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). 

l0206 

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 

 Clerk