Memorandum

To:	Dirk Christensen
From:	William L. Martin, III
Subject:	A98A0365 . Tattersall Club Corporation v. John D. White
Date:	November 25, 1997

I have checked on the request for oral argument and order that went out from this Court pursuant to your e-mail of yesterday. Attached please find a copy of the Court Action ticket regarding the request for oral argument in this case. As you can see, the request shows that it was 21 days late. The Court initialed under the column that the request does not comply. The order which went out, a copy of which is attached, is the standard order that the Court has adopted to issue when the Court initials the "Doesn't Comply" column.

Heretofore, the Court has grappled with the question about sending out orders denying a request for oral argument because the request is untimely. The Court decided not to send out orders denying request because they were untimely. The Court still considers a request for oral argument on the merits, even if it is untimely.

In fact, under the Court's Internal Operations Manual ( IOM ), an untimely request is not required to be circulated to the panel, but is voted on by one judge. Since the request was 21 days late, Judge Beasley should not have circulated the request for oral argument. Please see page 31 of the IOM , paragraph E(2), attached.

What the Court is looking for in satisfying the requirements of Rule 28 is very subjective. The statements offered by the appellee in requesting oral argument, I believe, are more of a general nature then a specific nature anyway. However, the order which went out comports with what is marked on the Court Action ticket.

If you have any further questions or comments about this matter, please feel free to contact me.

Attachments

cc:	Lorraine Sapp