That’s the Legislative Counsel in a motion filed today to extend time to answer in Assemblyman Steven Brooks’ writ petition case in the Nevada Supreme Court. The motion, filed this morning, says Brooks’ petition (previously discussed here and here on this blog) “is lacking in cogent legal argument and citation to authority,” which is required under the court’s rules and relevant case law requiring counsel to “avoid lackadaisical litigation practices, such as discussing issues without ‘cogent argument and citation to relevant authority.'”
The motion also points out that Brooks’ attorney filed two days late an appendix that the Court ordered to be filed by Wednesday. The motion further states that because the Legislature’s legal staff are “urgently and immediately needed for bill drafting before the fixed deadlines for bill introductions, the Court should grant the Legislature a 9-day extension within which to file its answer to the petition.
The motion further notes that the petition raises constitutional issues of great “magnitude, complexity and importance.”
This case just got much more interesting for legal and politics wonks, such as myself.
Updated 5:05 p.m.
The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the Legislature’s motion. The Legislature has until Wednesday, March 20, 2013, at 3 p.m. to answer Brooks’ writ petition. That’s a week less than the Legislature requested. The Court also noted in a footnote that Brooks’ appendix was late.