context: In his complaint, Lay alleged that the prosecution was in fact terminated in his favor. We conclude that this argument was waived, and we therefore do not address it.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 553 A.2d 1078, 1081
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that appellant bears burden of demonstrating how the trial court erred warranting reversal, and Supreme Court will not comb the record searching for error
citation_a.sentence: See Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 170 Vt. 450, 459, 752 A.2d 26, 33 (2000) (“Contentions not raised or fairly presented to the trial court are not preserved for appeal.”); see also In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 297, 553 A.2d 1078, 1081 (1988) (explaining that appellant bears burden of demonstrating how the trial court erred warranting reversal, and Supreme Court will not comb the record searching for error); see also V.R.A.P. 28(a)(4) (stating that appellant’s brief should explain what the issues are, how they were preserved, and what appellant’s contentions are on appeal, “with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 170 Vt. 450, 459
citation_b.parenthetical: "Contentions not raised or fairly presented to the trial court are not preserved for appeal."
citation_b.sentence: See Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 170 Vt. 450, 459, 752 A.2d 26, 33 (2000) (“Contentions not raised or fairly presented to the trial court are not preserved for appeal.”); see also In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 297, 553 A.2d 1078, 1081 (1988) (explaining that appellant bears burden of demonstrating how the trial court erred warranting reversal, and Supreme Court will not comb the record searching for error); see also V.R.A.P. 28(a)(4) (stating that appellant’s brief should explain what the issues are, how they were preserved, and what appellant’s contentions are on appeal, “with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on”).