The main question presented by this appeal involves the validity of the Georgia obscenity statute and whether it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in authorizing a conviction for mere possession of articles contended to be obscene in removing the element of scienter from the definition of the offense by punishing a possessor on less evidence than it takes to prove actual knowledge of its obscene nature. Such statute thus places every citizen in jeopardy of punishment by the State for possessing matter of which he may not have actual knowledge, or for believing, as he has a right to under the freedom of press clause of the First Amendment, that in his opinion it is not obscene. Such question is also so substantial as to require plenary consideration because it deprives a citizen of the right given by the First Amendment to judge for himself, if he so chooses, as to what photographs, writings or books he may possess in the privacy of his own home.
Unless the court permits, no further briefs may be filed. A reply brief must contain a writing a jurisdictional statement for supreme of contents, with page references, and a table of authorities—cases alphabetically arrangedstatutes, and other authorities—with references to the pages of the reply brief where they are cited.
If the appendix is prepared after the briefs are filed, a party referring to the record must follow one of the methods detailed in Rule 30 c. If the original record is used under Rule 30 f and is not consecutively paginated, or if the brief refers to an unreproduced part of the record, any reference must be to the page of the original document.
Only clear abbreviations may be used. A party referring to evidence whose admissibility is in controversy must cite the pages of the appendix or of the transcript at which the evidence was identified, offered, and received or rejected.
Parties may also join in reply briefs. The letter must state the reasons for the supplemental citations, referring either to the page of the brief or to a point argued orally. The body of the letter must not exceed words.
Any response must be made promptly and must be similarly limited. Notes As amended Apr. July 1, ; Apr.
For variations in present circuit rules on briefs see 2d Cir. Rule 17, 3d Cir. Rule 24, 5th Cir. Rule 24, and 7th Cir. All circuits now limit the number of pages of briefs, a majority limiting the brief to 50 pages of standard typographic printing.
Fifty pages of standard typographic printing is the approximate equivalent of 70 pages of typewritten text, given the page sizes required by Rule 32 and the requirement set out there that text produced by a method other than standard typographic must be double spaced.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules— Amendment The proposed amendment eliminates the distinction appearing in the present rule between the permissible length in pages of printed and typewritten briefs, investigation of the matter having disclosed that the number of words on the printed page is little if any larger than the number on a page typed in standard elite type.
The provision is made subject to local rule to permit the court of appeals to require that typewritten briefs be typed in larger type and permit a correspondingly larger number of pages. It is patterned after the practice under local rule in some of the circuits. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules— Amendment While Rule 28 g can be read as requiring that tables of authorities be included in a reply brief, such tables are often not included.
The amendment to Rule 28 c is intended to make it clear that such tables are required in reply briefs. The amendment to Rule 28 j is technical. No substantive change is intended. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules— Amendment The amendment provides that the corporate disclosure statement required by new rule The amendment provides that when more than one party appeals from a judgment or order, the party filing the first appeal is normally treated as the appellant for purposes of this rule and Rules 30 and The party who first files an appeal usually is the principal appellant and should be treated as such.
Parties who file a notice of appeal after the first notice often bring protective appeals and they should be treated as cross appellants. Local rules in the Fourth and Federal Circuits now take that approach.
If notices of appeal are filed on the same day, the rule follows the old approach of treating the plaintiff below as the appellant. In those instances where the designations provided by the rule are inappropriate, they may be altered by agreement of the parties or by an order of the court.
Five circuits currently require these statements. Experience in those circuits indicates that requiring a statement of the standard of review generally results in arguments that are properly shaped in light of the standard.
A number of circuits have local rules requiring a summary and the courts report that they find the summary useful.
The amendment adds proof of service to the list of items in a brief that do not count for purposes of the page limitation. The concurrent amendment to Rule 25 d requires a certificate of service to list the addresses to which a paper was mailed or at which it was delivered.
When a number of parties must be served, the listing of addresses may run to several pages and those pages should not count for purposes of the page limitation.i. statement of jurisdiction The district court and this Court have subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section (federal question) and Section. brief, an index to the appendix that accompanies Microsoft’s jurisdictional statement (Add. A) and a glossary defining frequently used terms (Add.
B). Sanctions. (a) General rule. Upon filing a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant shall file with the prothonotary or clerk of the trial court an original and 8 copies of a jurisdictional statement. the interclass law moot court competition pune statement of jurisdiction _____ _ the hon’ble supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain this appeal under article & of indian constitution.3/5(2).
was proper under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent case of Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., U.S. __, S. Ct. (), when the district court applied a “likelihood of dilution” standard instead of the “actual dilution” standard confirmed in Moseley and the record is bereft of evidence sufficient to establish actual dilution.
III. The jurisdictional statement: Tell them something they don’t already know. 05 January The content of an appellant’s brief in a Louisiana court of appeal is governed by Uniform Rule