Denver Area Meat Cutters & Employers Pension Plan v. Clayton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that permitting an appellant to advance new arguments in a reply brief not addressed in the initial brief “would be fundamentally unfair as the appellee may not respond to a reply brief.”
• holding that permitting an appellant to advance new arguments in a reply brief not addressed in - 14 - the initial brief “would be fundamentally unfair as the appellee may not respond to a reply brief.”
• explaining that an appellant cannot “advance a new argument to support an issue in the reply brief”
• refusing to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief because of unfairness to the appellee, who had no opportunity to respond
• refusing to consider an argument raised in a reply brief, explaining that “‘[s]uch a practice would be fundamentally unfair as the appellee may not respond to a reply brief”’
• refusing to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).