The thrust of this article is to address the apparently growing tendency of trial judges in family part cases to deny requests for oral argument in favor of returning motions on the papers. While it may be a time-saver of sorts, the practice eliminates important dimensions of cases that could otherwise be flushed out in oral argument.
Historically, when Daniel Webster and other lawyers argued Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), before the United States Supreme Court, they took five days to do it. See, e.g., William H. Rehnquist, From Webster to Word-Processing: The Ascendance of the Appellate Brief, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 1, 3 (1999).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
