TriggerFinger


Parker v DC: Word counts, briefs, and appellants...


PER CURIAM ORDER filed [956962] discharging order to show cause, directing that Ernest McGill be substituted as amicus curiae in lieu of Powtomack Institute; establishing briefing format: brief for appellants, 14,000 wds; joint appendix; brief for amici (St TX, 7,000 wds; briefs for non-Governmental amici in support of appellants, 7,000 wds); brief for appellees, 14,000 wds; briefs for amici (joint brief for Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Violence Policy Center, 7,000 wds; brief for Ernest McGill, 7,000 wds); reply brief for appellants, 7,000 wds. Any additional government amici supporting appellants will be expected to join in brief of St TX. Parties will be notified by separate order of briefing schedule, date of oral argument and composition of merits panel. Before Judges Randolph, Tatel, Brown . [Entry Date: 3/17/06] (mam)
Quoted above is the latest PACER update on Parker v DC.  It's nothing major.  Basically, the court is changing the filing status of the Powtomack Institute from corporate to individual (so Ernest, who apparantly IS the Powtomack Institute, can file a brief without hiring a lawyer).  In addition, the court is setting length limits on the briefing format, preperatory to scheduling the briefing itself.

In brief, our side gets 14K words to argue our case, and our amici get 7K and 7K words (one brief for government and one for non-government).   Then the opposition gets 14K words in response, followed by 7K words for the gun-control crowd and another 7K for Ernest (aka the Powtomack Insitute).  Finally, we get 7K words in a reply brief.

The actual schedule will come later, as will notification of the dates for oral argument and the composition of the merits panel.  The latter means we may not get the same set of judges we've had so far for the merits of the case.  That's not necessarily a good thing, since the present panel is probably (reading tea leaves here) inclined favorably towards our arguments. 

But without knowing what the actual panel will be, there's no point in speculating.  Suffice it to say we might get the same panel, we might get a different one, and we'll think about it when we know who's on it.

This entry was published Thu Apr 06 01:03:47 CDT 2006 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2006-04-06 01:03:47.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.