Halli Spraggins

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀 Under California appellate rules, briefs must state each point under a separate heading or subheading.  Appellants and respondents alike should heed this requirement, as both persuasion and preservation may depend on it.  Some practice tips to consider: ✅ Many appellate courts will deem an argument forfeited if buried under an unrelated heading, or made only in a footnote. ✅ Headings should be substantive, but not so lengthy that they cease to serve as "headlines" and start to resemble text. ✅ Organizing headings for each distinct contention brings discipline to the drafting process, making the brief more coherent and digestible.  Generating a new Table of Contents for each draft is an excellent editing tool, helping you see whether points flow logically and persuasively. ✅ If the Table of Contents has "gaps" that would confuse a stranger, revise.  Justices often read the TOC to gain a substantive overview of the brief before diving in.   ► 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲:  Ensure that your brief headings are crisp and clear, and that they smoothly outline all your core contentions on appeal. #appeals Laurie Hepler

9

The doctrine of divisibility is well known in contract law, yet there is little discussion by courts and scholars of reverse divisibility, which involves the recharacterization of two or more facially separate but closely related contracts as a single contract. In "'Reverse Divisibility' and 'Subsequent Modification': Expanding the Scope of Justified Non-Performance in Multiple Contract Situations," Professor Gregory Crespi discusses reverse divisibility and its practical applications. https://lnkd.in/eGG-r3dv

8

Young Conaway attorney, Anne Shea Gaza, has been recognized in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America! She has been considered a “Best Lawyer” by her peers in Litigation – Intellectual Property. See the entire list of accomplished attorneys here: https://lnkd.in/dpnkkTaE #bestlawyers #onestowatch #legalawards #legalexpertise #legalexcellence

56

8 Comments

A well-functioning federal judiciary requires sufficient funding to operate efficiently and securely. LCJ is urging Congress to fully fund the federal judiciary’s FY 2025 budget request, including critical initiatives for IT modernization and cybersecurity; court security; and federal employee pay increases necessary to attract and retain top talent. LCJ’s letter to the congressional appropriations committees supports the budget request because a well-functioning court system is important to public trust in our courts. Read more about LCJ’s efforts to advocate for a fair and efficient judicial system on www.lfcj.com.

1

The Supreme Court recently ruled on Moody v. NetChoice, a case reviewing two conflicting appellate court decisions dealing with state laws designed to force social media companies to host content. In a new insight, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy Jeff Westling walks through the majority opinion for the case and discusses the implications for social media content moderation going forward. Key points: The Supreme Court remanded two major content moderation cases dealing with state laws designed to force social media platforms to remain politically neutral for further review, citing the need for a more rigorous factual analysis of the full extent of the laws. Despite the remand, the majority opinion casts doubt on the constitutionality of the state laws, specifically criticizing the Fifth Circuit for upholding a Texas law based on a faulty understanding of the First Amendment. As the Court makes clear, as Congress continues to consider legislation that could impact social media content moderation decisions, it cannot simply force private speakers to present views the speakers don’t wish to host or limit the spread of content Congress doesn’t like.

4