Chugach Electric Ass'n. v. Northern Corp.

OPINION ON REHEARING

RABINOWITZ, Justice.

Cross-appellant Northern Corporation has filed a petition for rehearing in this matter contending that it should be granted rehearing on the issue of damages sustained because Chugach allegedly required it to remain in readiness to perform.¹ Our study of the petition has not persuaded us to modify our decision in this matter.

Northern’s 14th point in its cross-appeal reads:

The trial court erred in not concluding that Northern Corporation kept its equipment on the job site throughout the summer and fall of 1967 only as a result of the insistence of Chugach Electric.

However, Northern’s brief does not discuss this point.² Our prior decisions have held that either cursory treatment of, or failure to argue, a point on appeal constitutes an abandonment of the particular point in question. See, e. g., Kenai Power Corp. v. Strandberg, 415 P.2d 659, 660 (Alaska 1966); DeArmond v. Alaska State Development Corp., 376 P.2d 717, 725 (Alaska 1962); Veal v. Newlin, Inc., 367 P.2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1961).

ERWIN, Justice, not participating.

1 . See Chugach Elec. Ass’n v. Northern Corp., 562 P.2d 1053, Opinion No. 1408 (Alaska 1977).

2 . Northern’s brief asserts that damages were erroneously computed, however, not for this particular reason.