DOCSLIB.ORG

92271NCJRS.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
92271NCJRS.Pdf ----------- - If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. 1982 ANNUAL REPORT ADMINISTRATiVE OFFICE of PENNSYLVANIA COURTS ~'" . ". ..... ..... '" ,':" ~.;;.. ' ..... -," . 92271 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Harrisburg Office Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts 407 City Towers, 301 Chestnut Street Abraham J. Gafni, Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 1710 1 Co urI A dminislralor 717-787-8810 Room 1414 Three Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 215-496-4500 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0' b t i ., i I JI I ~ Page 79 Phila?~iphia M~nic~4irUlI ml!.lFlt)'N~ Philadelphia Municipal 1 3 Table of Contents AdIIllIllStrator t ' - Court Trials 1978-1982 I 5 Foreword, Chief Justice Samuel 80 Judicial Districthy..CouJiyand.. 57 13 District Justice Case ,I J. Roberts in Numerical Order Filings and Dispositions by Case Type, 1982 ,j 6 Report from Abraham J. Gafni, 81 Courts of Common Pleas Judges (Alphabetical) 58 14 District Justice Courts Court Administrator :IIi Disposition by Category 7 Map of Unified Judicial System 83 Senior Common Pleas Judges il (Alphabetical) and Nature of Action, 1982 !I 8 Overview of the Pennsylvania ,I 84 District Justices (Alphabetical) 59 15 Philadelphia Traffic Court Judicial System Case Volume, 1982 87 Senior District Justices 10 Acti'Vities of the Administrative 59 16 Pittsburgh Magistrates !\ Office of Pennsylvania Courts (Alphabetical) Court Case Volume, 1982 I! 88 District Court Administrators and I 13 Advisory Boards and Committees 17 Summary of Statewide i[ Distict Justice Court 59 , j 18 The Appellate Courts Administrators (Alphabetical) Special Courts Filings, 20 Map of Pennsylvania's Judicial 1982 ,I 89 Glossary Districts 60 18 District Justice Traffic i i 21 Trial Court Developments in 1982 Citations by County I 61 19 District Justice Non-Traffic ,I 24 Common Pleas Case Volume By f County Page Table Citations by County I 55 Philadelphia Municipal Court 16 1 Disciplinary Cases Against 62 20 District Justice Summary I Lawyers Complaints by County 56 The People's Court: District I I Justices 16 2 Sources of Complaints 63 21 District Justice i! Against Judges and Misdemeanor and Felony , I 67 Court Finances District Justices Complaints by County 70 Supreme Court Justices 17 3 Types of Judicial 65 22 District Justice Civil :I 70 Superior Court Judges Misconduct Complaints by County , 70 Superior Court Senior Judges 17 4 Inventory of Disciplinary 68 23 Where the Money Goes: ,i! , 70 Commonwealth Court Judges Cases Against Judges in General Funds Fiscal 1982 70 Appellate Court Prothonotaries Resources 18 5 Supreme Court Caseload 70 Judges of the Courts of Common 69 24 Judiciary Funding-Where II 1978-1982 the Money Comes From 11 Pleas (by County) jI 19 6 Superior Court Caseload 73 Senior Common Pleas Judges (by 69 25 Fines and Costs Collected 1982 County) by District Justices-1981 19 7 Commonwealth Court 1\ 74 Philadelphia Municipal Court Caseload 1978-1982 Judges !\ 23 8 Criminal Dispositions by ., 74 Philadelphia Traffic Court Page Figure Type 1978-1982 Judges 57 1 District Justice Cases Filed 23 9 Civil Dispositions by 74 Pittsburgh Magistrates Court Type 1978-1982 57 2 District Justice Cases 75 District Justices (by County) Disposed 24 10 Common Pleas Case \\ !I11 79 District Court Administrators and Volume by County 68 3 Distribution of State FY Ii District Justice Court 82-83 Funds to the Three I! Philadelphia Municipal II )) Administrators (by County) 55 11 Branches of Government Court Caseload 1978-1982 11If (I 11 I' II '. I:) II, '" il 11 --~--;:::.- II )1 r 0 II 3 ~ • ....... o.:.r-"'"""'- ,ri ;1I --------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FOTlEWORD It is lilY pleasure as Chief Justice thoroughly, to reduce the time In the daily administration of our of Penn!lylvania to present the needed for judicial disposition in unified judicivl system, we have had Annmil .Report of the Administrative those cases which do ultimately the ongoing assistance of our Rules Office of Pennsylvania Courts. TIlis require action by the courts. At our Committees, all of which have been Report, ptepared 'IQder the request, a bill has recently been requested to examine existing rules of superv:i~kln of our able Court introduced in the Legislature which court with a view toward reducing Admini!il:nttor of Pennsylvania, would increase the statewide their complexity and increasing their Judge Abraham J. Gafni, provides a jurisdictional maximum for efficiency. Among the many statistimd p'rofile of the productivity arbitration from $20,000 to $40,000. contributions of our Committees has of our ctourts throughout the This increase would p.:rmit an even been the drafting of a civil procedural CommQrlwealth during 1982. greater ust. of non-judicial personnel rule, adopted this year, which where it is warranted, with each substantially reduces the amount of In 19m2, over 300,000 cases were judicial district able to set the judicial time required to verify the filed in Pennsylvania. The Annual arbitration limit within the maximum financial status of a party requesting Report demonstrates that our unified best suited to its needs. to proceed in forma pauperis. judicial !iystem has responded to this Samuel J. Roberts avalanche of litigation with In order to maximize the efficient Members of the Bar have Chief Justice of Pennsylvania dedication and efficiency. In 1982, use of available judicial time, many contributed to the work of our Rules our Supreme Court had the third courts of common pleas are Committees, as well as to many other heaviest workload of any state implementing an individual calendar activities essential to the ongoing supreme court in the nation. Our system, with random assignment of success of our unified judicial system. Superior and Commonwealth cases to each calendar. The benefits Through individual contributions Courts, courts of common pleas, of a system in which judges control and hours of volunteer service, Municipal Court of Philadelphia, their own cases from start to finish members of the Bar have made our and distr:ict.justices also faced a are obvious, as is the crucial Commonwealth's Disciplinary staggering workload, but, as the importance of the random Program a model for programs Annual Repo.rt demonstrates, they assignment of cases to individual across the country. The Client too responded with prompt, diligent judges. Security Fund was created in 1982 to adjudications. provide redress to clients who suffer As part of our continuing financial loss through lawyer Of course, the efficiency of our commitment to the goal of excellence malfeasance. Like the Disciplinary judicial system should never be in every segment of our unified Program, the Fund is completely evaluated on the basis of numbers judicial system, our Supreme Court financed through individual alone, and II,r,rould hope that our has requested Court Administrator contributions by members of the Bar. courts, lawyers, and fellow citizens Gafni and his staff to establish a would never make the mistake of statewide continuing judicial As significant as were the equating sheer speed and education program. It will be a achievements of our Bench and Bar productivity wIth quality and justice. Pennsylvania program distinctly in 1982, every segment of our judicial relevant to Pennsylvania system is resolved to work even I In a continuing effort to reach the jurisprudence, providing instruction harder in 1983, not simply to make best, .\U1d fairest judgments possible, in both practice and procedure at the best of what we have but to make I courts throughout the times and places convenient to all what we have the best. With the ! Commonwealth are taking steps to members of our Commonwealth's support and cooperation of our maximize the use of existing judicial system without undue coequal branches of government, ... 1j administrative and professional intrusion on the daily functioning of members of the Bar, and concerned resources. Our courts of common our courts. As with many aspects of citizens throughout the 4\ I pleas have increased the availability the administration of OUr unified Commonwealth, we shall continue to I of judicial tirg,e by using masters, judicial system, we look to the strive daily to achieve our supreme ~ I hearing oltfcer&and arbitrators where members of the Bar and to the fine goal of a unified judicial system of II appropriate. These non-jUdicial law schools of this Commonwealth unifornl excellence. 11 officers are able to bring many cases for assistance in assuring an to settlement w'ithout the expenditure educational program of the highest I! of judicial time and effort and, by caliber. II developing and framing the issues JI Samuel J. Roberts Chief Justice of Pennsylvania 5 4 I i: REPORT FROM THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR .) To: The Chief Justice of Finally, I wish to note the special Pennsylvania and the Justices efforts which have been made to of the Supreme Court of further the education and training of Pennsylvania judicial system personnel. The ,) Administrative Office, in cooperation with various professional associations I am pleased to transmit to you, and the Minor judiciary Education pursuant to RJ.A. 505 (14), the Board, haS provided numerous eleventh Annual Report of the educational conferences, seminars Administrative Office of and workshops for judges, district Pennsylvania Courts. This Report justices, court administrators, describes judicial system,activities probation officers, domestic relations and presents statistics related to officers, secretaries and others. calendar year 1982. While these achievements have In addition to the achievements been significant, much, of course, noted by Chief Justice Samuel J. remains to be done. I look forward to Roberts in the Foreword, some of the working with you in further special services performed by the improving the administrative Administrative Office of components of our unified judicial Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) during system so that the citizens of 1982 should be highlighted. Under Pennsylvania will continue to be well­ the leadership of former Court served during the coming years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017 Wyoming State Bar Member Survey Results
    2017 Wyoming State Bar Member Survey Results Total Distribution = 2,919 (All Active, New Active & Emeritus) Total Respondents = 767 Response Rate = 26.3% DEMOGRAPHICS 1. In which judicial district do you live? Rating Total Percent Responses First Judicial District 24.51% 187 Second Judicial District 7.21% 55 Third Judicial District 5.24% 40 Fourth Judicial District 4.72% 36 Fifth Judicial District 4.59% 35 Sixth Judicial District 5.37% 41 Seventh Judicial District 8.26% 63 Eighth Judicial District 1.83% 14 Ninth Judicial District 7.47% 57 I live outside of Wyoming 30.80% 235 Answered Question 763 Skipped Question 4 2. How long have you been a lawyer? Rating Total Percent Responses Fewer than 5 years 19.61% 150 5 – 15 years 29.02% 222 16 – 25 years 20.92% 160 More than 25 years 30.46% 233 Answered Question 765 Skipped Question 2 BAR STAFF & LEADERSHIP 3. Please rate your experience with the members of the Wyoming State Bar staff. Total Excellent Good Average Fair Poor N/A Responses Executive Director, 68.48% 15.50% 2.65% (20) 0.93% (7) 0.79% (6) 11.66% (88) 755 Sharon Wilkinson (517) (117) Cathy Duncil, 44.52% 7.75% (58) 0.80% (6) 0.13% (1) 0% (0) 46.79% 748 Admissions Director/Pro (333) (350) Bono Coordinator Marie Ellis, CLE Director 78.03% 15.18% 1.73% (13) 0.40% (3) 0.40% (3) 4.26% (32) 751 (586) (114) Brandi Robinson, 22.53% 5.73% (43) 1.07% (8) 0% (0) 0% (0) 70.67% 750 Lawyer Referral Service (169) (530) Coordinator/Modest Means Program Coordinator Caitlin Casner, 27.70% 7.32% (55) 1.33% (10) 0% (0) 0% (0) 63.65% 751 Administrative (208) (478) Assistant/Receptionist Answered Question 756 Skipped Question 11 4.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File, Please Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. ------------~ .-------------~,' .. \. JUN 221978 . ACQUiS1TIOi\lS, "-. MISDEMEANOR COURT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM PART I A Joint Project of: The American Judicature Society and The Institute for Court Management This project was supported by Grant Number 76-NI-99-0114 awarded by the Law Enforcement Assist­ ance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice under Title Iof the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub­ Law 93-83. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reIJresent the official positior/or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. June 1978 PROJECT STAFF Co-Project Directors: Harvey Solomon Allan Ashman Training and Workshop Coordinator: H. Ted Rubin Research Coordinator: James J. Alfini Research Attorneys: Charles Grau Karen Knab Training and Workshop Associate: Tom Cameron Research Associates= Rachel Doan John Ryan Special Consultant: Maureen Solomon Administrative Assistant: Susan Mauer Secretary: Patricia Bradley Research Assistants: Bren t Lindberg Jane Lynk Joseph Markowitz Mark Oldenburg Susan Thomson ADVI~.;ORY COMMITTEE Jerome S. Berg Director Administrative Office of the Massachusetts District Courts Honorable Dorothy Binder Judge Adams County Court Brighton, Colorado Honorable T. Patrick Corbett Judge King County Superior Court Seattle, Washington Professor Elmer K. Nelson School of Public Administration University of Southern California Sacramento, California Honorable Robert Wenke Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Los Angeless California Charles R. Work, Esquire Peabody, RivEn, Lambert & Meyers Washington, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface •. viii Introduction ix CHAPTER I: The Misdemeanor Courts A. Introduction....... 1 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Court Statistics 1999 Report
    The National Juvenile Court Data Archive online The annual Juvenile Court Statistics report series is one of many products supported by the National Juvenile Court Data Archive. To learn more, visit the Archive web site. ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/njcda/ ◆ The Archive web site was developed to inform researchers about available data sets and the procedures for use and access. Visitors can view and download user guides to data sets housed in the Archive and search for data sets that meet specific research interests. In addition, the site includes links to publications based on analyses of Archive data. ◆ Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics is an interactive web-based application that allows users to analyze the actual databases that are used to produce the Juvenile Court Statistics report. Users can explore in detail trends of and relationships among a youth's demographics and referral offenses, and the court's detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Results of analyses can be saved and imported into spreadsheet and word processing software. This application is available from the "Links" section on the Archive web site. ◆ Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts gives users quick access to multiple years of state and county juvenile court case counts for delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases. This application is available from the "Links" section on the Archive web site. Cover photo from the Rare Book Collection (RB neg. 52), The University Library, University of Illinois at Chicago. Juvenile Court Statistics 1999 Report Charles Puzzanchera Anne L. Stahl Terrence A. Finnegan Nancy Tierney Howard N.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial
    NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of Justice R T A I P C E E D B O J C S F A Office of Justice Programs V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial Research Report About the National Institute of Justice The National Institute of Justice, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ was established to prevent and reduce crime and to improve the criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 direct the National Institute of Justice to: ■ Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve and strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime. ■ Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for improving criminal justice. ■ Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice. ■ Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if continued or repeated. ■ Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as private organizations to improve criminal justice. ■ Carry out research on criminal behavior. ■ Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Caseload Statistics, 2007 Supplement to Examining the Work of State Courts, 2007
    State Court Caseload Statistics, 2007 Supplement to Examining the Work of State Courts, 2007 Compiled by Shauna M. Strickland, Chantal G. Bromage, Sarah A. Gibson, and William E. Raftery Court Statistics Project Staff Richard Y. Schauffler Director, Court Statistics Project Neal B. Kauder Consultant, VisualResearch, Inc. Robert C. LaFountain Senior Court Research Analyst Shauna M. Strickland Senior Court Research Analyst Chantal G. Bromage Court Research Analyst Sarah A. Gibson Court Research Analyst William E. Raftery Court Research Analyst Brenda G. Otto Program Specialist A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project. Copyright 2008 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-267-0 Suggested Citation: Court Statistics Project, State Court Caseload Statistics, 2007 (National Center for State Courts 2008) Information design and art direction for CSP publications and Web site by Neal Kauder, Visual Research, Inc. This report was developed under Grant 2007-BJ-CX-K016 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Court Statistics Committee, Conference of State Court Administrators Donald D. Goodnow, Chair (2000 to present), Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, New Hampshire Hugh M. Collins (1982 to present), Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of Louisiana Debra Dailey (2005 to present), Manager of Research and Evaluation, State Court Administrator’s Office, Minnesota Theodore Eisenberg (2002 to present), Professor, Cornell Law School, New York Hon. Patricia Griffin (2005 to present), State Court Administrator, Delaware Collins Ijoma (2005 to present), Trial Court Administrator, Superior Court of New Jersey Gerald A.
    [Show full text]
  • Forewords to the 2009, 1993, and 1986 Editions Part I: the Early History and Structure of the Conference of Chief Justices the Beginning
    ©Copyright 2009 Conference of Chief Justices/National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23188 Web sites www.ncsconline.org http://ccj.ncsc.dni.us/ ISBN: TABLE OF CONTENTS Forewords to the 2009, 1993, and 1986 Editions Part I: The Early History and Structure of the Conference of Chief Justices The Beginning . 10 Membership and Leadership . 11 Committee Structure . 12 Meetings . 13 Part II: The Work of the Conference of Chief Justices Policy Positions . 18 Conference Committees . 20 Part III: The Leadership Role of the Conference of Chief Justices The Conference of Chief Justices as a Force for Change . 24 The Changing Role of the Conference of Chief Justices . 26 Goals of the Conference of Chief Justices . 28 Networks with the Professional Community . 29 State Court Relations with the Federal Government . 29 Funding for State Courts . 31 History of Relationships with Other Legal and Judicial Organizations . 34 Relationship with the National Center for State Courts . 35 Appendices Appendix I: Current Committees of Substantive Interest . 38 Appendix II: Resolutions of Interest . 39 Appendix III: Conference of Chief Justices Chairmen and Presidents, 1949-Present . 42 Appendix IV: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices, 1957-2008 . 43 Appendix V: Chief Justices of the 50 States and Territories . 63 Appendix VI: Topics Discussed at Annual and Midyear Meetings . 72 Foreword to the 2009 Edition This year, the Conference of Chief Justices celebrates its 60th anniversary. Over the span of those decades, the Conference has evolved from a collegial group primarily devoted to discussion of common The Conference of problems into a vibrant force devoted to strengthening state court systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Compendium of Law
    STATE OF WYOMING COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by Scott E. Ortiz and Ryan Schwartz Williams, Porter, Day and Neville PC 159 North Wolcott, Suite 400 Casper, WY 82601 (307) 265-0700 www.wpdn.net Updated 2015 Pre-Suit and Initial Considerations Pre-Suit Notice Requirements/Prerequisites to Suit A) Governmental Claims Act. All governmental claims must be filed (i.e., presented to) the governmental entity within two (2) years of the occurrence, and suit must be filed within one (1) year of filing the governmental claim. There is a $250,000.00/person and $500,000.00/occurrence “cap” on any governmental claim. A governmental entity is authorized by law to purchase liability insurance coverage covering any acts or risks provided under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. WYO. STAT. ANN. § 1-39-118(b) (2015). However, if the governmental entity provides coverage beyond the limits of the “cap” for the claimed tort, then immunity is deemed waived to the full extent of those insurance limits. Id. Nonetheless, if a governmental entity purchases insurance beyond the limits of the “cap” for the purpose of protecting itself against potential losses under a federal law, the purpose for acquiring coverage beyond the limits of the Act must be stated as either a part of, or included in an a separate amendment to the insurance policy, in order to protect the governmental entity from waiving the protections afforded by the cap. Id. The Governmental Claims Act has been a hot topic in Wyoming over the last several years. The controversy has centered on certain notice provisions in the Wyoming Constitution and Statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Certiorari in Mille Lacs, the State of Minnesota Prominently Cited Repsis As Conflicting with the Eighth Circuit Decision This Court Ultimately Affirmed
    No. ______ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ CLAYVIN B. HERRERA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Wyoming, Sheridan County ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ KYLE A. GRAY GEORGE W. HICKS, JR. STEVEN A. SMALL Counsel of Record HOLLAND & HART LLP ANDREW C. LAWRENCE 401 N. 31st Street, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Suite 1500 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Billings, MT 59101 Washington, DC 20005 (406) 252-2166 (202) 879-5000 [email protected] HADASSAH REIMER HOLLAND & HART LLP 25 South Willow Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 68 Jackson, WY 83001 (307) 739-9741 Counsel for Petitioner October 5, 2017 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................ 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 3 JURISDICTION ......................................................... 3 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 4 A. Background ................................................... 4 B. Petitioner’s Prosecution, the Pre-trial Proceedings, and Petitioner’s Trial.............. 9 C. The Wyoming District Court’s Decision .... 11 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 13 I. The Decision Below Is Profoundly Wrong ........ 16 A. Wyoming’s Admission to the Union Did Not Abrogate the Crow Tribe’s Treaty Rights .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Judicial Policy and Administration MINUTES
    Board of Judicial Policy and Administration Supreme Court Building, Room 237 Cheyenne, Wyoming December 16, 2019 9:00 A.M. – NOON Video Conference MINUTES BJPA Members Present: Chief Justice Michael Davis (Chair), Justice Kate Fox, Justice Lynne Boomgaarden, Judge John Fenn*, Judge Catherine Rogers*, Judge Tom Rumpke*, Judge Bob Castor*, Judge Wes Roberts*, Judge Curt Haws* Others Present: Judge Nate Hibben*, Judge Tom Campbell*, Judge Brian Christensen*, Diane Sanchez, Laramie County Clerk of District Court, Patty Bennett, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Ronda Munger, Deputy Court Administrator, Julie Goyen, Chief Information Officer, Claire Smith, Chief Fiscal Officer, Elisa Butler, General Counsel, Heather Kenworthy, IT Applications Manager, Nate Goddard, IT Infrastructure and Operations Manager, Brittany Leasure, Internal Auditor, Cierra Hipszky, Business Manager and Lily Sharpe, State Court Administrator *Appeared remotely via phone or video conference Agenda Items Roll Call All members were present. Welcome Chief Justice Davis welcomed members and other attendees. Petition to Extend 1. Overview – Chief Justice Davis Jurisdiction of Circuit The Town of Van Tassell has petitioned the Supreme Court to extend the Court – Town of Van jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial District to violations of the Tassell town’s municipal ordinances. Chief Justice Davis clarified that W.S. § 5-9-105 requires approval of the Supreme Court and asked for a recommendation from the Board. The BJPA received the attachments below. Judge Hibben added that he spoke several times with Mr. Boldt, the attorney for Van Tassell. The town ordinances are fairly straight forward. They relate to zoning and property issues. Historically, Van Tassell has not had its own municipal court.
    [Show full text]
  • Rural Courts the Effect of Space and Distance on the Administration of Justice
    / Rural Courts The Effect of Space and Distance on the Administration of Justice A publication of the National Center for State Courts 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80203 Prepared by E. Keith Stott, Jr. Theodore J. Fetter Laura L. Crites Publication No. ROO32 July 1977 11 Copyright 1977 National Center for State Courts Cover photo by John Eastcott (Amwest Picture Agency,Denver, Colorado).Text illustrations supplied by Amwest Picture Agency include photographs by Gunnar Braten (pp. vi, xvi), Svat Macha (pp. xiv, xviii, 8, 12,22,24,32,52,55,60,80), Robea Pitzer (p. 17), and Horst Schafer (p. xii). Other photographs were supplied by the National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning and Architecture (p. 40) and Elizabeth Scott Anderson (pp. x, 65, 68, 73, 75, 77). This publication was supported by Grant 76-DF-08-007 awarded to the National Center for State Courts by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice through the Governor’s Planning Committee on Criminal Adminis- tration of the State of Wyoming. Additional financial support was provided by The EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are. those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Clark Foundation or the National Center for State Courts. ... 111 National Center for State Courts The National Center for State Courts is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the modernization of court operations and the improvement of justice at the state and local level throughout the country.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Wyoming Compendium of Law
    STATE OF WYOMING COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by Scott E. Ortiz and Ryan Schwartz Williams, Porter, Day and Neville PC 159 North Wolcott, Suite 400 Casper, WY 82601 (307) 265-0700 www.wpdn.net Updated 2017 Pre-Suit and Initial Considerations Pre-Suit Notice Requirements/Prerequisites to Suit A) Governmental Claims Act. All governmental claims must be filed (i.e., presented to) the governmental entity within two (2) years of the occurrence, and suit must be filed within one (1) year of filing the governmental claim. There is a $250,000.00/person and $500,000.00/occurrence “cap” on any governmental claim. A governmental entity is authorized by law to purchase liability insurance coverage covering any acts or risks provided under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. WYO. STAT. ANN. § 1-39-118(b) (2017). However, if the governmental entity provides coverage beyond the limits of the “cap” for the claimed tort, then immunity is deemed waived to the full extent of those insurance limits. Id. Nonetheless, if a governmental entity purchases insurance beyond the limits of the “cap” for the purpose of protecting itself against potential losses under a federal law, the purpose for acquiring coverage beyond the limits of the Act must be stated as either a part of, or included in an a separate amendment to the insurance policy, in order to protect the governmental entity from waiving the protections afforded by the cap. Id. The Governmental Claims Act has been a hot topic in Wyoming over the last several years. The controversy has centered on certain notice provisions in the Wyoming Constitution and Statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Court Statistics 1995
    ENT OF M JU U.S. Department of Justice T S R T A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention JUSTICE Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Con- gress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice. OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven components within OJJDP, described below. Research and Program Development Division Information Dissemination Unit informs individu- develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile als and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; dissemi- delinquency; supports a program for data collection nates information on juvenile justice, delinquency and information sharing that incorporates elements prevention, and missing children; and coordinates pro- of statistical and systems development; identifies how gram planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit’s activi- delinquency develops and the best methods ties include publishing research and statistical reports, for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and bulletins, and other documents, as well as overseeing analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice the operations of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.
    [Show full text]