Also known as: arguments · oral argument · closing argument
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A contention or line of reasoning advanced to support a claim, defense, or position in a legal proceeding. The contention must rest on existing law or a nonfrivolous basis for changing the law and must avoid improper purposes such as harassment or delay.
Alexis Archer filed a complaint asserting a novel theory of liability against a technology firm. Her attorney certified that the claim rested on a good-faith argument for extending existing precedent to cover algorithmic harms. The court accepted the filing after finding the contention nonfrivolous.
Alan Ackerman represented a defendant charged with a serious offense. He contested every element of the prosecution's case even though some points lacked strong factual support. The strategy complied with the rule allowing defense counsel to demand proof of each element.
Aaron Adams served a discovery request seeking documents from Alpine Mining. The response included an objection grounded in a nonfrivolous argument for narrowing the scope of prior precedent on trade-secret protection. The court upheld the objection as consistent with the certification requirement.
Adrian Aguilar submitted proposed jury instructions containing a nonfrivolous argument extending contract precedent to algorithmic performance metrics. The court reviewed the contention for compliance with certification duties before delivering the charge. Counsel relied on the argument to support the requested legal standard.
Adam Anderson advanced a contention that the court's proposed instructions misstated the burden of proof. The judge heard argument on the legal point on the record but outside the jury. This preserved the ability to challenge the contention without prejudicing the panel.
Austin Abbott advanced a contention that a state statute was unconstitutional. The court permitted full presentation of the legal argument after certifying the issue to the state attorney general. The procedure ensured the contention received complete consideration before decision.
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State. During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out. James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.
View caseAn argument is frivolous if it lacks a basis in law and fact and cannot be supported by a good-faith contention for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law. Primary authorities require certification that contentions are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change.
Discovery requests, responses, and objections must be consistent with the rules and warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change. The certification requirement prevents interposition for improper purposes such as harassment or undue burden.
Counsel may advance a nonfrivolous argument for extending precedent when submitting proposed instructions, provided the contention is certified as warranted by existing law or a good-faith basis for change.
The court must allow parties to present their legal contentions on the record outside the jury's hearing so that the argument can be fully considered before instructions are given.
…any case whatever; and (3) whether in the present case the court may award a mandamus to James Madison, Secretary of State. The argument upon the first question was derived from the principles and practice of England and the Constitution and laws of the United States. As the supreme court and by reason of its supremacy it…