Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed December 25, 2016

URAP024 – The proposed amendment substantially changes the organization and content of briefs. An important objective of the amendment is to present the party’s case in logical order, in measured increments, and without unnecessary repetition. The principal brief of each party must meet the same requirements.
URAP024A – The proposed amendment collects in one separate rule the briefing requirements in cross-appeals.  The briefing requirements have also been clarified and simplified for ease of use.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed December 25, 2016
  1. Bryan Booth

    The language in Rule 24(c) “may adopt by reference any part of the brief or another” should probably be “may adopt by reference any part of the brief OF another.”

  2. Leslie Slaugh

    Rule 24(a)(1)(B): I suggest adding “and all counsel” after “all parties” on line 8. If the purpose of the list of parties is to allow the appellate court to discover potential conflicts of interest, then the list should include the names of all trial counsel, including attorneys who have previously withdrawn.

    Rule 24(d), line 115: I suggest using the singular form of both “surname” and “parent.” That is consistent with using the singular “minor” in line 114. And, many minors will have only one parent. Using the singular will still preclude using the name of either parent when both parents are mentioned in the brief.

    Rule 24(g)(1): There is a typo in the second substantive line of the table. “Legal” should be “Legality.”

    Rule 24(g)(2): It would be helpful to clarify whether the page or word limit includes the certificate of compliance with length limits and the certificate of service. The rule could perhaps state that everything from the Introduction to the Conclusion is included in the page or word limit. (This would also apply to proposed Rule 24A(g).)

    Rule 24(i), line 217: I suggest inserting “an appropriate sanction including” before “attorney fees.” A pro se party may incur a loss responding to an improper brief, but under the current proposal would not be entitled to recover attorney fees (because caselaw does not allow pro se parties to recover attorney fees). Allowing the court to assess a “sanction” would give the court flexibility to make an appropriate award.

    Rule 24A(d): Reply briefs are generally optional, but this rule mandates that the appellant file a reply brief. Perhaps in line 12 “first replies” could be replaced by “first presents any reply.”

  3. William Hains

    As suggested by the previous comment, consider revising rule 24(g)(2) as follows:
    “Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the page or word limit, but the table of contents, table of authorities, certificates of compliance and service, and addendum do not.”

    And consider revising rule 24A(d) as follows:
    “The appellant must then file only one brief. That brief first may reply to the cross-appellant’s response to the issues raised in the appeal, and then respond to the issues raised in the cross-appeal.”