DOCSLIB.ORG

Court Orders Related to COVID-19 in FMG Jurisdictions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Court Orders Related to COVID-19 in FMG Jurisdictions Court Orders Related to COVID-19 In FMG Jurisdictions Contents Alabama.............................................................................................................................................2 Arizona ..............................................................................................................................................4 California ...........................................................................................................................................7 Connecticut .....................................................................................................................................29 Florida ..............................................................................................................................................31 Georgia ............................................................................................................................................51 Indiana .............................................................................................................................................54 Kentucky ..........................................................................................................................................56 Maine ..............................................................................................................................................58 Maryland .........................................................................................................................................60 Massachusetts .................................................................................................................................62 New Hampshire ...............................................................................................................................64 New Jersey ......................................................................................................................................66 New York .........................................................................................................................................69 Ohio .................................................................................................................................................72 Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................................................74 Rhode Island ....................................................................................................................................78 South Carolina .................................................................................................................................79 Tennessee ........................................................................................................................................83 Vermont ..........................................................................................................................................84 Virginia ............................................................................................................................................86 Alabama Trial Courts: All in-person court proceedings are suspended through April 16 pursuant to the State Supreme Court’s March 13, 2020 Administrative Order. Exceptions include proceedings to protect constitutional rights of criminal defendants, civil and criminal trials in progress as of March 13, and proceedings relating to child custody and protection from abuse. Court proceedings may continue by telephone, video, or other means not involving in-person contact. Any deadlines subject to regulation by the court that were set to expire between March 16 and April 16, 2020 are extended to April 20, 2020. This does not include statutory period of repose or statute limitations. By order dated March 15, 2020, out-of-court activities should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and parties are to work together to implement social- distancing. Depositions and court proceedings may be conducted by audio-video communication, and all court rules providing that oaths must be administered in person are suspended. The March 13, 2020 Order does not apply to filings made electronically with the State’s three Appellate Courts. Hard copies of briefs are not required to be filed until April 17, 2020. By Order dated March 18, any workers’ compensation settlement hearing may be conducted telephonically or by videoconference, and any workers compensation settlement may be approved by an ombudsman of the Alabama Department of Labor or by a circuit court judge. Court of Appeals of Alabama: The Supreme Court’s order below applies to both the Civil and Criminal Courts of Appeal. Supreme Court of Alabama: The Court’s order of March 17, 2020, suspended the requirement for filing hard copies of briefs and appendices through April 17. Federal District Courts: The Northern District of Alabama, by order dated March 11, 2020, precludes from entry anyone who has travelled to China, South Korea, Japan, Italy or Iran over the past 14 days. 2 | P a g e The Middle District of Alabama also precludes entry of travelers from the countries noted above. Effective March 17, 2020, no jurors will be summoned for civil or jury trials for 30 days. All jury trials scheduled during that period, including any trial specific deadlines, are CONTINUED for 30 days pending further Order of the Court. Initial Appearances, arraignments, and detention hearings will be conducted by telephone or videoconference. The court’s Order does not affect the Court's consideration of civil or criminal motions that can be resolved without oral argument. Any requirement for the provision of the delivery of courtesy copies to judges’ chambers in civil and criminal cases is suspended pending further notice. The Southern District of Alabama has authorized the use of video or teleconferencing for hearings, arraignments, and other criminal proceedings. Effective March 30, 2020, and until further ordered, public access to all court hearings in criminal cases will be broadcast to the Jury Assembly Room. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: The Eleventh Circuit has issued General Order No. 44, restricting courthouse access and modifying its paper filing requirement to excuse filings by those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who have potentially been exposed. The Court has also entered an order permitting oral argument to be heard by audio or teleconferencing. Where feasible, those arguments will be livestreamed, but in any event they will be posted on the Court’s website. Return to Table of Contents 3 | P a g e Arizona Trial Courts: Under Supreme Court Order 2020-48 the courts of Arizona remain open under the following restrictions: All in-person proceeding in all Arizona Appellate, Superior, Justice and Municipal Courts are to be avoided to the greatest extent possible, consistent with core Constitutional Rights. Empaneling Juries through April 17, 2020 shall be rescheduled. The presiding Superior Court Judge of each county shall determine how in-person Court proceedings are to be conducted under conditions that protect the public health. Any rule that impedes a judge or court clerk’s ability to use technologies to eliminate or limit in-person conduct of court business is suspended through April 17, 2020. Judges may hold ex parte hearings on order of protection telephonically. Through April 17, 2020 any judge unable to rule on any pending matter due to illness or is otherwise unable to work is deemed physically disabled and therefore such period is excluded from the 60-day calculation to issue rulings on all submitted matters. Except for limited matters related to the health and safety of the public, the time period March 18, 2020 through April 17, 2020 is excluded from calculation of time under any rule, provision and statutory procedure that require court proceeding. Coconino County Courts remain open but encouraging delay of non-essential matters. All criminal and civil Trials are postponed through April 17,2020. Counsel shall consult the Court for status of previously scheduled hearings. Yavapai County Superior and Justice Court will remain open. Jury trials are postponed through April 17, 2020. Court proceedings will continue to be conducted in a manner that provides for the safety of participants and court personnel, promoting social distancing and recommendation of the CDC. 4 | P a g e Maricopa County (Metro-Phoenix Area) No in-person hearings will be conducted through April 30, 2020. All matters will be help telephonically. No new juries will be empaneled through April 30, 2020. Court will continue to accept electronically filed documents. Judicial Officers shall determine on the papers if a hearing is required and sell set telephonic hearings where necessary. Drop off boxes for judicial divisions continue to be accepted. Evictions and forcible detainer matters will be heard only where irreparable and immediate breach is alleged through April 30, 2020. All applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions will be determined on the papers filed. Any hearing the Court deems necessary will be heard telephonically. Pima County (Metro Tucson Area) All non-essential hearings are postponed or will be heard by alternate means. Counsel are directed to contact the assigned division to further direction. Counsel and the public are requested to delay filing all non-essential and discretionary matters and proceedings. Jury trials are
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V
    No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner January 8, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in this case violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia properly denied the Motion to Intervene of the Petitioner, the West Virginia House of Delegates. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Respondents are Margaret L. Workman; Mitch Carmichael, President of the West Virginia Senate; Donna J. Boley, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; Ryan Ferns, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the West Virginia Senate. Petitioner is the West Virginia House of Delegates as an indispensable and materially affected party who was wrongfully denied intervenor status.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Superior Court Building
    f • F I LED NOV 2 5 1997 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA In The Matter Of: ) ) A NEW JURY HANDBOOK ) Administrative Order FOR THE SUPERIOR ) No. 97- 64 COURT IN PINAL COUNTY ) ) --------------------------------) Pursuant to Rule 18.6(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, Alma J. Haught, Clerk of the Superior Court in Pinal County, requests the Court's approval of a new jury handbook. The Court, having reviewed a draft of the handbook, finds that it is sufficient in form and content to fully and properly advise jurors of their conduct and duties, and the operations of the judicial system in which they will be serving. Now, therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution, IT IS ORDERED that the handbook is approved for immediate use by the Superior Court in Pinal County in the form submitted hereto as Attachment A. DATED this 25th day of November ,1997. THOMAS A. ZLA~ Chief Justice COpy ,4TTACHMENT A .f lJ I( \' i 1;\ N I,.I()OK PINAL ('OllNT" COlll{TS STAT II: OF AIUZONA Illi,- I, '''Hlh'''''' h:" I" \'11 :ll'llnl\' cI It, Ih,' '-I'p"'IIII' t ollfl III Ih.' ',1;1'1' ul ;\liltilla 1"" '>lI:!!I' ,,, "H' 1(110,,1 ( I illlillal l'rlltT,lul'/ Hllh lit I,'al. JURY HANDBOOK Prepared by: Alma Jennlnp Hauabt Oerk of tbe Superior Court 1997 Edition INDEX General Information 6S Absence from Employment 6S Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Period of Service 6S Justice of the Peace Judges and Precincts 4 Work Verification 66 Superior Court Judges and Divisions 6 Parking 66 Clerk of the Superior Court! Attire 66 Jury Commissioner 18 Vacation/Change of Address 66 Welcome 21 Payment 67 Introduction 23 Badges 67 Guarantees of the Right to Trial by Jury 25 Jury Trial Scheduling 67 Arizona's Judicial System 27 Smoking Policy 67 Supreme Court 28 Telephones 68 Court of Appeals 29 Security 68 Superior Court 30 Pinal County Complex Diagram 69 Justice of the Peace Courts 32 Judicial Building (Courthouse) Diagram 70 Municipal Courts 34 Important Telephone Numbers 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The
    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2176 ELDERBERRY OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIVING CENTERS – SOUTHEAST, INCORPORATED, a North Carolina corporation; FMSC WEBER CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CONTINIUMCARE OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-00052-NKM-RSB) Argued: January 28, 2015 Decided: July 21, 2015 Amended: August 10, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Wynn joined. ARGUED: James F. Segroves, HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. James Strother Crockett, Jr., SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lori D. Thompson, LECLAIRRYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. Travis A. Knobbe, M. Mallory Mantiply, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellee Elderberry of Weber City, LLC (“Elderberry”) filed this civil action in the Western District of Virginia alleging breach of a lease for a skilled nursing facility against defendants-appellants Living Centers – Southeast, Inc. (“Living Centers”), FMSC Weber City Operating Company, LLC (“FMSC”), and ContiniumCare of Weber City (“Continium”), and breach of a guaranty contract against defendant-appellant Mariner Health Care, Inc. (“Mariner”). Separately, in the Northern District of Georgia, Mariner filed a declaratory judgment action against Elderberry, seeking a declaration that it had no obligations under the guaranty.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures Can Work to Reduce Delay?
    MANAGING CASEFLOW IN STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS: WHAT MECHANISMS, PRACTICES, AND PROCEDURES CAN WORK TO REDUCE DELAY? RICHARD B. HOFFMAN* BARRY MAHONEY** * B.S., 1967, Cornell University; J.D., 1970, Harvard Law School. Member, District of Columbia Bar; Director, Washington Office, The Justice Management Institute, 1997-2001; Senior Counsel, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1992-1997; Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals, 1987- 1992. ** President Emeritus, The Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado. A.B., 1959, Dartmouth College; LL.B., 1962, Harvard Law School; Ph.D., 1976, Columbia University. This Article presents findings from a study by the Justice Management Institute (JMI) of case processing in state intermediate appellate courts. The Article is based on research conducted by the authors pursuant to a grant from the State Justice Institute to JMI (Grant No. SJI-98-N-032), and is adapted from a project report of the same title that was prepared as a JMI work product in October 2001. Points of view expressed in the Article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. Appreciation is owed and warmly rendered to many who have been instrumental in conducting this study, providing information and insight to the authors and making constructive suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. First, we owe thanks to those in the courts we studied who allowed us access to their data and their knowledge and helped us resolve multiple issues of coordination, interpretation, and analysis arising from the work. These key people included: Maryland: Chief Judge Joseph F.
    [Show full text]
  • Azturbocourt User Manual
    AZTurboCourt User Manual Arizona Supreme Court - Court Services Division Version 3.9 Updated using gamma version 10.9.3 August 2013 1 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved 2 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved Contents Section One: AZTurboCourt Registration 5 AZTurboCourt Home Page 7 Registering: 7 Adding a user account 9 Editing Organization Information 10 Inactivating a user account 10 Section Two: User Menu 11 Start a new filing 11 Messages 11 Recent e-filing 12 My Forms 13 My Profile 15 My Payments/Financial 16 Section Three: E-filing in Maricopa County Superior Court 17 Maricopa County Superior Court Main Document Types 22 Subsequent Document Title List 23 Section Four: Court of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme Court 25 Things to know before you start e-filing 25 Start a new case: Court of Appeals Div. One and or/ the Arizona Supreme Court 26 Subsequent filings: Court of Appeals Div One and/or the Arizona Supreme Court 31 Access conformed court copy 35 Document Title List 37 Initiating Document Title List-Arizona Supreme Court 37 Subsequent Document Title List- Arizona Supreme Court 38 Initiating Document Title List-Court of Appeals Division One 40 Subsequent Document Title List- Court of Appeals Division One 41 Section Five: Payment Options 43 Section Six: Supplemental Information 51 Attach supporting documents in Maricopa County Superior Court 51 Attach supporting documents in Court of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme Court 51 Courtesy Notifications 52 Filing Details and Status Messages: 52 Trouble Shooting Error Messages 53 Header Detail on Attachment Page 55 Keyword Matter # 55 Request my forms 55 Copy for new form set 56 Delete Filing 57 List my forms 57 Start new filing 58 Summary Sheet 59 3 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved Viewing Court Case Documents 59 Common Terms 61 Administrative Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2011-2013
    Arizona Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2011-2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 9 II. PLANNING METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS ................................... 18 III. JUDICIAL BRANCH VISION ......................................................... 21 IV. JUDICIAL BRANCH STRATEGIC INITIATIVES .............................. 24 V. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC INITIATIVES .............. 34 VI. FISCAL YEAR 2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS .................................... 41 VII. CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS ......................................... 57 VIII. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ............................................................ 59 IX. STRATEGIC PROJECTS .............................................................. 97 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: HARDWARE ENVIRONMENT DETAIL .......................................... 211 APPENDIX B: SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT DETAIL .......................................... 213 APPENDIX C: TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS………………….220 APPENDIX D: COUNTY COURT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLANS ............................................................................................ 228 ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN: 2011 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arizona Judicial Branch is using technology to reach its goals of connecting with and protecting the community. Having built the basic
    [Show full text]
  • STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting Cleveland, Ohio Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Abrahamson, Shirley S. Wisconsin Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Amestoy, Jeffrey L. Vermont Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Becker, Daniel Utah Andreu-Garda, Jose A. Puerto Rico Benedict, Jerry L. Texas Arnold, W. H. (Dub) Arkansas Berson, Steven V. Colorado Bell, Robert M. Maryland Broderick, Michael F. Hawaii Benham, Robert Georgia Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benton, Duane Missouri Byers, David K. Arizona Brock, David A. New Hampshire Cameron, Dallas A., Jr. North Carolina Callahan, Robert J. Connecticut Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Ciancia, James J. New Jersey Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Cole, Stephanie J. Alaska Chapel, Charles S. Oklahoma Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Durham, Barbara Washington Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota F1aherj:y, John P. Pennsylvania Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Franchini, Gene E. New Mexico Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Freeman, Charles E. Illinois Ferry, John D., Jr. Michigan George, Ronald M. California Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Glessner, James T. Maine Hooper, Perry 0., Sr. Alabama Goodnow, Donald D. New Hampshire Kauger, Yvonne Oklahoma Greacen, John M. New Mexico Kaye, Judith S. New York Gregory, Frank W. Alabama Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Kogan, Gerald Florida Guerrero, Edward C. D. Northern Mariana Islands Kruse, E Michael American Samoa Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Lee, Dan M.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Perspective on the Timeliness of State Supreme Courts
    JURISDICTION, CASELOAD, AND TIMELINESS OF STATE SUPREME COURTS A Report Prepared by Dr. Roger A. Hanson Consultant June 2001 This document was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant from the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-98-N-038). The points of view expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is on the timeliness of state supreme courts. According to the Appellate Court Performance Standards, expedition is one of the three primary goals state appellate courts should strive to achieve. The other values are fairness and consistency. What is the actual time taken to resolve cases? How do state supreme courts stand in relation to the numerical time frames proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA)? What are the problems of and prospects for comparing state supreme courts with one another? These are the organizing questions addressed in this report. Five courts are the objects of study. They include the Supreme Courts of Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio and Virginia. All of these courts are seven member bodies. What emerges from an inquiry of cases resolved by these courts in 1996 and 1997 is an interesting tale. There are three key propositions based on analysis of the jurisdiction, caseload mixture, and timeliness of the five courts. They include the following: First, contrary to both popular and established scholarly views of state supreme courts in two-tiered appellate systems, state supreme courts have substantial numbers of several kinds of cases to resolve.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS *:* *:* 1995 *:* 1995 Annual Meeting Monterey, California Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Allen, Frederic W. Vermont Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Andr&Garcia, Jose A. Puerto Rico Berson, Steven V. Colorado Baca, Joseph F. New Mexico Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benham, Robert Georgia Byers, David K. Arizona Bilandic, Michael A. Illinois Cetrulo, Don Kentucky Brickley, James H. Michigan Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Brock, David A. New Hampshire Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota Durham, Barbara Washington Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Feldman, Stanley G. Arizona Drennan, James C. North Carolina Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Duncan, Robert L. Wyoming Golden, Michael Wyoming Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Grimes, Stephen H. Florida Gilmore, Oliver Alabama Hawkins, Armis E. Mississippi Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Heffernan, Nathan S. Wisconsin Glessner, James T. Maine Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Greenwood, Pamela T. Utah Holmes, Richard W. Kansas Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Holstein, John C. Missouri Hall, Marilyn K. Michigan Holt, Jack, Jr. Arkansas Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Hornsby, Sonny Alabama Harrall, Robert C. Rhode Island Johnson, Charles A. 0k 1ah o m a Irwin, John J., Jr. Massachusetts Kaye, Judith S. New York Judice, C. Raymond Texas Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Kanter, Deborah New Mexico Kruse, F. Michael American Samoa Kotzan, Bruce A. Indiana Lamorena, Albert0 C., 111 Guam Larkin, Ronald L.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: an Updated Appraisal (September 2014)
    E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Updated Appraisal (September 2014) Originally by David Schanker, Clerk (retired), Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Updated and revised by Timothy A. Gudas, Deputy Clerk, New Hampshire Supreme Court1 Introduction In 2010, David Schanker, with the editorial assistance and contributions of NCACC members Polly Brock, Stuart Cohen, Carol Green, Trish Harrington, Blake Hawthorne, Judy Pacheco, Rex Renk, Rachelle Resnick, and Holly Sparrow, authored a White Paper entitled “E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Appraisal.” The 2010 White Paper reported that electronic filing (e-filing) had been implemented in “every federal district court in the nation and in several federal courts of appeal, while in state appellate courts, electronic filing continued to be discussed far more than it had been realized.” According to the 2010 White Paper, the states’ progress toward appellate (as well as trial court) e-filing had been “agonizingly slow,” with only fifteen states having implemented appellate e-filing systems of any kind.2 The stated purpose of the 2010 White Paper was to “provide a 1 This 2014 Updated Appraisal was written with the assistance and contributions of numerous NCACC members, including Tom Hall, Mike Richie, Bessie Decker, Jenny Kitchings, Blake Hawthorne, Joe Stanton, and countless others who reviewed sections summarizing the status of e-filing in their states. In addition, this 2014 Updated Appraisal is directly indebted to the work of those who contributed to the 2010 White Paper, substantial portions of which are repeated here with minimal or no change. 2 The 2010 White Paper defined an appellate e-filing system as either (1) an Internet portal used for the transmission of electronically-filed documents from filers to the courts or (2) a scheme for the voluntary or required transmission of electronic documents to the court by e-mail.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020
    JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP HANDBOOK 2019-2020 The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office C. Blake McDowell Law Center 150 University Avenue Akron, OH 44325 Phone: 330-972-5321 https://www.uakron.edu/law/career-services/ Alisa Benedict O’Brien, Assistant Dean Alecia Bencze, Assistant Director 1 | Page The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office ___________________________________________________________________ Judicial Clerkships A judicial clerkship is one of the strongest foundations upon which any law career can be built. Judicial clerkships are post-graduate positions, usually lasting one or two years, in which you work as the right-hand analytical and research person for a judge. The positions usually start in August or September of each year. Deadlines for applications to federal judges are rolling and determined by individual judges. Student applicants should apply beginning in February of 2L year (2D, 3E). Some federal judges will accept applications from students during the fall or spring of their 3L year. For Class of 2020 grads, applications will be released beginning June 17, 2019. For Class of 2021 grads, applications will be released beginning June 15, 2020. Applications for judicial clerkships with state court judges are due for some states during the 2nd year of law school, and for most states, during the fall of the 3rd year of law school. More positions are available with state court judges in your final semester as well. Judicial law clerk (“judicial clerk”) experience is universally recognized by the legal community to be extremely useful in law practice, so it is one of the most valuable experiences you could ever want on your resume.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Summary and Expedited The
    SHORT, SUMMARY & EXPEDITED THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL JURY TRIALS SHORT, SUMMARY & EXPEDITED THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL JURY TRIALS PROJECT DIRECTOR PAULA L. HANNAFORD-AGOR PROJECT STAFF NICOLE L. WATERS AMY M. MCDOWELL SUSAN L. KEILITZ CYNTHIA G. LEE SHANNON BAPTISTE Acknowledgments In compiling these case studies, we are indebted to the judges, attorneys, and court staff who gave so generously of their time and expertise: ARIZONA NEW YORK Hon. Norman Davis Hon. Douglas McKeon Hon. Hugh Hegyi Hon. Barry Salman Hon. Joseph Gama Hon. Lucindo Suarez Marcus Reinkensmeyer Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Phil Knox Jack Lehnert Peter Kiefer Frank Vozza, Esq. Emelda Dailey Annmarie Webster, Esq. Andrew Turk, Esq. Michelle Kolodny, Esq. Dorothy Paine, Esq. CALIFORNIA OREGON Hon. Mary Thornton House Hon. Paul De Muniz Hon. Curtis Karnow Hon. Adrienne Nelson Hon. Michael P. Linfield Hon. Henry Kantor Patrick O’Donnell Hon. Janice Wilson Dan Pone Hon. Marilynn Litzenberger Anne Ronan Hon. Judith Matarrazo Dag MacLeod Douglas P. Oh-Keith, Esq. Kristin Greenaway Walter H. Sweek, Esq. Gregory C. Drapac Elijah B. Van Camp, Esq. Gloria Gomez Jason Kafoury, Esq. Dawn Marie Favata, Esq. Erik Van Hagen, Esq. Michael Geibelson, Esq. Emery Wang, Esq. Mike Maguire, Esq. Dean Heiling, Esq. Jon P. Strouss, III, Esq. Tyler Staggs, Esq. Eric V. Traut, Esq. Randall Wolfe, Esq. Larry Shuckman, Esq. We are also indebted to Peter Kyle and Rachel Ganong for background research and to Shannon Baptiste for SOUTH CAROLINA administrative support. Hon. Jean Hoefer Toal Hon. Daniel Pieper This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-D1-BX-K038 Hon. Kristi Harrington awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
    [Show full text]