At Cockle Legal Briefs, we offer the most thorough and complete legal proofreading in the industry. We do not simply review the draft for rule compliance, or assign a single reader to quickly scan the draft for obvious errors. Our teams of two readers examine every line, word, and character to find any possible problem with the document.
Of course, most Supreme Court filers understand the significance of their brief, and they carefully read and re-read the draft for errors. But you cannot underestimate the value of the kind of detailed legal proofreading we offer at Cockle. Our readers are not just professionals in their craft, but it is precisely because they have not been involved with the drafting process that they are best able to find problems missed by drafters.
Read the paragraph, below. There are ten errors in the passage. Can your legal proofreading find them?
Given the statute’s purpose, Petitioners’ reliance on Wachovia Bank’s apparent deference is misplaced. E.g., Allied-Bruce Terminix, 513 U.S. at 280 (addressing venue). Section 4 is properly construed in a way that preserves its role as an effective means of providing a party aggrieved by “the alleged failure . . . of another to arbitrate,” 9 U.S.C. § 4, Dean Witter Reynolds, 470 U.S. at 221-22, n. 7. Although state courts often are called on to enforce the statute’s obligations, it is “to be vindicated by the federal courts where otherwise appropriate”. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 25 n.32. Indeed, federal court jurisdiction is all the more critical where, as here, the parallel state court system has held that it is not bound by Section 4. E.g., Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 872 A.2d 735-737, 742 (Md. 2005) (“state courts are not bound by
If you think your next Supreme Court brief could be made even more polished by Cockle legal proofreading, give us call.
And if you can find just five of the errors above, let us know and we will give you 10% off your next 50 pages. If you can’t find the errors, send us an email, and we will reply with the answers.