The Court expresses its high appreciation of the services of all the gentlemen named. Their expert knowledge and painstaking collaboration have aided the Court in the formulation of Rules designed to promote the simplification of procedure in this Court. Special mention must be made of the services of Mr. Wiener who, for more than a year, as Reporter to the Committee of the Court on the Revision of the Rules, devoted himself to the preparation of drafts for the Committee. We acknowledge, also, our indebtedness to our Clerk, Mr. Willey, for the experience and skill he contributed to the work of draftsmanship. The Court directs that this order be spread upon the Journal of the Court. MR. JUSTICE BLACK: The revised rules contain some changes made necessary by legislation, with which I am of course in accord. There are also a few other changes which I think represent desirable improvements. But I believe it would be far better to make these changes simply by amending the old rules rather than by adopting a whole new set. The old rules and our interpretations of them are familiar to the bar, and, according to my observation, work about as well as could be expected of any rules. The principal function of procedural rules should be to serve as useful guides to help, not hinder, persons who have a legal right to bring their problems before the courts. But new rules without settled meanings breed mistakes and controversies that frequently make the way of litigants unnecessarily perilous. Volumes of new Rules Decisions in recent years attest to this. Judicial statistics would show, I fear, an unfortunately large number of meritorious cases lost due to inadvertent failure of lawyers to conform to procedural prescriptions having little if any relevancy to substantial justice. So much for my general objection to frequent, sweeping rules revisions. I particularly object to the present revision because a number of the changes put unnecessarily burdensome conditions and restrictions on rights of review and appeal Congress has provided. Our rules should make appellate review easier, not harder. Finally, I have never favored the almost insuperable obstacles our rules put in the way of briefs sought to be filed by persons other than the actual litigants. Most of the cases before this Court involve matters that affect far more people than the immediate record parties. I think the public interest and judicial administration would be better served by relaxing rather than tightening the rule against amicus curiae briefs. 17. Designation of portions of the record to be printed.. 18. Supersedeas on appeal_____. 965 966 PART V. JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI.... 967 19. Considerations governing review on certiorari____ 967 20. Certiorari to a court of appeals before judgment.. 968 26. Designation of portions of the record to be printed....... 27. Stay pending review on certiorari... 975 977 PART VI. JURISDICTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTIONS... 28. Questions certified by a court of appeals or by the court of claims.___. 29. Procedure in certified cases... PART VII. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EXTRAORDINARY 30. Considerations governing issuance of extraordinary writs__ PART VIII. PRACTICE..... 33. Service.... 34. Computation and enlargement of time.. 35. Motions__. 36. Printing of records.. Page 977 977 978 979 979 979 981 982 982 983 985 986 37. Translations 988 38. Models, diagrams, and exhibits of material 988 39. Form of printed records, petitions, briefs, etc.--. 45. Submission on briefs by one or both parties without oral argument--- 997 46. Joint or several appeals or petitions for writs of certiorari; APPENDIX TO RULES-Forms for notices of appeal------ 1011 |