The following amendments are proposed for adoption in connection with the proposed restyled appellate rules.
The proposed amendment to Rule 5(b)(5) eliminates language that is redundant to Rule 5(b)(1)-(4), which contains the requirements for filing an interlocutory appeal in different types of cases. The proposed amendment also eliminates a statement in Rule 5(b)(8)(A) that is not necessary since the Court has discretion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal that was improvidently granted.
The proposed amendment to Rule 6 provides a procedure for appeals from final judgments where permission to appeal must be obtained from the trial court or the Supreme Court.
The proposed amendment to Rule 10(b)(5) deletes a phrase which is unnecessary because Rule 33(a) already contains a procedure for prehearing conferences, which the parties are free to adapt.
The proposed amendment to Rule 12(a) specifies that the Supreme Court docket clerk must receive a copy of the certified docket entries from the trial court before docketing an appeal. The proposed amendments to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(c) removes the requirement that the Supreme Court clerk receive the record before notifying the parties that record is complete in cases where no transcript is ordered.
The proposed amendment to Rule 28(j) requires parties to file eight copies of any supplemental authority for conformity with the number of briefs required to be filed by Rule 31(b).
The proposed amendment to Rule 33(a)(1) reflects the reality that self-represented parties may also be directed to appear for a prehearing conference.
The proposed amendment to Rule 34(b) requires a request for additional time to be made by motion rather than in a letter addressed to the clerk.
The proposed amendment deletes Rule 39(c)(4) because Rule 31(b) no longer requires the filing of an original brief, requiring merely eight copies. The price per folio is a term no longer used.
The proposed amendment to Rule 40(a) provides a time limit for filing a request to extend the period for filing a motion to reargue. In addition, because the prior page-limit in Rule 40(b)(2) was changed to a word-count limit, the parties must now certify compliance with the word-count limit similar to the existing requirement in Rule 32(a)(7)(D).
The proposed amendment to Rule 45.1 recognizes that self-represented parties will not necessarily have an e-mail address, but requires attorneys to provide an e-mail address.
The comment period ended April 12, 2013.