in their reply brief which alluded to this argument. Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly states: "Reply briefs shall be limited to answering any new matter set forth in the opposing brief" Utah R.App. P. 24(c) (emphasis added). In addition, Parents failed to brief this argument adequately as required by Rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998) (stating that Rule 24(a)(9) "requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority"). Thus, because Parents first argued this issue in their reply brief and did not adequately brief the issue, we will not address it. Cf Romrell v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 611 P.2d 392, 395 (Utah 1980) (<HOLDING>). Finally, because Parents appealed only the
holding that as a general rule an issue raised initially in a reply brief will not be considered on appeal recognizing that issues raised in reply brief generally are not considered holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised