Letter to Kelley and Saxton from Dimond RE Cross Designation and Appendix

    • • •
O'BRIEN, MORAN & DIMOND

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 
210 EAST HURON STREET 

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48108 
(313) 709-6838

December 7, 1973

Mr. Frank J. Kelley 
Attorney General 
State of Michigan 
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Mr. William-Saxton
1881 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Re: Consolidated Supreme Ct.
Docket Nos. 73-434; 73-435

73-436

Gentlemen:
Please be advised that Respondents Bradley, et. al., 

(Plaintiffs in this cause) are in receipt of your designations 
for a single appendix and statements of issues. With the 
extensive record made below and consolidation of these cases 
upon the Supreme Court docket, we had hoped that you would 
comply with full spirit of Supreme Court Rule 32(2) by at 
least attempting to approach all parties to agree upon the 
contents of the single appendix. As that procedure was 
followed to successful completion on your appeal to the 
Court of Appeals, we perceive no justification for your 
failure to do the same in the Supreme Court. Our first 
contact with you was the receipt of not one but two separate 
designations and not one but three statements of the issues.

Because of this failure to follow normal procedure 
in agreeing upon the contents of the single appendix, we are 
seriously concerned with your designation of virtually none 
of the extensive record evidence. Although the omission of 
virtually all record evidence from your designation may be

THOMAS C. O'BRIEN 
MICHAEL C. MORAN 
PAUL R. DIMOND



Mr. Frank J. Kelley 
Mr. William Saxton - 2 - December 7, 1973

explained in part by the lack of relationship between your 
statements of the issues and the record, we are compelled 
to cross designate those parts of the record to which we 
intend to call the particular attention of the Supreme Court, 
Supreme Court Rule 36 (1), (2). The enclosed cross-designation
is made in the full spirit of Rule 36. We believe that the 
portions of the cross designated record are necessary for 
determination of the issues presented for review in this case.

Finally, because of the extensive record made 
below, we respectfully suggest that all those pleadings, 
charges, findings, opinions, judgments, orders and decisions 
below which are particularly relevant to Supreme Court 
review of this case should be reproduced in the single 
appendix, even if some have already been reproduced in your 
appendix to your petitions for certiorari already filed. For 
your full consideration of this proposal we have marked such 
pleadings or opinions with an asterisk in the attached cross­
designation. If you cannot agree with this proposal, I suggest 
that we seek the assistance of Mr. Michael Rodak, Jr., Clerk, 
Supreme Court of the United States in order to properly resolve 
the issue.

<4

In the attached cross-designation, reference is made 
to the volumes of the joint appendix in the Court of Appeals 
unless otherwise specified. The designation is line by line 
and usually refers to the line number of the joint appendix; 
in some instances, however, the designation is referenced to the 
transcript number in brackets in the joint appendix. In your 
designations, we have assumed that unless the designation is 
line by line, the entire page referenced will be included in the 
single appendix. Please notify us if that assumption is in error 
in any respect so that we can consider whether additional 
cross-designation is necessary. Finally, we trust that 
appropriate subheadings will be inserted by you in the Joint 
Appendix to identify clearly the name of the person as well as 
the party examining the witness whose testimony is reproduced.



-3- December 7, 1973

#

Mr. Frank J. Kelley 
Mr. William Saxton

directly.
If you have any questions, please contact me

Very truly yours, 

Paul R. Dimond
mjh
e n d .

cc: All counsel for other Respondents
All counsel for Petitioners