Unappealing formulation of the questions presented in order to defeat review.

• Jurisdiction: United States

Section 33. Unappealing formulation of the questions presented in order to defeat review.—When you represent the petitioner, you must dress up your questions appealingly in order to induce the higher court to take your case. But, when you appear for the respondent, you are perfectly satisfied with the status quo, and consequently your duty to your client requires that you minimize the questions presented by your adversary, in order to make them appear unimportant, or uninteresting except to the parties involved, or as turning on a mere question of fact. Here are some examples of effective depressants, taken from successful Briefs in Opposition.

(a) Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

(b) Whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that * * *.

(c) Whether the concurrent findings of the two lower courts that * * * are correct.

(d) Whether petitioner may now rely on Section —— of the Act of ——, which it failed to call to the attention of either of the courts...