Over the years, the Table of Authorities in briefs has always required a significant investment of time and resources. Is it worth it?Is the Table of Authorities in a brief useful? Is it a good use of our time?I always look at the table of authorities and find it usefulI sometimes look at the TOA and find it usefulIt is not useful to me, but others might find it usefulI seldom look at the TOA, and it is a poor use of time to produce.I never look at the TOA and it is a waste of time to produce

Considering the brief must contain an index of authorities under TRAP 38.1(c), I guess it is presumed to serve a useful purpose (for someone). Do I ever look at the table in the appellant's brief? Rarely.

I look when I want to see if anything is missing. I also figure the courts might find them useful even if I don't.

I give it a glance over to see if the cases I expect to see are in there.

Ditto David & LAH.

One addition: I consider my time creating the TOA as a way to check my final citation form. (Did I put short cites where needed? Did I accidentally omit a long cite. Did I put an ">" instead of a "." in a "S.W.3d" reference?) So I guess the TOA has some purpose.

I never had the justices for whom I worked tell me a TOA was useful. Before the advent of permanent staff attorneys and Westlaw/Lexis, briefing clerks were sent to the stacks to pull all the listed cases. That practice went away several decades ago. Today, I see little added value for the end user brought by having a TOA.

I have always thought it a waste of resources. I can't remember any of the judges I clerked for who expressed that they added any value. I have always found that they are difficult to accurately produce using the built-in features of WordPefect or Word, and the tools available to produce them, Best Authority and Cite Advisor, are fairly expensive for what you get. I'm pretty skilled with Word, and I can produce them myself fairly quickly, but that time is still wasted, IMHO. I hope that the Courts will consider dropping them someday.