Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 132.01
Formal briefs and addenda shall be bound together by a method that securely affixes the contents, and that is substantially equivalent to the list of approved binding methods maintained by the clerk of appellate courts. Methods of binding that are not approved include stapling, continuous coil spiral binding, spiral comb bindings and similar bindings. Pages shall be 8 1/2 by 11 inches in size with written matter not exceeding 6 1/2 by 9 1/2 inches. Written matter in briefs and addenda shall appear on only one side of the paper. The pages of the addenda shall be separately and consecutively numbered. Briefs shall be double-spaced, except for tables of contents, tables of authorities, statements of issues, headings and footnotes, which may be single-spaced. Carbon copies shall not be submitted.
The front cover shall not be protected by a clear plastic or mylar sheet.
If briefs are formally bound, the cover of the paper brief of the appellant should be blue; that of the respondent, red; that of an intervenor or amicus curiae, green; that of any reply brief, gray. The cover of the paper addendum, if separately printed, should be white. The cover of an amendment or supplement should be the same color as the document which it amends or supplements. The cover of any other document separately prepared under this rule should be white.
A brief submitted under Rule 132.01, subdivision 3(a), (b), or (c) must include a certificate that the brief complies with the word count or line count limitation. The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word or line count of the word-processing software used to prepare the brief. The certificate must state the name and version of the word processing software used to prepare the brief, state that the brief complies with the typeface requirements of this rule, and state either:
A motion for filing an enlarged brief shall be filed at least 14 days prior to the date the brief is due.
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 132.01
There are page limitations on all briefs.
The form of briefs, appendices, and supplemental records to be submitted has been changed. Commercial typographical printing is no longer required; instead any process capable of producing a clear black image on white paper is acceptable. Spiral spine binding is also no longer required. The appellate courts will publish criteria for permitted binding methods.
The color coding system introduced is only applicable if commercially produced briefs are submitted.
The appellant and the respondent's briefs are limited to 50 pages exclusive of tables of contents and authorities, addenda, and appendices. Reply briefs shall not exceed 25 pages and briefs of amicus curiae are restricted to 20 pages. Any request to file an enlarged brief must be filed at least 10 days before the brief is due.
Advisory Committee Comment - 1998 Amendments
Rule 132.01, subd. 1 has been modified to make clear the requirement that the written material in briefs should appear on only one side of the paper. The Clerk of Appellate Courts maintains a list of approved binding methods and this list is available upon request.
Rule 132.01, subd. 2 has been modified in two respects. First, the rule has been re-written to make clear that in all cases where formal bound briefs are submitted, the color coding requirements apply. The rule has also been changed to eliminate the provision regarding the color of brief covers in the Supreme Court. The rule previously provided that the parties would use the same color covers as they did in the Court of Appeals. This caused considerable confusion among the bar, and the requirement was dropped in favor of a rule that consistently requires the opening brief of the appellant to be blue, the opening brief of the party responding to that brief to be red and reply briefs to be gray. Rule 101.02, subd. 6 defines "appellant" to mean the party seeking review, including relators and petitioners.
Minnesota Statutes, section 480.0515, subd. 2 (1996), requires documents submitted by an attorney to a court of this state, and all papers appended to the document be submitted on paper containing not less than ten percent postconsumer material, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 115A.03, subd. 24b. The statute also provides that a court may not refuse a document solely because the document was not submitted on recycled paper. Finally, subd. (3)(b) of the statute makes the entire section nonapplicable "if recycled paper is not readily available."
Subdivision 5 of this Rule regarding reliance upon trial court memoranda has been moved to Rule 128.01, subd. 2.
Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 Amendments
The rule has been amended to provide for an alternative measure of length of appellate briefs, based on word volume and not page count. This alternative allows parties to choose type size that is more readable than they might choose if endeavoring to satisfy the page limit requirement. The word volume measure has been derived from the analogous provisions of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in general will not significantly alter the amount of text that a party may submit, regardless of the method chosen to determine brief length. The amended rule provides for a certification of brief length that will enable the appellate courts to verify that the brief complies with the rule. The rule also increases the minimum permissible font size for briefs and shortens the maximum permissible length of principal briefs that are not measured on a word or line count basis. These amendments only apply to formal briefs, not to motions, petitions for further review, or other pleadings.
Advisory Committee Comment-2008 Amendments
Rule 132.01 is amended to permit, but not require, the preparation of appendices and supplemental records using two-sided copies. The rule's requirement for use of opaque paper is particularly important if a party elects to submit a two-sided appendix.
Advisory Committee Comment-2014 Amendments
Rule 132.01 is amended in several places to change references to the appendix to refer to the addendum. The use of an appendix as it formerly existed is no longer either required or permitted in any appellate proceedings.