CIBA-GEIGY LIMITED, BASF A.G., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE FISH PEDDLER, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied one amicus brief because it presented a fact-specific argument similar to the appellant's brief, exceeding the intended scope of amicus participation.
The court considered motions to file amicus curiae briefs. One motion was from the Florida Chamber of Commerce, whose proposed brief appeared to be a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amicus Curiae cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have, to date, received motions to file two amicus briefs. Briefs from amicus curiae, which means “friend of the court,” are generally for the purpose of assisting the court in cases which are of general public interest, or aiding in the presentation of difficult issues. Alexander v. Hall, 64 F.R.D. 152 (D.C.S.C.1974) and cases cited therein.
Although “by the nature of things an amicus is not normally impartial,” amicus briefs should not argue the facts in issue. Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F. 2d 567 (1st Cir. 1970). In the present case one of the amicus briefs appears to be nothing more than an attempt to present a fact specific argument of the same type as is contained in the appellants’ 50 page brief. Since the parties are limited as to the number and length of briefs, amicus briefs should not be used to simply give one side more exposure than the rules contemplate. We therefore deny the motion to file an amicus brief on behalf of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
Because our time for reading briefs is not unlimited, it would be helpful to the court if amicus would attempt to join together in one brief and cooperate with the parties so as not to be repetitious of the parties’ briefs. In the interest of brevity, amicus briefs should not contain a statement of the case or facts, but rather should get right to the additional information which the amicus believes will assist the court. And, although Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.370 does not require a motion for leave to file an amicus brief to state whether the parties have consented, it would be appropriate for the motion to contain that information. See Rule 9.300(a).
STONE, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Counsel v. The Fla. BAR Bd. OF Governors, 12 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 2009)…e one side more exposure than the rules contemplate.' ” Sylvia H. Walbolt & Joseph H. Lang, Jr., Amicus Briefs: Friend or Foe of Florida Courts?, 32 Stetson L.Rev. 269, 296-97 (2003) (footnote omitted) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc., 683 So. 2d 522, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). . The lobbying positions concerned the following: expansion of the program for women, infants, and children; extension of Medicaid coverage for pregnant women; full immunization for children; establishing children's servi…
Authorities Cited
- Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567 (1st Cir. 1970)