A Dec. 5, 2011 Daily Journal entry refers to the case of In re Brissette v. Norman. This is incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of the form set forth in Rule 28(a). “In re Jones” should be used for petitions for original writs, i.e., those in which the writ practice begins at CAAF. “Jones v. Smith” should be used for writ appeals where, of course, the writ was first sought fom the CCA. It confuses things to combine both formats (and there are important differences between the two types of proceedings). The rule tries to explain this by means of bracketed words, but it’s a bit cryptic and hasn’t prevented this basic mistake from happening from time to time. I recommend a rule change to make it clearer.

Comments are closed.