Court Opinion

ID: 9547075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:41:24.431852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:17.063103
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Judge
(concurring):
By virtue of random case assignment, the burden of trying to make sense of the appellants' briefs in this case and in Koulis v. Standard Oil Co., 746 P.2d 1182 (Utah App.1987), was cast upon me. No other judge of this court was honored with that dubious distinction. And I admit the likely existence of a cumulative effect upon me. In both cases, we have proceeded to decide the merits of the issues raised, in deference only to the parties and not to appellants’ counsel. Charles Dickens said that one member of Parliament had a tolerable command of sentences with no meaning in them. Appellate counsel must prepare and submit briefs that are more than mere sound effects. The time will most assuredly arrive when a panel of this court will be constrained to disregard intolerable and unacceptable briefs and not reach the merits of the case.