Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased, Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased

Tenth Circuit

Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased, Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased

966 F.2d 578, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1992

Docket91-6317, 91-6384

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 966 F.2d 578 (Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased, Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased, Tk-7 Corporation v. The Estate of Ihsan Barbouti, Deceased, 966 F.2d 578, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12620 (10th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

*579 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-appellees — cross-appellants filed a motion for leave to file a sixty page brief. After their motion was denied, they filed a brief that is fifty-one pages long and contains one hundred and two footnotes. Using a favorite undergraduate gambit, defendants have visibly shrunk the type face and spacing of the footnotes and re-started the numbering several times (1-7, 1-37, 1-58). TK-7 Corporation complains about defendants’ evasion of our length restrictions and claims that the brief, if typed properly, would be nearly twice the fifty-page limit.

The Tenth Circuit local rules provide that “[i]n cross appeals, appellee’s answer brief and cross-appellant’s brief shall be filed as one brief, not to exceed 50 pages.” 10th Cir.R. 28.3. “Typewritten text must be no smaller than pica with no less than 10-pitch spacing. ” Id. 32.1(a) (emphasis added). It appears that defendants have simply taken nine pages of material out of the double-spaced text and moved them into an. excessive number of legitimately single-spaced, but illegitimately shrunken footnotes. See Production Employees’ Local 504 v. Roadmaster Corp., 954 F.2d 1397, 1407 (7th Cir.1992); Fleming v. County of Kane, 855 F.2d 496, 498 (7th Cir.1988); Anderson v. Alpha Portland Indus, Inc., 836 F.2d 1512, 1521 (8th Cir.1988).

While we appreciate the savings in time and labor made possible by such technological innovations as word processing, we regret the temptation they pose to the wordy to compress, rather than edit. Our rule requiring pica type and 10-pitch spacing applies to footnotes as well as text. Defendants will have to find some way of abridging their arguments, other than toying with their computers, to meet these requirements.

Defendants’ brief is stricken. Within ten days of the date of this order, they shall file a brief which complies with our rules, preferably in spirit as well as in letter, see Anderson, 836 F.2d at 1521 (use of 189 footnotes “violates the spirit, if not the letter,” of the rules).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*579 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-appellees — cross-appellants filed a motion for leave to file a sixty page brief. After their motion was denied, they filed a brief that is fifty-one pages long and contains one hundred and two footnotes. Using a favorite undergraduate gambit, defendants have visibly shrunk the type face and spacing of the footnotes and re-started the numbering several times (1-7, 1-37, 1-58). TK-7 Corporation complains about defendants’ evasion of our length restrictions and claims that the brief, if typed properly, would be nearly twice the fifty-page limit.

The Tenth Circuit local rules provide that “[i]n cross appeals, appellee’s answer brief and cross-appellant’s brief shall be filed as one brief, not to exceed 50 pages.” 10th Cir.R. 28.3. “Typewritten text must be no smaller than pica with no less than 10-pitch spacing. ” Id. 32.1(a) (emphasis added). It appears that defendants have simply taken nine pages of material out of the double-spaced text and moved them into an. excessive number of legitimately single-spaced, but illegitimately shrunken footnotes. See Production Employees’ Local 504 v. Roadmaster Corp., 954 F.2d 1397, 1407 (7th Cir.1992); Fleming v. County of Kane, 855 F.2d 496, 498 (7th Cir.1988); Anderson v. Alpha Portland Indus, Inc., 836 F.2d 1512, 1521 (8th Cir.1988).

While we appreciate the savings in time and labor made possible by such technological innovations as word processing, we regret the temptation they pose to the wordy to compress, rather than edit. Our rule requiring pica type and 10-pitch spacing applies to footnotes as well as text. Defendants will have to find some way of abridging their arguments, other than toying with their computers, to meet these requirements.

Defendants’ brief is stricken. Within ten days of the date of this order, they shall file a brief which complies with our rules, preferably in spirit as well as in letter, see Anderson, 836 F.2d at 1521 (use of 189 footnotes “violates the spirit, if not the letter,” of the rules).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

966 F.2d 578, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tk-7-corporation-v-the-estate-of-ihsan-barbouti-deceased-tk-7-ca10-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack