Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Texas
Headline: Court cancels its review and strikes improper brief pages after finding no substantial basis for taking the case, removing misleading attorney arguments about a court‑filed supplemental record that had been allowed.
Holding:
- Cancels Supreme Court review because grounds lacked substantial basis.
- Strikes seven pages of a reply brief for improperly attacking a court‑filed record.
- Limits use of insinuating attacks against opposing counsel in briefs.
Summary
Background
One side had asked the Court to review a lower‑court decision, and the Court initially granted that request. The Court later ordered a supplemental record to be filed. In a reply brief, opposing counsel included seven pages that claimed the other side had prevented an opportunity to oppose that supplemental filing and sought to downplay the record’s importance.
Reasoning
The Court examined the record and concluded that the reasons given for granting review did not have a substantial basis, so it canceled its decision to take the case. The Court also agreed with the opposing party that the seven pages of the reply brief were an improper and insinuating effort to discredit counsel and the supplemental record that the Court itself had allowed.
Real world impact
This ruling is procedural: it ends this Supreme Court review and removes the contested pages from the case file. It also signals that attorneys cannot use insinuating or irregular attacks in briefs to undermine a document the Court has permitted. Because this is a decision about the Court’s review and court filings, it is not a final ruling on the underlying merits of the original dispute.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?