NMSC-026, 77 N.M. 411, 423 P.2d 606; Wood v. Citizens Std. Life Ins. Co., 1971 -NMSC-011, 82 N.M. 271, 480 P.2d 161. Where the facts found by the trial court were not attacked on appeal they were considered as the facts before appellate court. Torris v. Dysart, 1963-NMSC-066, 72 N.M. 26, 380 P.2d 179. Facts found by the trial court ordinarily are not disturbed on appeal in the absence of a direct attack upon them. Witherspoon v. Brummett, 1946-NMSC-045, 50 N.M. 303, 176 P.2d 187. Findings in original case not appealed from are binding on the second appeal. Van Orman v. Nelson, 1969-NMSC-035, 80 N.M. 119, 452 P.2d 188. Technical violation overcome by attacks on related conclusions. - Although appellant's failure to refer specifically to a finding regarding the effect of a condition subsequent in a deed was a technical violation of this rule, the court of appeals was not bound by the finding, where appellant directly attacked a conclusion that partial reversion should have occurred, as well as a finding on the parties' intent. Thomas v. City of Santa Fe, 1991-NMCA-079, 112 N.M. 456, 816 P.2d 525. Party cannot challenge a conclusion of law, nor claim error for the failure or refusal of the trial court to adopt a conclusion of law. Newman v. Basin Motor Co., 1982-NMCA-074, 98 N.M. 39, 644 P.2d 553. Substantial compliance with rule. - Reference to errors set forth separately under "Assignment of Errors" along with separate arguments under "Arguments and Authorities," constituted a substantial compliance with former rule. Reed v. Fish Eng'r Corp., 1964-NMSC-042, 74 N.M. 45, 390 P.2d 283. Where city, appealing from a workmen's compensation award, actually attacked the trial court's findings, even though point relied upon for reversal referred only to the court's refusal to adopt the conclusion of law which it had requested, it complied with former rule. Sanchez v. City of Albuquerque, 1965-NMSC-043, 75 N.M. 137, 401 P.2d 583. Where defendants set out considerable amount of plaintiff's testimony concerning the oral agreement in their brief, with proper transcript references, it was clear that they were complaining of court's finding of an "enforceable oral contract for the conveyance of land," and they were in compliance with former rule. Alvarez v. Alvarez, 1963-NMSC-124, 72 N.M. 336, 383 P.2d 581. Failure of employer in brief challenging workmen's compensation award to specifically indicate findings charging him with payment of part of employee's medical expenses, where he specifically challenged other findings relating specifically to liability for medical expenses, did not amount to waiver. Beckwith v. Cactus Drilling Corp., 1972-NMCA-168, 84 N.M. 565, 505 P.2d 1241, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 560, 505 P.2d 1236. Although cross-appellants who alleged that findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence failed to quote evidence or refer to transcript in support of findings on motion for rehearing, former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule) was complied with by reference to cross-appellants' original brief, and entitled them to a review of the alleged error. Cullender v. Doyal, 1940-NMSC-045, 44 N.M. 491, 105 P.2d 326. Review not denied. - Although plaintiff, in his statement of proceedings, did not specifically challenge the findings of fact and was therefore in technical violation of former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule), where he set forth requested findings and specifically challenged certain of the trial court's conclusions of law and made it clear in wording of the statement of proceedings that certain findings were challenged, review of the issues, on the merits, would not be denied. Ortiz v. Ortiz & Torres Dri-Wall Co., 1972-NMCA-005, 83 N.M. 452, 493 P.2d 418. Court may decide case on merits despite failure of appellant to include a summary of the findings of the trial court in statement of proceedings, or to accompany assertions of fact with reference to the trial court's findings or refusal to make same, if it so desires. Trujillo v. Tanuz, 1973-NMCA-048, 85 N.M. 35, 508 P.2d 1332. Under certain circumstances, such as where the state is involved in a suit, the court may undertake the task of reading the entire transcript to determine whether the appellant's assertions were merited, notwithstanding former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule). State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Tanny, 1961-NMSC-014, 68 N.M. 117, 359 P.2d 350. Supreme Court would decide a case on the merits of contentions made even though brief failed to state the substance of all evidence bearing upon the proposition, where appeal was from denial of workmen's compensation claim. Henderson v. Texas-New Mexico Pipe Line Co., 1942-NMSC-060, 46 N.M. 458, 131 P.2d 269. Appeal not considered. - Where appellant's brief fell far short of compliance with Rule 15 of former Supreme Court Rules, court would not consider the matter further. Lacy v. Holiday Mgt. Co., 1973 -NMSC-071, 85 N.M. 460, 513 P.2d 394. C. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY. Citation to specific pages of record. - Although this rule contemplates, and appellate courts generally require, citation to specific pages of the record proper, where the record is quite small and the appellate court can easily find defendant's references, the court can choose to decline to strike portions or require defendant to submit another, proper brief. State v. Tarver, 2005-NMCA-030, 137 N.M. 115, 108 P.3d 1. Effect on issues properly raised of assignment to nonsummary calendar. - When a case is assigned to a nonsummary calendar, the calendar notices previously issued are superceded by the assignment to a nonsummary calendar, so that all issues properly raised in the docketing statement are revived and may be briefed regardless of whether they appeared to be abandoned by failure to argue them in the memorandum in opposition. State v. Gonzales, 1991-NMCA-007, 111 N.M. 590, 808 P.2d 40. Court determines matter on arguments presented in briefs. - Rather than go outside the briefs and the pleadings themselves, the supreme court will determine the matter on the arguments therein presented. State v. Thomson, 1969-NMSC-006, 79 N.M. 748, 449 P.2d 656. And issues not handled in brief deemed abandoned. - Where as part of his statement of proceedings the defendant claims certain rulings of the trial court to be error, but there is no further mention of these allegations of error elsewhere throughout the brief, these points will be considered abandoned. State v. Sandoval, 1975-NMCA-096, 88 N.M. 267, 539 P.2d 1029. As are issues argued unclearly, without authority. - Where the defendant's argument of trial court error is less than clear and he cites no authority either to support the argument or to give the court a hint as to what he is arguing, the point has been abandoned. State v. Padilla, 1975-NMCA-084, 88 N.M. 160, 538 P.2d 802, cert. denied, 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248. No review of unbriefed issues. - Issues which are not briefed will not be reviewed. Aragon v. Rio Costilla Coop. Livestock Ass'n, 1991-NMSC-049, 112 N.M. 89, 812 P.2d 1300. Where several developers failed to cite any authority in their brief concerning their allegation that opponents of a shopping center engaged in an abuse of process by filing an appeal of a city's approval of a development plan, the issue was not considered by an appellate court. Saylor v. Valles, 2003-NMCA-037, 133 N.M. 432, 63 P.3d 1152. Issues not briefed deemed abandoned. - Issues listed in the docketing statement but not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. State v. Scott, 1977-NMCA-024, 90 N.M. 256, 561 P.2d 1349, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 636, 567 P.2d 486; State v. Sandoval, 1977-NMCA-026, 90 N.M. 260, 561 P.2d 1353, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 637, 567 P.2d 486; State v. Herrera, 1977-NMCA-028, 90 N.M. 306, 563 P.2d 100, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 636, 567 P.2d 485; State v. Ortiz, 1977-NMCA-036, 90 N.M. 319, 563 P.2d 113. Nature of claimed error must be specifically stated and argued; a generalized attack is not enough. Perez v. Gallegos, 1974-NMSC-102, 87 N.M. 161, 530 P.2d 1155. On appeal, errors claimed must be specifically stated and argued. Alfred v. Anderson, 1974-NMSC-036, 86 N.M. 227, 522 P.2d 79. Theory that was not stated as a point relied on by defendant, nor developed or argued in defendant's brief, would not be considered on appeal. Sierra Blanca Sales Co. v. Newco Indus., Inc., 1972-NMCA-153, 84 N.M. 524, 505 P.2d 867, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 512, 505 P.2d 855; Sierra Blanca Sales Co. v. Newco Indus., Inc., 1975-NMCA-118, 88 N.M. 472, 542 P.2d 52, rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Fortuna Corp. v. Sierra Blanca Sales Co., 1976-NMSC-014, 89 N.M. 187, 548 P.2d 865. Appellant must call any error committed against him to court's attention and demonstrate same by argument, citing authorities in support of position. Petty v. Williams, 1963-NMSC-018, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376. Technical violations not fatal. - Although a technical violation of Paragraph A(3) may have occurred, the transcripts and briefs sufficiently present the issue to allow review on the merits. Montgomery v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 1994-NMCA-140, 118 N.M. 742, 886 P.2d 981. Unsupported allegations not reviewed. - Where an assignment of error is made but left unsupported by point and argument it will not be considered by reviewing court. Chavez v. Trujillo, 1942-NMSC-067, 47 N.M. 19, 132 P.2d 713. Argument and citation of authority required. - Points on appeal not argued and not supported with citation to authority are deemed abandoned and will not be reviewed. Wilson v. Albuquerque Bd. of Realtors, 1970-NMSC-096, 81 N.M. 657, 472 P.2d 371, overruled on other grounds Garrett v. Nissen Corp., 1972-NMSC-046, 84 N.M. 16, 498 P.2d 1359. Defendant's challenge to admission of "medical" testimony by the state's accident reconstruction expert was improper under Subparagraphs (4) and (5) of Paragraph A of this rule where his brief in chief cited no standard of review, pointed to no specific error, and requested no particular relief. State v. Laney, 2003-NMCA-144, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591, cert. denied, 2003-NMCERT-003. Findings of fact not directly attacked on appeal by argument and citation of authorities become findings in reviewing court. Perez v. Gallegos, 1974-NMSC-102, 87 N.M. 161, 530 P.2d 1155. Where appellant included in brief eight numbered subdivisions, but presented no propositions of law in connection with them, he made no points as basis for argument contemplated under former rule. Lea County Fair Ass'n v. Elkan, 1948-NMSC-039, 52 N.M. 250, 197 P.2d 228. Argument without a point or legal proposition as a basis was not a compliance with former rule. Robinson v. Mittry Bros., 1939-NMSC-038, 43 N.M. 357, 94 P.2d 99. Where appellant provided no citations to the parts of the record and transcript he relied upon, a technical violation of Paragraphs A(1)(c) and A(2), the court of appeals had no duty to entertain any of his contentions on appeal. Fenner v. Fenner, 1987-NMCA-066, 106 N.M. 36, 738 P.2d 908. Issue which was briefed without cited authority would not be reviewed by the supreme court. Roselli v. Rio Communities Serv. Station, Inc., 1990-NMSC-018, 109 N.M. 509, 787 P.2d 428. Mere reference in a concluding statement will not suffice, and is in violation of our rules of appellate procedure. The Supreme Court will not review issues raised in appellate briefs that are unsupported by cited authority. State v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048, 117 N.M. 508, 873 P.2d 254. Brief in chief which contains only a sprinkling of citations to a portion of the record does not comply with Paragraph A(3) of this rule. Murphy v. Strata Production Co., 2006-NMCA-008, 138 N.M. 809, 126 P.3d 1173. Docketing statement. - Following the 1990 amendment, the docketing statement no longer governs the issues that may be raised in briefs on a nonsummary calendar. State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. On general calendar, the appellate court can consider any evidence in the record on appeal even if not noted in the docketing statement, and does not consider factual assertions in the docketing statement that are not supported by the record on appeal. State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. For appeals filed after July 1, 1990, there is no need to file motions to amend the docketing statement once the case is assigned to the general calendar. However, issues not raised in the trial court are still subject to Rule 12-216 NMRA, requiring preservation. Also, when the absence of the issue in the docketing statement results in the omission of pertinent matters from the record on appeal, prejudice to the appellee may cause the appellate court to refuse to review an issue appearing for the first time in the brief-in-chief. State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730). Unacceptable briefing practice. - Stating, in a brief-in-chief, that the brief incorporates all arguments and authority included in the docketing statement is not an acceptable briefing practice, and does not operate to preserve any of the issues not specifically argued in the briefs. State v. Aragon, 1990-NMCA-001, 109 N.M. 632, 788 P.2d 932; State v. Clark, 1999-NMSC-035, 128 N.M. 119, 990 P.2d 793. Unsupported attack deemed abandoned. - Appeal of summary judgment would be considered abandoned where plaintiff's brief offered no arguments or authorities to support his contention of error. Novak v. Dow, 1970-NMCA-104,82 N.M. 30, 474 P.2d 712; Moreno v. Marrs, 1984-NMCA-077, 102 N.M. 373, 695 P.2d 1322. Where plaintiffs did not attack the denial of injunctive relief by either point relied upon for reversal or by argument, they abandoned their appeal. Aguayo v. Village of Chama, 1969-NMSC-005, 79 N.M. 729, 449 P.2d 331. Failure to cite authority considered in awarding attorneys' fees. - Where appellee's briefs in a number of places asserted propositions without citing authority, the court would take such omission into consideration in its determination of attorneys' fees award. Maynard v. Western Bank, 1982-NMSC-135, 99 N.M. 135, 654 P.2d 1035. III. ANSWER BRIEF. State entity should file answer brief. - Although former Rule 9, N.M.R. App. P. (Civ.) (see now this rule) did not require appellees to file an answer brief, when the defendant was an entity of the state, such as a county, a brief should have been submitted to the court. Cobb v. Otero Cnty. Assessor, 1983-NMCA-090, 100 N.M. 207, 668 P.2d 323. Raising of objection in answer brief improper. - Objection to the trial court's instructions cannot be properly raised for consideration by way of appellee's answer brief. Chavira v. Carnahan, 1967-NMSC-040, 77 N.M. 467, 423 P.2d 988. Point-for-point responses unnecessary. - Significant portions of wife's answer brief were not stricken even though the brief did not respond to husband's issues in point-for-point narratives; the current rules of appellate procedure simply require the answer brief, like the brief in chief, to contain an argument, which shall contain the contentions. Hall v. Hall, 1992-NMCA-097, 114 N.M. 378, 838 P.2d 995. IV. REPLY BRIEF. Reply brief is not proper place to attack findings of fact. Kerr v. Akard Bros. Trucking Co., 1963-NMSC-185, 73 N.M. 50, 385 P.2d 570. Reply brief is not the proper place to request a review of findings of fact, the finding of which is claimed as error, nor will the supreme court search the record for evidence on which such findings are based where appellant has failed to set out the substance of the evidence in his briefs. Heron v. Garcia, 1948-NMSC-058, 52 N.M. 389, 199 P.2d 1003. Or to first outline arguments or issues. - A reply brief is not the place to outline, for the first time, the basis for arguing insufficient evidence or to set forth the substance of the evidence on the issues attempted to be raised. Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMCA-049, 96 N.M. 433, 631 P.2d 728. Reply brief is not proper place to broach omitted jury instruction. State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065, 116 N.M. 456, 863 P.2d 1077. In limited circumstances, new arguments allowed. - This rule expressly allows an appellant to address in its reply brief arguments not addressed in its brief in chief but asserted in the appellee's answer brief; therefore, if an appellee raises an argument not addressed by the appellant in its opening brief, the appellant may reply. Brashear v. Baker Packers, 1994-NMSC-108, 118 N.M. 581, 883 P.2d 1278. Reply brief not considered. - Where appellant's reply brief failed to set out a table of authorities as required under Paragraph C of this rule, and his reply brief consisted of approximately one page of introductory comments, and then twenty one-half pages of argument, including nine footnotes, and he did not seek or obtain permission to file a reply brief with the argument portion in excess of fifteen pages as specified in Paragraph F of this rule, the reply brief that was filed will not be considered. Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2005-NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 36, 106 P.3d 1273. V. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS. Supplementing briefs. - Former Supreme Court Rules made no provision for the furnishing of material supplemental to briefs, except upon motion properly made; the court had no objection to being advised through the clerk of the citations of cases decided since the argument on the merits, but disapproved of and will disregard attempts by counsel to supplement briefs in a manner not authorized by those rules. Lance v. New Mexico Military Inst., 1962-NMSC-066, 70 N.M. 158, 371 P.2d 995. In disposing of an appeal the supreme court is limited to facts disclosed by the record; to attempt to supply what is missing by attaching exhibits to the briefs is not permitted. Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, 1961-NMSC-010, 68 N.M. 97, 359 P.2d 134. Contentions made for first time in supplemental brief. - Appellate court will not consider contentions made for the first time in a supplemental brief. Yount v. Millington, 1993-NMCA-143, 117 N.M. 95, 869 P.2d 283. VI. TIME OF FILING. Filing motion to dismiss appeal tolled limitations on filing brief on merits under former rule. State ex rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque, 1925-NMSC-003, 30 N.M. 424, 234 P. 1012. Failure to notify opponent of extension not fatal. - Failure to notify adverse party of granting of extension of time to file brief was not ground for dismissal under former rule. Farmers' Cotton Fin. Corp. v. Green, 1929-NMSC-054, 34 N.M. 206, 279 P. 562. Failure to file briefs in time authorized dismissal of appeal or writ of error under former rule. Deal v. Western Clay & Gypsum Prods. Co., 1913 -NMSC-046, 18 N.M. 70, 133 P. 974. Busy schedule no excuse. - Fact that attorney for appellant had been engaged in the trial of cases almost continuously was not sufficient excuse for failure to file and serve briefs within the time required. Young v. Kidder, 1930-NMSC-048, 35 N.M. 20, 289 P. 69; Hilliard v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 1913-NMSC-029, 117 N.M. 665, 132 P. 249. VII. LIMITS ON COURT REVIEW. Court to be spared necessity of examining entire record. - Purpose of Rule 15 of former Supreme Court Rules was to spare appellee and supreme court the necessity of examining the entire record in order to ascertain whether somewhere therein there might be found evidence which would support a finding said not to be supported by substantial evidence. Hobbs Water Co. v. Madera, 1938-NMSC-029, 42 N.M. 373, 78 P.2d 1118. Purpose of former rule was to relieve reviewing court of duty to examine trial record to see if support for finding was present; where appellant failed to show how trial court's finding lacked support, no issue was raised for appeal. Nance v. Dabau, 1967-NMSC-173, 78 N.M. 250, 430 P.2d 747. Former rule was promulgated to insure that where findings were attacked, the briefs would set forth any fact pertinent to the same, and relieve supreme court of duty to examine a trial record to see if support was present. Alvarez v. Alvarez, 1963-NMSC-124, 72 N.M. 336, 383 P.2d 581. Court will not search record to find facts with which to overturn lower court's findings. Totah Drilling Co. v. Abraham, 1958-NMSC-102, 64 N.M. 380, 328 P.2d 1083; Rhodes v. First Nat'l Bank, 1930-NMSC-069, 35 N.M. 167, 290 P. 743; Richards v. Wright, 1941-NMSC-054, 45 N.M. 538, 119 P.2d 102; Sands v. Sands, 1944-NMSC-048, 48 N.M. 458, 152 P.2d 399; Gore v. Cone, 1955-NMSC-075, 60 N.M. 29, 287 P.2d 229; Cross v. Ritch, 1956-NMSC-049, 61 N.M. 175, 297 P.2d 319. Supreme court will not search the record in an attempt to discover errors committed by the trial court. Petty v. Williams, 1963-NMSC-018, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376. Court would not search record for evidence relating to allegedly objectionable findings copied into appellant's brief, where appellant failed to set forth such evidence. Chavez v. Potter, 1954-NMSC-075, 58 N.M. 662, 274 P.2d 308, overruled on other grounds State ex rel. Gary v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co., 1960 -NMSC-100, 67 N.M. 360, 355 P.2d 291. If an appellant in challenging the court's findings failed to comply with former rule, the court would indulge all presumption in favor of the judgment, since it would not search the record to ascertain whether findings were supported by substantial evidence. Lea Cnty. Fair Ass'n v. Elkan, 1948-NMSC-039, 52 N.M. 250, 197 P.2d 228; Sands v. Sands, 1944-NMSC-048, 48 N.M. 458, 152 P.2d 399. Where appellees failed to file a brief in response, court would accept portion of the record pointed out by the appellants' brief and would not search the record to attempt to find other evidence. Louis Lyster, Gen. Contractor v. Town of Las Vegas, 1965-NMSC-097, 75 N.M. 427, 405 P.2d 665. A reviewing court will not ordinarily search the record to determine claims involving the sufficiency of the evidence. Poorbaugh v. Mullen, 1982-NMCA-141, 99 N.M. 11, 653 P.2d 511. Points of error not properly briefed or argued will not be considered on appeal; rather, the appellate court will indulge all presumptions in favor of the correctness of the procedures in the trial court. Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMCA-049, 96 N.M. 433, 631 P.2d 728. Supreme court will not try case de novo in actions of an equitable nature; findings must be attacked for lack of substantial evidence to support them. Koran v. White, 1961-NMSC-102, 69 N.M. 46, 363 P.2d 1038. Matters not disclosed by record fall outside scope of appellate review and will not be considered. Southern Union Gas Co. v. Taylor, 1971-NMSC-067, 82 N.M. 670, 486 P.2d 606. Exhibits to briefs not used at trial not considered on appeal. - Exhibits to briefs neither identified nor tendered as exhibits to the trial court will not be considered, nor will affidavits attached to the docketing statement which were not brought to the trial court's attention. State v. Lucero, 1977-NMCA-021, 90 N.M. 342, 563 P.2d 605, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 636, 567 P.2d 485. Issues not included in docketing statement not before court for review. - Where an accused fails to include an issue as to whether he was entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense in the docketing statement, it is not before the court of appeals for review. State v. Hernandez, 1980-NMCA-138, 95 N.M. 125, 619 P.2d 570. Court will not undertake general review of evidence for the discovery of error not specially pointed out. Rhodes v. First Nat'l Bank, 1930-NMSC-069, 35 N.M. 167, 290 P. 743. Unclear arguments inserted in reply brief not considered. - An appellant who fails to include an argument in his brief in chief and then inserts it in his reply brief without clear formulation and the support of any authority cannot complain when the reviewing court fails to consider the argument. Santistevan v. Centinel Bank, 1980-NMCA-161, 96 N.M. 734, 634 P.2d 1286, aff'd in part, rev'd on other grounds, 1981-NMSC-092, 96 N.M. 730, 634 P.2d 1282. Nor are facts not included in stipulation. - Where the only "facts" in an appeal are those found by the trial court on the basis of a stipulation of the parties, asserted facts not included in the findings will not be considered. Romero v. J.W. Jones Constr. Co., 1982 -NMCA-140, 98 N.M. 658, 651 P.2d 1302. Inquiry restricted to substantiality of evidence. - Supreme court will not review a point or search the record when findings of fact are not set out and accompanied by the substance of all evidence adduced thereon; findings of fact not directly attacked become the facts in the reviewing court, which restricts inquiry into the substantiality of the adduced evidence to that pertinent to findings of fact. Hutchison v. Boney, 1963-NMSC-040, 72 N.M. 194, 382 P.2d 525. It is the province of the court, not counsel, to determine whether or not testimony is substantial or improbable. Drake v. Rueckhaus, 1961-NMSC-033, 68 N.M. 209, 360 P.2d 395. Sufficiency of facts to support judgment determined. - In the case where none of the trial court's findings are attacked, either by argument or point, as not being supported by substantial evidence, appellate court can only determine if the conclusions of law find support in the findings of fact. Cooper v. Bank of N.M., 1966-NMSC-247, 77 N.M. 398, 423 P.2d 431. Although supreme court is bound by unchallenged findings, dismissal of the appeal is not required because of this fact; appellant may argue such legal issues as whether findings support the conclusions of law adopted or the judgment based thereon. Garcia v. Garcia, 1970-NMSC-035, 81 N.M. 277, 466 P.2d 554. Supreme Court would be required to determine if the ultimate facts, as found, supported the conclusions of the court that claimant was not entitled to workmen's compensation for the death of appellant's husband, where appellant failed to attack trial court's findings. Kerr v. Akard Bros. Trucking Co., 1963-NMSC-185, 73 N.M. 50, 385 P.2d 570. On plaintiff's appeal, supreme court could consider question of law going to the sufficiency of the facts to support the judgment, where the proposition was supported and argued in plaintiff's brief in chief. Burlingham v. Burlingham, 1963-NMSC-068, 72 N.M. 433, 384 P.2d 699. Findings supported by evidence binding on court. - If the supreme court finds there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court it is bound thereby. Everett v. Gilliland, 1943-NMSC-030, 47 N.M. 269, 141 P.2d 326. In reviewing an attack upon a finding it is the supporting evidence, not that adverse to the finding, that ordinarily determines the issue. Sundt v. Tobin Quarries Inc., 1946-NMSC-038, 50 N.M. 254, 175 P.2d 684. Findings of fact made by the trial court are the findings upon which case must rest; if the findings are supported by substantial evidence, they will be sustained on appeal. Entertainment Corp. of Am. v. Halberg, 1961-NMSC-106, 69 N.M. 104, 364 P.2d 358; Totah Drilling Co. v. Abraham, 1958-NMSC-102, 64 N.M. 380, 328 P.2d 1083. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review §§ 684 to 701. Briefs and other appellate costs as chargeable to defendant in criminal prosecution, 65 A.L.R.2d 912. Consequences of prosecution's failure to file timely brief in appeal by accused, 27 A.L.R.4th 213. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 605 et seq.