By Kirsten E. Small
We all know that “per curiam” means “by the court.” But, to echo a 1960s hippie-type, what does “per curiam” really mean, man? What message, if any, is an appellate court conveying by issuing an opinion “per curiam”?
Fear not—I’ve got the super-secret decoder ring. Here, in a nutshell, are the various meanings of “per curiam.”
Showing posts with label Legal Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal Writing. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Importance of Spell-Checking Your Brief
By Kirsten E. Small
The interwebs have been abuzz this week with gleeful snarking about Sanches v. Carollton-Farmers Branch I.S.D., particularly the Fifth Circuit's dressing down of Sanches' attorney for "grammatical errors ... so egregious and obvious that an average fourth grader would have avoided most of them." Ouch.
Of course, checking your brief for spelling and grammatical errors is important, and not just so you can avoid having a federal court of appeals tell that you are approximately as literate as a 9-year-old. Much like having a run in your stockings (I hear nylons are making a comeback) or a stain on your tie, careless errors in your brief distract from the quality of your argument. Why slave for hours to craft a brilliant argument if the court is going to be too busy snickering over your failure to master subject-verb agreement to notice?
As if that's not enough, careless briefing can cost you money (I knew that would get your attention).
The interwebs have been abuzz this week with gleeful snarking about Sanches v. Carollton-Farmers Branch I.S.D., particularly the Fifth Circuit's dressing down of Sanches' attorney for "grammatical errors ... so egregious and obvious that an average fourth grader would have avoided most of them." Ouch.
Of course, checking your brief for spelling and grammatical errors is important, and not just so you can avoid having a federal court of appeals tell that you are approximately as literate as a 9-year-old. Much like having a run in your stockings (I hear nylons are making a comeback) or a stain on your tie, careless errors in your brief distract from the quality of your argument. Why slave for hours to craft a brilliant argument if the court is going to be too busy snickering over your failure to master subject-verb agreement to notice?
As if that's not enough, careless briefing can cost you money (I knew that would get your attention).
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Is that a Statement of Facts, or a "Fact Dump"?
by Kirsten E. Small
A friend of mine practices Social Security disability, and hence files quite a few appellate briefs in the U.S. District Court. A while back, Leeds came up with the heretical idea of completely omitting the statement of facts from his brief. Instead, all discussion of the facts occurs in the context of the argument as to each asserted error in the ALJ's decision.
Heretical, maybe--but effective. One of our magistrate judges recently had this to say about a brief prepared in this style:
A friend of mine practices Social Security disability, and hence files quite a few appellate briefs in the U.S. District Court. A while back, Leeds came up with the heretical idea of completely omitting the statement of facts from his brief. Instead, all discussion of the facts occurs in the context of the argument as to each asserted error in the ALJ's decision.
Heretical, maybe--but effective. One of our magistrate judges recently had this to say about a brief prepared in this style:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Effective Appellate Advocacy: Issue Framing
by Kirsten E. Small
In my inbox this morning was a great blog post by Kendall Gray, writing about the Supreme Court's decision this week in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro. He pointed out two wonderful examples of issue framing by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, and Justice Ginsburg, writing for the dissent.
See the magic for yourself, after the jump.
In my inbox this morning was a great blog post by Kendall Gray, writing about the Supreme Court's decision this week in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro. He pointed out two wonderful examples of issue framing by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, and Justice Ginsburg, writing for the dissent.
See the magic for yourself, after the jump.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
SCOTUS Justices on legal writing--A few tips, and proof that you can't please everyone.
By Kirsten E. Small
Courtesy of The Blog of Legal Times comes news that legal writing guru Bryan Garner has release the full transcripts of his 2008 interviews with various Supreme Court Justices. The BLT's article is here, and the transcripts are available through the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing (an excellent resource, by the way).
Before hightailing it over to the Scribes site to download and read the transcripts until my nerdy little heart is content, a couple of highlights from the BLT article: short briefs are better than long, avoid legalese (and the improper use of "which"), and cite the record and cases honestly. Justices Thomas and Alito think the summary of argument is important; Justice Scalia thinks its a waste of space.
Finally, be advised that Justice Kennedy does not like it when lawyers verb words.
Courtesy of The Blog of Legal Times comes news that legal writing guru Bryan Garner has release the full transcripts of his 2008 interviews with various Supreme Court Justices. The BLT's article is here, and the transcripts are available through the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing (an excellent resource, by the way).
Before hightailing it over to the Scribes site to download and read the transcripts until my nerdy little heart is content, a couple of highlights from the BLT article: short briefs are better than long, avoid legalese (and the improper use of "which"), and cite the record and cases honestly. Justices Thomas and Alito think the summary of argument is important; Justice Scalia thinks its a waste of space.
Finally, be advised that Justice Kennedy does not like it when lawyers verb words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
