Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
February 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
131419 Michael F. Cavanagh
& (61) Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman,
TES FILER CITY STATION, LLP, Justices
Petitioner-Appellant,
v SC: 131419
COA: 258806
Mich Tax Tribunal: 00-192808
TOWNSHIP OF FILER,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The
application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is
considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented
should be reviewed by this Court.
CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the order denying the application for leave but take this opportunity to
express my reservations about petitioner’s motion to file a brief that exceeds the page
limits in this tax case involving a cogeneration plant. Petitioner’s motion accompanied
its application for leave to appeal. The application that exceeds the page limits reflected
a scattershot appellate strategy in a 74-page submission. The statement of the issues
confusingly did not conform to the argument section of the application. Petitioner’s
counsel raised 20 issues in this Court, after having raised 49 issues in the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals had helpfully condensed the issues into nine, but in this
Court, petitioner again multiplied the issues. Further, petitioner’s counsel raised four
issues in this Court for the first time—issues that were never raised in the Court of
Appeals or the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Moreover, petitioner’s arguments pertaining to
the issues in its application seem both redundant and poorly developed.
With some focus on editing, petitioner’s counsel could have consolidated many of
the issues for a more effective presentation. Why should a respondent have to read,
analyze, and respond to a 74-page application before this Court has granted a motion to
2
file an excess-length brief? Why should this Court be required to scrutinize, decipher,
and consolidate excessively long and unnecessarily complex briefs? It is petitioner, and
not this Court, who must focus the issues to be presented. The strategy employed here
has unnecessarily increased the expense of litigation, to the detriment of the pocketbooks
of the ratepayers and the taxpayers.
Having considered this matter and too many like it, I concur only to provide fair
notice to the litigants. I will very carefully scrutinize motions to file applications or
briefs that exceed the page limits. Indeed, such motions are expressly disfavored by the
court rules. Cf. MCR 7.212(B). Our current rule requires extraordinary and compelling
reasons why an adequate argument cannot be made within the standard page limits. That
case has not been made here.
Moreover, I would open an administrative file to consider amending the court
rules to require that the Chief Justice decide motions to file applications that exceed the
page limits. The Chief Justice could, as part of the Chief Justice’s “housekeeping
responsibilities,” quickly rule on an appellant’s motion before an appellee’s response is
due and before the case is assigned internally. Some of our sister states have adopted
such a practice by rule,1 while others have done so by internal operating procedures.2
Other states allow a single justice to decide motions to file applications or briefs that
exceed the page limits.3 Such a rules amendment might provide a more expedient and
efficient use of this Court’s limited resources.
YOUNG, J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J.
1
See, e.g., California, Cal Rules of Court, Rule 8.204(c)(5), and Connecticut, Conn
Rules of Court, Connecticut Practice Book § 67-3.
2
See, e.g., Wisconsin, Supreme Ct IOP II, 6.a.
3
See, e.g., Tennessee, Tenn R App P, Rule 11(f), and Virginia, Va Sup Ct Rules, R
5:26(a).
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 9, 2007 _________________________________________
l0206 Clerk