SNIDER et al. v. ALL STATE ADMINISTRATORS, INC., et al.
No. 73-731.
Decided January 21, 1974
Per Curiam.
Petitioner Snider has filed a motion to dispense with the printing of the petition for certiorari as required by our Rule 39. He has filed no motion and affidavit in conformity with our Rule 53, dealing with proceedings in forma pauperis. While we undoubtedly have authority to waive the application of particular rules in appropriate circumstances, we have during this Term denied a considerable number of similar motions. Typically in each of these cases the moving petitioner made generalized allegations of inability to afford payment of printing costs, but made no showing sufficient to comply with Rule 53 governing proceedings in forma pauperis. Motions such as these are disfavored, and petitioner’s motion is denied.
Rule 39, entitled “Form of appendices, petitions, briefs, etc.,” contains the following definition:
“Printing, as the term is used in these rules, shall include any process capable of producing a clear black image on white paper but shall not include ordinary carbon copies. If papers are filed in a form which is not clearly legible, the clerk will require that new copies be substituted, but the filing shall not thereby be deemed untimely.”
We think it is clear from this definition, and from the other parts of Rule 39, that documents governed by Rule 39 need not have been imprinted on a press in order to comply with its terms. They are required to be the product of a process “capable of producing a clear black image on white paper,” and to conform to the paper-size, binding, and type-size requirements also set forth in the Rule. The Rule is thus functional in nature, and is designed to assure the Court that appendices, petitions, briefs, and the like which are subject to its provisions will be of uniform size and good legibility. We are not disposed to waive these standards.
In future cases, the Clerk will be instructed not to accept for record a petition for certiorari or other document which is subject to Rule 39 and fails to conform to the requirements of that Rule, and to submit only the motion to dispense with printing to the Court for decision. In the event such motion is denied, the petition or other document will be returned to the party seeking to file it at the time the order of denial is entered.
Petitioner’s motion to dispense with printing the petition for certiorari in this case is denied. Because our view as to the probable fate of motions such as his may not heretofore have been apparent to the Bar, he is granted 21 days from the entry of this order in which to file a petition which conforms to Rule 39.
See, e. g., Wallace v. Smith, No. 73-40, motion denied October 15, 1973, post, p. 907; Broccolino v. Maryland Comm’n on Judicial Disabilities, No. 73-431, motion denied November 19, 1973, post, p. 1038; Chippas v. United States, No. 73-761, motion denied December 17, 1973, post, p. 1109. See also Morton v. Mancari, No. 73-362, motion to dispense with printing the motion to dismiss or affirm denied January 14, 1974, post, p. 1142.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.