Supreme Court Practice — 9 th ed. In order to help garner amicus support by giving possible amici direct access to the Brief, many Petitioners will have Cockle Legal Briefs add their Petitions to our blog. Filing An Amicus Curiae Brief. The Cockle Bur Blog Legal minds on legal matters and whatever else strikes our fancy. A Brandeis brief has come to mean a special sort of amicus brief that, instead of relying solely on logic, legal theory, and controlling precedent, takes a data-intensive, sociological approach to advancing arguments.
Amici enter cases in various ways: on their own initiative because the group they represent has an interest in the issues; at a party's request for additional support; or by invitation of the court to help clarify significant or complex issues.
For example, in a case in which the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was faced with a dispute between a town and a landowner over registration of a parcel of land as a marketable nonmetallic mineral deposit, 5 the court of appeals asked the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to participate as an amicus to give context to newly promulgated administrative code rules governing registration.
The Hon. Clare Ryan, U. A court also may solicit amicus participation when the parties inadequately brief a significant issue. The court of appeals recently asked the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers to participate in a case concerning credits against child support payments made by a parent whose child received the parent's Social Security disability payments.
The amicus fleshed out and harmonized the policy underpinnings and helped give the court a framework for its decision. No matter how an amicus enters the case, writing a good amicus brief begins with knowing and following procedural rules. The requirements of Wis. A "person not a party" who wishes to file a brief "may by motion request permission" to file it.
The motion also "shall identify" the person's interest in the action and state why a brief "is desirable.
In practice, many amici file the brief and motion simultaneously even when not required to. Section rule It also is silent as to what the appendix may contain. With party briefs, appellate courts cannot consider materials outside the circuit court record. The prospective amicus should read Wis.
Apparent confusion about amicus procedure sparked a letter a party recently wrote to the District II Court of Appeals. The party admonished the court for soliciting and accepting an amicus brief without first notifying the parties so that they might weigh in on the matter.
Rule The court nonetheless extended to the parties an invitation to respond to the amicus brief. By the time an amicus seeks permission to file a brief, or actually files it, oral argument generally has been scheduled. An amicus is not entitled to participate in oral argument, and a court rarely will extend the time allotted for argument.
Certainly, significant criminal cases, including State v. Butler ,[i] where a long list of amici curiae appeared on the question whether, notwithstanding the implied consent law, consent must be voluntary under the Fourth Amendment for a blood draw to be admissible. But there are also a multitude of commercial cases where a business or civic organization claims an overriding interest in the outcome and has been heard as an amicus. For example, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals permitted and quoted from a brief filed by the Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona, on the question whether a mobile home part as a whole or only its individual constituent spaces can be considered a nonconforming use under the applicable statute.
The case involved the interpretation and constitutionality of the Arizona statute that sets forth requirements for experts who testify about the appropriate standard of care in medical malpractice cases.
Of particular note are cases where the Court expressly acknowledges and addresses the positions of the amici, as in Sell v. Gama [iv], where the Court found that the various policy arguments advanced by a party and certain of the amici "are better directed to the legislature.
Brain ex rel. County of Maricopa. The Court quoted from the amicus briefs on issues of options for available sources of funding, but determined that the controversy over the Legislature's funding decisions and resulting enrollment freeze was not one it should decide because it involved a nonjusticiable political question.
In the brief, 10 former correctional directors and administrators with extensive experience supervising prisons and jails nationally contend that established prison policies did not allow abusive treatment and required individual assessment before any detainee is placed in restrictive confinement. Preparation of the brief required learning about detention centers and the rights of people detained. It was an honor to be able to work on this particular brief, because the Abbasi case has the potential to shape federal detention law, pleading standards and other law for years to come.
0コメント