Comments on: Practitioners’ Reactions To Proposed Revisions To Supreme Court Rules http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-11246 Kent Scheidegger Sat, 26 May 2007 00:17:03 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/#comment-11246 CJLF has filed its <a href="http://www.cjlf.org/USSCRulesComments.pdf" rel="nofollow">comments</a> on the proposed rules. Our main point is the failure to adopt the 7-day stagger for amicus briefs from FRAP, as noted in my previous comment, but we also ask the Court to clarify the point that Richard makes. Note that the new rules specify 12 point while the old rules set 11 as a minimum. So if they are real sticklers, 13 point wouldn't comply. Specifying New Century Schoolbook is okay as long as they accept equivalents from various vendors. We found a Century font on the WordPerfect CD that appears identical to us. CJLF has filed its comments on the proposed rules. Our main point is the failure to adopt the 7-day stagger for amicus briefs from FRAP, as noted in my previous comment, but we also ask the Court to clarify the point that Richard makes.

Note that the new rules specify 12 point while the old rules set 11 as a minimum. So if they are real sticklers, 13 point wouldn’t comply.

Specifying New Century Schoolbook is okay as long as they accept equivalents from various vendors. We found a Century font on the WordPerfect CD that appears identical to us.

]]> By: Kevin Russell http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-11245 Kevin Russell Fri, 25 May 2007 15:35:17 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/#comment-11245 My understanding is this: under the old rules there were some fonts (Times New Roman being the most significant) that come out of the computer smaller than they would if a printer typeset the brief in the same font at the same nominal point size. The result was that 11 point Times New Roman came out too small from the computer for the Court's taste. So they informed printers that 11 point Times New Roman is not acceptable, notwithstanding that the rule says that 11 point is genearly acceptable. However, this happens only with some fonts. I assume that it is not the case with New Century School Book, but I am not certain. My understanding is this: under the old rules there were some fonts (Times New Roman being the most significant) that come out of the computer smaller than they would if a printer typeset the brief in the same font at the same nominal point size. The result was that 11 point Times New Roman came out too small from the computer for the Court’s taste. So they informed printers that 11 point Times New Roman is not acceptable, notwithstanding that the rule says that 11 point is genearly acceptable.

However, this happens only with some fonts. I assume that it is not the case with New Century School Book, but I am not certain.

]]> By: Richard Samp http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-11244 Richard Samp Fri, 25 May 2007 15:20:17 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/practitioners-reactions-to-proposed-revisions-to-supreme-court-rules/#comment-11244 I have a question about font size. Although the current rule provides for 11-point type, court personnel have always explained that that refers to printers' type size, not to type size on computer word processing programs. Our firm was instructed always to use at least 12-point type on word processing programs in order to meet the Court's requirement. (In fact, on one occasion a clerk challenged the adequacy of our 12-point type, so we changed to 12.2-point type to be on the safe side.) So, is the new requirement still intended to refer to printers' type? If so, filers using computer word processing programs will now have to use at least 13-point type. If not, then the new requirement will actually result in a slight reduction in type size. I have a question about font size. Although the current rule provides for 11-point type, court personnel have always explained that that refers to printers’ type size, not to type size on computer word processing programs. Our firm was instructed always to use at least 12-point type on word processing programs in order to meet the Court’s requirement. (In fact, on one occasion a clerk challenged the adequacy of our 12-point type, so we changed to 12.2-point type to be on the safe side.)

So, is the new requirement still intended to refer to printers’ type? If so, filers using computer word processing programs will now have to use at least 13-point type. If not, then the new requirement will actually result in a slight reduction in type size.

]]>