Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131419 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver & (61) 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 fo r 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 th e questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C ORRIGAN , J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the order denyi ng the application for leave bu t take this opportunity to express my reservations about petitioner’s moti on to file a brief that exceeds the page limits in this tax case involv ing a cogeneration plant. Petitioner’s motion accompanied its application for leave to appeal. The app lication that exceeds the page limits reflected a scattershot appellate strategy in a 74-page submission. The statement of the issues confusingly did not c onform 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, petitione r’s arguments pertaining to the issues in its application seem bot h redundant and poor ly developed.

With some focus on editing, petitioner’s counsel could have co nsolidated many of the issues for a more effectiv e presentation. Why should a respondent have to read, analyze, and respond to a 74-page applicati on 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 br iefs? 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 l itigation, to the detrim ent 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 sc rutinize motions to f ile applications or briefs that exceed the page lim its. 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 administrativ e 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 mo tions to file applica tions 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.

Y OUNG , J., joins the statement of C ORRIGAN , J.

1 See, e.g., California, Cal Rules of Co urt, 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, Ru le 11(f), and Virginia, Va Sup Ct Rules, R 5:26(a).

l0206 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 9, 2007

Clerk