• Home
  • About

walshslaw

perspectives on law, from Richmond VA

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« NCUC approval of ICAs affirmed by Fourth Circuit in appeal brought by CMRS providers from judgment in favor of RLECs
Anomalous but not absurd: Fourth Circuit splits from Third and Ninth on interpretation of FTCA’s “law enforcement proviso” »

It looks like we didn’t really need those supplemental briefs we ordered

March 16, 2012 by Kevin C. Walsh

The Fourth Circuit’s lengthy opinion yesterday in New Cingular Wireless v. Finley addresses several arcane but seemingly important aspects of telecommunications law. There are some interesting appellate practice aspects of the opinion as well.

Prior to oral argument, the panel solicited supplemental briefing from the parties on necessary party and ripeness issues. The briefs must have been pretty good, for the court thought the issues not even close enough to address:

Prior to oral argument, we requested supplemental briefing addressing whether AT&T North Carolina, the third-party transit provider, is a necessary or indispens[a]ble party, as well as whether this matter is ripe for decision “given that the transit providers apparently have yet to incur any transit charges.” Because we find these issues to be not as close as we once thought they might be given the benefit of supplemental briefing and argument, we elect not to address them here.

Given the firms that were on the briefing, the cost of these supplemental briefs was certainly in the five figures. A disposition like this points up a difficulty for a panel that believes there to be important issues that have been unaddressed by the briefing. If the panel waits until oral argument, questions about unaddressed issues may not receive satisfactory answers because the lawyers are not prepared to address them. In that circumstance, post-argument supplemental briefs would be necessary and some time is lost from argument of the other issues. But if the lawyers can satisfactorily address the questions at oral argument about unbriefed issues, then it is possible to avoid the cost of preparing briefs. To avoid that cost, however, the panel and the lawyers risk losing time for argument about the issues that have been briefed.

Advertisements

Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Print
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Fourth Circuit, Law | Tagged appellate practice, supplemental briefs |

  • Twitter Feed

    • @potus @realDonaldTrump can get his name in the history books by championing the Melania Trump Amendment (AKA the "… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 17 hours ago
    Follow @kevincwalsh
  • Archives

    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • April 2014
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
  • Categories

    • Catholic
    • Fourth Circuit
    • Law
    • News
  • Pages

    • About
  • Popular Tags

    5000A abortion ACA ACCA Affordable Care Act Agee amicus curiae Anti-Injunction Act Baltimore Catholic class action conspiracy contraception contraceptives mandate Cuccinelli Davis Diaz DOMA Duncan en banc Establishment Clause evidence facial challenge First Amendment Floyd FOIA Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit Free Exercise Gregory habeas corpus Hamilton HCR healthcare health care healthcare reform health care reform HHS HHS mandate immigration individual mandate interlocutory appeal John Marshall jurisdiction Keenan Keith Kennedy King Lawrence v. Texas Motz Niemeyer partial unconstitutionality piracy preemption religious liberty RFRA Richmond Same-sex marriage Scalia Second Amendment Section 5000A sentencing severability Shedd Sixth Circuit standing suppression Supreme Court Third Circuit Traxler USCCB Virginia Virginia v. Sebelius Wilkinson Wynn
  • Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: