Court Rules Should Mandate a Statement of Questions
We would like to propose that the New Jersey appellate rules be amended so as to require a statement of questions presented in all appellate briefs. We believe that the federal rules serve a very useful purpose.
May 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM
2 minute read
Credit: iStockphoto / Dave Long Media
Rule 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States provides that a petition for a writ of certiorari shall begin with a statement of the “…questions presented for review, expressed concisely in relation to the circumstances of the case, without unnecessary detail … .” Rule 24 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that merits briefs shall also begin with “the questions presented for review … set out on the first page following the cover, and no other information may appear on that page… .” The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide in Rule 28 that the appellant's brief must include a statement of the issues presented for review. The Local Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (L.A.R. 28.0) also provide that the appellant's brief must include a statement of the issues presented for review.
Interestingly, New Jersey's appellate rules have no requirement that there be a statement of the issues presented. We would like to propose that the rules be amended so as to require such statement in all appellate briefs. We believe that the federal rules as set forth above serve a very useful purpose—i.e., setting out for the court at the outset the precise questions that are presented.
Obviously, judges reading the briefs could determine those questions in due course. However, setting them out at the beginning would eliminate the need to search for that information, and also would remove the potential that judges would have to spend unnecessary amounts of time in parsing out those issues that were presented and those that were not. It is true that our state appellate rules require briefs to set forth whether an issue was raised below. Arguably, that requirement obviates the need that we espouse for a statement of questions presented. However, we are of the view that it would be a simple matter to incorporate such requirement, and we recommend it. It is not the most pressing issue, but an amendment to the rules might be deemed useful by the judges who have to read the briefs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
NJ Justices Provide A Sensible Decision on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
4 minute read
Controversial Ethics Proceedings Against Mercer Judge Was Overreach. Stopping It Was the Right Thing to Do
3 minute read
We Applaud NJ Supreme Court's Balanced Rules for Reinstatement of Disbarred Attorneys
4 minute read
Appellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
