Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpublished Opinions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate attorneys tell court it's burdensome to attach unpublished opinions; suggest docket numbers and dates instead
Summary
Appellate practitioners told the court that attaching copies of unpublished opinions to appellate appendices is burdensome and suggested requiring citation of Court of Appeals docket numbers, case names, and decision dates to make cited authority easier to find, which could aid self-represented litigants.
Lisa Speaker, speaking as an appellate practitioner, told the court the proposed amendment to MCR 7.215 that would eliminate the requirement to attach copies of unpublished opinions is sensible because unpublished opinions are readily accessible online through Court of Appeals resources.
"It's really burdensome and unnecessary to attach physical ... attach the opinions to our appendix," Speaker said, and suggested that parties instead provide the Court of Appeals docket number and proper case cite so anyone can retrieve the unpublished opinion from the Court of Appeals website. She also noted that attaching opinions from other states may sometimes be helpful but that Michigan decisions will be easier for self-represented litigants to obtain.
Sheldon Larky reinforced the point and recommended the rule require case name, docket/case number, and date of decision to prevent long appended files and make cited opinions easier to locate.
The court heard these comments without asking follow-up questions at the time.
