briefs

These are not merits briefs (about who should win) because the Supreme Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet.

Someone interested in the detail can always do what you've done, and read the actual briefs.

There are all kinds of research tasks that require searching full-text briefs and viewing dockets.

Imagine a statistical correlation of the semantic content of briefs versus the deciding opinions.

The judges just show up to read the briefs and sign the orders.

I worked in the Pentagon and I've both built and received many, many DoD Powerpoint briefs over the years.

Many big firms wrote amicus briefs supporting crack downs on the trolls even though they'd lose a lot of money if it actually works.

And when issues get to the Texas Supreme Court, politically it seems to almost always be various liberal groups sending in amicus briefs on the pro-civil-liberties side, and conservative groups sending in briefs on the pro-government side.

I want to vote on the laws myself and ask politicians for advice and briefs of the projects, not the other way round.

I'm finding reading briefs like this much more exciting as an engineer.

While I think it's now too late to file amicus briefs on the cert petition, if certiorari is granted (as Google hopes and the Solicitor General just argued against), anyone can file amicus briefs on the merits.

They came up with their own proprietary format for storing and searching over legal briefs (most of the technology we have now, such as SQL databases, did not exist then).

Food cannot contain poppy seeds; emery boards must be “nonmetallic”; boxer shorts and briefs must be of a solid color only.

You can "lobby" the Supreme Court, but only via amicus curiae [1] briefs.

This will not work, but the next stage will be "cooperating" with the DoJ and filing amicus briefs in a trumped-up antitrust case.

If you can find something in the chat log, his legal briefs, or wherever that proves he said "no" before he said "yes", please offer it.