United Mine Workers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association Objections to Motions for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument

    In The

(Bmvt nf tlju?
October Term, 1967

No. 33

United Mine Workers of America, District 12,
Petitioners,

Illinois State Bar Association, an Illinois Not 
For Profit Corporation, et als.,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to ttie 
Supreme Court of the State of Iliinois

PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO THE RESPECTIVE 
MOTIONS TO FILE BRIEFS AS AMICCS CURIAE 

AND
OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO 

PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT

Edmund Burke 
217 South Seventh Street 
Springfield, Illinois 

Edward L. Carey 
Harrison Combs 
Willard P. Owens 

900 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C.

M. E. Boiarsky
511 Kanawha Valley Building 
Charleston, West Virginia 

Attorneys for Petitioners.

JA B ItT T  PaiNTIIIC C O M P A R T , C H A R L C tT O N , W . V A ,



I n  T h e

Olourt of tlj? t̂at̂ a
October Term , 1967

No. 33

United Mine Workers of America, District 12,
Petitioners,

Illinois State Bar Association, an Illinois Not 
For P rofit Corporation, et als.,

Respondents.

O n W rit o f C ertio ra ri to  the 
S u p rem e C ourt o f th e  S tate o f  Illinois

PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO THE RESPECTIVE 
MOTIONS TO FILE BRIEFS AS AMICUS CURIAE 

AND
OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO 

PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT

I. PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO THE RESPECTIVE MOTIONS 
TO FILE BRIEFS AS AMICUS CURIAE

Motions to file an amicus curiae brief have been filed 
by (1) American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
Industrial Organizations, (2) NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Inc. and the National Office for the



Rights of the Indigent, and (3) The State Bar of Cali­
fornia.

In response to such Motions, Petitioners United Mine 
Workers of America, District 12, state that Petitioners 
are generally disposed not to object to the filing of such 
briefs, being of the view that the Court may desire to 
have such assistance as is offered therein. Hence, it 
had already indicated consent to the Movants, other than 
The State Bar of California. Refusal to give consent 
to it was prompted by Respondents’ refusal to grant 
their consent to Movants American Federation of Labor 
and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and the Na­
tional Office for the Rights of the Indigent. Allowance 
by the Court to the first two named Movants to file their 
respective briefs would remove any objection Petitioners 
have to The State Bar of California’s motion.

n . PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO 
PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT.

Both NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
Inc., and the National Office for the Rights of the Indigent, 
and The State Bar of California have moved for leave to 
participate in oral argument.

Petitioners object thereto for the reasons that argu­
ment of the instant case is upon the Court’s summary 
calendar and this Court’s Rule 44, paragraph 3, limits 
the time for argument to thirty (30) minutes a side. Since 
paragraph 7 of Rule 44 limits the total argument time 
to thirty minutes even though an amicus curiae is per­
mitted to participate therein, any reduction of the thirty- 
minutes argument period would not permit a fair pres­
entation of Petitioners’ contentions. Petitioners request,



therefore, that the Court deny the respective motions to 
participate in oral argument herein.

Respectfully submitted,
Edmund Burke 

217 South Seventh Street 
Springfield, Illinois 

Edward L. Carey 
Harrison Combs 
Willard P. Owens

900 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C.

M. E. Boiarsky
511 Kanawha Valley Building 
Charleston, West Virginia 
Attorneys for United Mine 
Workers of America, District 12

Dated: October, 1967