Some Timber-y Followups to Last Week

We had some interesting discussions last week. I am going to do more research on some topics, so I will list the ones I’m working on here.  Please see if I missed any that would be worthy of more discussion or digging for more info, and please add in the comments.

1. Why did BLM volume numbers go down in Oregon?

2. Diameter limit on East Side

a. what does the EA say about alternatives?

b. the mechanics of the “dripline” idea

3. What diameter and length of logs can mills use nowadays?

4. Paper submitted  by TSW commenter on no-bid timber sales.

5.  More background on Amicus briefs; what are they generally used for and why.

(for this one it would be helpful if someone could find what they think is a good explanation and send me some links).


2 thoughts on “Some Timber-y Followups to Last Week”

  1. Here’s a good summary description of amicus briefs:

    What Are Amicus Briefs?

    An amicus curiae is a person who isn’t a party to a case. They assist an appellate court by offering additional, relevant information or arguments the court may want to consider before making their ruling. The phrase, amicus curiae, is Latin for “friend of the court.” Amicus briefs – shorthand for the formal term “amicus curiae briefs,” are legal briefs filed in appellate courts by amicus curiae. They are submitted in a specific case under review. They essentially show the court that its final decision will impact people other than the parties.

    Amicus briefs are filed by people who typically take the position of one side in a case, in the process supporting a cause that has some bearing on the issues in the case. The groups most likely to file amicus briefs are businesses, academics, government entities, non-profits and trade associations.

    The full description is here:

    There was an empirical study of the effects of amicus briefs on the Supreme Court’s decisionmaking back in 2000. The law review article describing and analyzing the results is here:

    Here’s a summary contained in the article (pdf p. 7):

    In terms of the influence of amicus briefs on outcomes, our study
    uncovers a number of interesting patterns. We find that amicus briefs
    supporting respondents [the prevailing parties in the lower court]
    enjoy higher success rates than do amicus
    briefs supporting petitioners; that small disparities of one or two briefs
    for one side with no briefs on the other side may translate into higher
    success rates but larger disparities do not; that amicus briefs cited by
    the Court appear to be no more likely to be associated with the winning
    side than briefs not cited by the Court; and that amicus briefs
    filed by more experienced lawyers may be more successful than briefs
    filed by less experienced lawyers.


Leave a Comment