Dorchester Industries Incorporated, et al. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          request leave of Court to exceed the page limitations.  The                 
          argument portion of Frank Wheaton’s opening brief consists of               
          25 pages; however, at its beginning, it carries a footnote                  
          stating that, due to the page limitations imposed by the Court,             
          Frank Wheaton incorporates by reference arguments contained in              
          certain previously filed papers.  Frank Wheaton did not ask for             
          leave to exceed the page limitations imposed by the Court.                  
          Accordingly, the Court will not incorporate into his brief the              
          referenced arguments and deems him to have failed to raise any              
          arguments not set forth plainly in either his opening or                    
          answering brief.                                                            
               Dorchester has failed to file an opening brief.  By its                
          counsel, Paul Porreca, Dorchester has given notice of its                   
          adoption of Frank Wheaton’s reply brief.  We assume that                    
          Dorchester wishes to adopt the arguments made by Frank Wheaton in           
          his opening brief.                                                          
          II. Settlement Agreement                                                    
               A.  Introduction                                                       
               A controversy before this Court may be settled by agreement            
          of the parties.  Recently, we have stated some general                      
          propositions regarding settlement agreements:                               
                    For almost a century, it has been settled that                    
               voluntary settlement of civil controversies is in high                 
               judicial favor.  Williams v. First Natl. Bank, 216 U.S.                
               582, 595 (1910); St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v.                     
               Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 656 (1898).  A valid                 
               settlement, once reached, cannot be repudiated by                      
               either party, and after the parties have entered into a                




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011