Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motion

Related Cases

Oklahoma Tax Com’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 935, 111 S.Ct. 336 (Mem), 112 L.Ed.2d 302

Facts

The petitioner filed a motion requesting to dispense with the printing of the joint appendix, which is typically required in appellate cases. The court reviewed the motion and the circumstances surrounding it.

The petitioner filed a motion requesting to dispense with the printing of the joint appendix, which is typically required in appellate cases.

Issue

Whether the petitioner should be allowed to dispense with the printing of the joint appendix.

Rule

The court has the discretion to grant motions to dispense with certain procedural requirements if sufficient justification is provided.

Analysis

In considering the petitioner's motion, the court evaluated the reasons presented for not printing the joint appendix. The court determined that the justification met the necessary criteria for granting such a request.

In considering the petitioner's motion, the court evaluated the reasons presented for not printing the joint appendix.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion of the petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix.

Who won?

Petitioner prevailed in the case because the court found their request justified.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Ventas Finance I, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd., 556 U.S. 1176, 129 S.Ct. 1917, 173 L.Ed.2d 1076, 77 USLW 3488, 77 USLW 3556, 77 USLW 3558

Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113, 1870 WL 12630, 20 L.Ed. 122, 11 Wall. 113, 2 A.F.T.R. 2253

WHYY, Inc. v. Borough of Glassboro, 393 U.S. 117, 89 S.Ct. 286, 21 L.Ed.2d 242

Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 107 S.Ct. 2810, 97 L.Ed.2d 199, 55 USLW 4978

Garman v. W.C.A.B. (AMP, Inc.), 75 Pa.Cmwlth. 607, 462 A.2d 945