Tell the 11th Circuit What You Think!

I know, it's the interwebs -- who comments on anything anymore?

But if you care about proposed revisions to the 11th Circuit's rules, take notice:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b), notice and opportunity for comment is hereby given of proposed amendments to the Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
That's pretty enticing, isn't it?

Here's an example of a proposed revision (probably drafted by Scotty D):
New rule providing that a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences for failing to object, and providing that in the absence of objections, this Court may review for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.
So now suddenly the interests of justice plays a factor in how the Court should rule?

What a concept!


  1. You're right. No one cares.

  2. Would someone on the S.D. Fla.'s local rule's committee, however, please do something about the ability to use 1.5 spacing in memorandums? Although I have no quarrel with using 1.5 spacing, double spacing is standard. If the court wants uniformity in submissions -- as I think it does and as it should -- then it should adopt a rule that furthers that goal.

  3. K. Michael Moore requires double-spacing, including in footnotes. Jesus Christ I can't believe I'm actually typing this boring comment.

  4. Double spacing in footnotes is, well, unorthodox, to say the least.

  5. Federal = form = no substance.

  6. @ 3:08

    And state court's penchant for PCAs is what, substance over form?

  7. I think so. I think your article will give those people a good reminding. And they will express thanks to you later
    Car Accident Lawyer
    Utah Car Accident Lawyer
    Car Accident
    car accident injury
    Lawyers in Utah


Post a Comment