Requirements to file an Amicus Curiae brief What are the requirements or preconditions that must be met in order for someone to file an Amicus Curiae "friend of the court" brief? What form can the brief take?
Some United States Supreme Court rules are helpful, though these rules are not stated as applying to any other court. Timeframe The brief must be submitted within a certain time period, depending on the case at hand: An amicus curiae brief in support of a petitioner or appellant shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket or a response is called for by the Court, whichever is later, and that time will not be extended. An amicus curiae brief in support of a motion of a plaintiff for leave to file a bill of complaint in an original action shall be filed within 60 days after the case is placed on the docket, and that time will not be extended. An amicus curiae brief in support of a respondent, an appellee, or a defendant shall be submitted within the time allowed for filing a brief in opposition or a motion to dismiss or affirm. An amicus curiae shall ensure that the counsel of record for all parties receive notice of its intention to file an amicus curiae brief at least 10 days prior to the due date for the amicus curiae brief, unless the amicus curiae brief is filed earlier than 10 days before the due date. Format The brief must be submitted electronically and in print: An electronic version of every amicus curiae brief in a case before the Court for oral argument shall be transmitted to the Clerk of Court and to counsel for the parties at the time the brief is filed in accordance with guidelines established by the Clerk. The electronic transmission requirement is in addition to the requirement that booklet-format briefs be timely filed. Wikipedia claims that the brief must be submitted as a printed book in forty copies, but I can not substantiate that within the Supreme Court rules - which is the document cited! Other briefs are required to be submitted in print in forty copies, so such a requirement would not be overly surprising, but I don't know if this is true. This states more requirements for general courts: 1) if the amicus curiae is a corporation, a disclosure statement like that required of parties by Rule 26.1; (2) a table of contents, with page references; (3) a table of authorities—cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes and other authorities—with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited; (4) a concise statement of the identity of the amicus curiae, its interest in the case, and the source of its authority to file; (5) unless the amicus curiae is one listed in the first sentence of Rule 29(a), a statement that indicates whether: (A) a party's counsel authored the brief in whole or in part; (B) a party or party's counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and (C) a person—other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel—contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief and, if so, identifies each such person; (6) an argument, which may be preceded by a summary and which need not include a statement of the applicable standard of review; and (7) a certificate of compliance, if required by Rule 32(a)(7). Length There is a length limit: Except by the court's permission, an amicus brief may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by these rules for a party's principal brief. If the court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief. Timeframe There is also a slightly different timeframe: An amicus curiae must file its brief, accompanied by a motion for filing when necessary, no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being supported is filed. An amicus curiae that does not support either party must file its brief no later than 7 days after the appellant's or petitioner's principal brief is filed. A court may grant leave for later filing, specifying the time within which an opposing party may answer. In addition to all of this, a guide to filing amicus curiae briefs can be found here. It should, of course, only be used as a basic introduction to the briefs.
I supposed the five year requirement you referred to follows from U.S.C. § 1052(f): The Director may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as used on or in connection with the applicant’s goods in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made. It only relates the "five years" requirement to "accept[ing] as prima facie evideice." It does not say that dictinctiveness cannot be acquired before a trademark has been used for less than five years.
That book provides advice on legal writing; it is not a source of rules for legal writing. Rather than repeatedly identifying themselves using their full name, parties customarily refer to themselves in the third person, e.g., &quot;The defendant refused to waive his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.&quot; In practice, though, pro se litigants regularly refer to themselves in the first person, and there is no formal consequence for this.
There is no requirement in California to file a prenuptial agreement before obtaining a license. There is a requirement for disclosure of property and finances, 7 days minimum to review the agreement and being represented by a lawyer or waiving representation, specifically: The party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement or, after being advised to seek independent legal counsel, expressly waived, in a separate writing, representation by independent legal counsel. The advisement to seek independent legal counsel shall be made at least seven calendar days before the final agreement is signed. It is possible for a couple to write their own agreement without hiring separate lawyers, but the law is written so as to presume that if not advised by independent counsel, the agreement is unenforceable. The presumption can be overcome by carefully following the requirements of §1615, for example, the party against whom the agreement is to be enforced was fully informed of the terms and basic effect of the agreement as well as the rights and obligations the party was giving up by signing the agreement, and was proficient in the language in which the explanation of the party’s rights was conducted and in which the agreement was written. The explanation of the rights and obligations relinquished shall be memorialized in writing and delivered to the party prior to signing the agreement. The unrepresented party shall, on or before the signing of the premarital agreement, execute a document declaring that the party received the information required by this paragraph and indicating who provided that information.
As many parties as have standing. The First Amendment protects the right to petition for redress of grievances, so any limitation on that right would be highly disfavored. When there's a rush of cases like this, though, there are a few option for dealing with them. For instance, a plaintiff may seek class certification, permitting him to stand in for similarly situated parties so they don't need to litigate themselves, or a court may consolidate the cases if they are sufficiently similar.
These offer letters typically state explicitly that the offer is contingent on approval by the relevant governing board. This is sufficient to thwart promissory estoppel. Such highest-level overturning are frequent enough in the US that a reasonable person would know that the principal (for instance) does not have final authority to make a contract. There is no requirement that the board justify their decision to you. If you file a lawsuit alleging racial or religious discrimination, and if you can make a prima facie case for discrimination,you might survive the motion for dismissal, and the board might be required to say why they didn't hire you.
This would require a constitutional amendment (overriding the First Amendment), which can be done in two ways. Congress can write an amendment and submit it to the states; or the states can call for a convention. None of these methods can be implemented by any number of courts.
Yes, you may call a defendant as a witness and compel the defendant to testify in a civil case. If you need this testimony to prove your case, you should have the clerk issue a subpoena for trial to the defendant and have that subpoena personally served by a process server upon that defendant (sometimes a witness fee, a mileage allowance, and a copy of the relevant statute must also be included in the package). There should be a standard court form available to do this. The subpoena to appear and testify at trial must be delivered to the defendant by the process server a certain amount of time in advance (usually two days, but court rules vary). Also, when you call a defendant as a witness you may generally examine the witness with leading questions, which is something that you are not usually allowed to do with witnesses that you call in your own case. Forcing a defendant to testify to the indisputable facts is a good way to meet your burden of proof towards establishing those facts. But, when you call a defendant as a witness, you should limit your questions to those you know the answer to and can ideally prove with other evidence if the defendant lies. Don't try to tell the entire story of the case with the defendant, just the undisputed facts. The one narrow exception to this would be a criminal contempt of court proceeding (i.e. one seeking the remedy of throwing the offending party in jail where there is no way to obtain relief by taking the action requested) prosecuted by a party within a civil case, to which 5th Amendment protections would apply. But, this would not apply to the kind of case described in the original post.