Opinion ID: 1722091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: motion to strike a portion of cass electric's brief

Text: At the trial level, Cass Electric took a position agreeing with NSP on most major points now in controversy. At the appellate level, while still supporting the decision of the trial court which was favorable to NSP, Cass Electric changed its position as to the interpretation of the statutes as to rural electric cooperatives, but adhered to the position that it was precluded by the terms of the Territorial Integrity Act from serving Wold. In other words, it supports the position of NSP at the appellate level, but on only one of the several grounds on which it agreed with NSP at the trial level. NSP therefore made a motion in this court to strike that portion of Cass Electric's brief which represents a change of its position at the trial level. We decline to strike the challenged portion of the brief. The striking of briefs is rarely done, and then only in rather flagrant cases of violation of the rules of the court [ Olson v. Olson, 180 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1970) (argument disregarded)], or going outside the record [ Orso v. City and County of Honolulu, 55 Haw. 37, 514 P.2d 859 (1973)], or unnecessarily violent, abusive, and disrespectful language [ Bean v. Best, 77 S.D. 433, 93 N.W.2d 403 (1958)]. We know of no instance in which a brief or a portion of a brief was stricken by this court. We have the power to do so, but find no basis for doing so here. Nor do we know of any rule or statute which precludes a party from changing position on appeal on some, but not all, of the grounds formerly urged. Affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and PEDERSON, PAULSON and SAND, JJ., concur.