Potter County District Courthouse | Photo by Noah Dawson

The legal team for the City of Amarillo filed a motion last Wednesday in the ongoing appeal of the civic center improvement funding lawsuit asking for an increased word limit on upcoming briefs. The motion alleges that Fairly, who won at trial last year, exceeded “aggregate word limit under Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B) by 929 words” across their three briefs.

In a response to the motion filed last week, Fairly stated he “disagrees with the City’s interpretation of Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B) and does not agree that he exceeded the aggregate word limit by 929 words by filing three briefs totaling 27,929 words in a cross-appeal and primary appeal.”

The response goes on to state that, if the court does feel Fairly exceeded the word limit, Fairly asks “for leave to enlarge the aggregate word limit by 929 words or in the alternative to allow Appellee/Cross-Appellant leave to delete 929 words from his Appellee brief.” Fairly did take issue with the city’s request, which was for an additional 4,000 words, however. Regarding that request, Fairly’s response reads:

“Cross-Appalent [Fairly] was denied the opportunity to respond to the Attorney General because the Attorney General addressed the cross appeal in its Appellee brief. Although Appellee/Cross-Appellant would not have opposed an extension of time for the Attorney General to respond to his cross appeal 3 (and even requested a unified briefing scheduled at the beginning of the appeal in an effort to add clarity to the briefing schedule), Appellee/Cross-Appellant now finds himself unable to respond to the Attorney General’s response, while the City will be afforded additional time and words to do so.”

The City of Amarillo’s legal team also asked for a time extension to file their reply brief on the merits in principal appeal, citing several other cases the city’s counsel is currently engaged in. A similar motion was filed and granted for Fairly’s team earlier in the appeals process.