DOCSLIB.ORG

Navigating the Court System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Navigating the Court System UTAH SUPREME COURT Five Justices: 10-year terms The Supreme Court is the “court of last resort” in Utah. It hears appeals from capital and first degree felony cases and all district court civil cases other than domestic relations cases. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction over judgments of the Court of Appeals, proceedings of the Judicial Conduct Commission, lawyer discipline, and constitutional and election questions. COURT OF APPEALS Seven Judges: 6-year terms The Court of Appeals hears all appeals from the Juvenile Courts and those from the District Courts involving domestic relations and criminal matters of less than a first-degree felony. It also may hear any cases transfered to it by the Supreme Court. DISTRICT COURT JUVENILE COURT Seventy-one Judges / Nine Court Commissioners Twenty-eight Judges / One Court Commissioner District Court is the state trial court of general jurisdiction. Juvenile Court is the state court with jurisdiction over youth Among the cases it hears are: under 18 years of age, who violate a state or municipal law. s#IVILCASESs$OMESTICRELATIONSCASESs0ROBATECASES The Juvenile Court also has jurisdiction in all cases involving a s#RIMINALCASESs3MALLCLAIMSCASESs!PPEALSFROM*USTICE#OURTS child who is abused, neglected, or dependent. JUSTICE COURT One hundred and eight Judges Located throughout Utah, Justice Courts are locally-funded and operated courts. Justice Court cases include: s-ISDEMEANORCRIMINALCASESs4RAFlCANDPARKINGINFRACTIONSs3MALLCLAIMSCASES 1 Case Types and Initiating Documents in Justice Courts Case Types in Justice Courts January 2017 GENERAL CIVIL CASES A case filed on the court's own motion. May involve a juror or witness who refuses to Contempt testify or obey a subpoena or an attorney who fails to appear at a court hearing. Small Claims A case filed to collect monies owed not exceeding $10,000. (Utah Code 78A‐8‐101 to 109) A case filed by a government agency to collect monies owed not exceeding $10,000. Small Claims Gov’t (Utah Code 78A‐8‐101 to 109) CRIMINAL CASES AND ACTIONS A violation of Utah driving under the influence statutes punishable by a fine and/or Misdemeanor DUI confinement in a local jail, but not by imprisonment in the Utah State prison system. (Utah Code 76‐3‐104) A crime punishable by a fine and/or confinement in a local jail, but not by imprisonment Other Misdemeanor in the Utah State prison system. (Excludes misdemeanor violations of DUI statutes.) (Utah Code 76‐3‐104) A violation of a statute, local ordinance or regulation punishable by a fine, but not of Infraction confinement or imprisonment. (Utah Code 76‐3‐105) TRAFFIC AND PARKING CASES Parking Citation A case in which a parking citation is resolved. Parking Court Case A case in which a parking citation is contested and resolved. Traffic Citation A violation related to the operation of a motor vehicle, usually punishable by fine. A case generated out of a citation related to the operation of a motor vehicle or in which Traffic Court Case the defendant contests the citation and a hearing is set, or the defendant fails to appear and a warrant is issued. Case Initiating Documents in Justice Courts January 2017 CASE INITIATING DOCUMENTS All Criminal Information/Indictment Small Claims Small Claims Affidavit Small Claims Gov’t Small Claims Affidavit Expungement Filings This document should be efiled to the existing criminal case. Expungement Petition eFiling Exception: File in paper if for arrest only, or the case is not available in efiling. 2 Small Claims Trial and Appeal Flow Chart Justice Court District Court Plaintiff starts case in justice court. Appeal in district court is a trial de novo, with or Case is tried by a judge. without a jury. Rules of Small Claims Procedure apply. Rules of Small Claims Procedure apply. Appeal is to district court. No further appeals. Plaintiff starts case in justice court. Case is tried by a judge or jury in the District Court. Defendant removes case to district court (URSCP Rules of Civil Procedure apply. 4A). Appeal is to the Court of Appeals. Case is tried in justice court by a judge. Plaintiff starts case in district court. Rules of Small Claims Procedure apply. Defendant and plaintiff agree to remove case to Appeal is to the district court. justice court (Utah Code Section 78A-8-102(2) & URSCP 2A). Plaintiff starts case in district court. Court of Appeals Rules of Civil Procedure apply. Case is tried by a judge or jury. Appeal is to the Court of Appeals. Small Claims Trial and Appeal Flow Chart See https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/smallclaims/ for more Small Claims information Revised August 2016 3 Checklist for Appealing a Small Claims Judgment Keep a copy of all documents for your records. Attend all court hearings. (1) Notice of Appeal Print your name and contact information at the top of the first page. Check whether you are the plaintiff or defendant or the attorney for the plaintiff or defendant. Complete the heading exactly as it appears in the Affidavit and Summons. Omit any private or protected information. When filed, this document is a public record. Code of Judicial Administration Rule 4-202.09(9) requires that you omit from a public record any information that is not itself public information. For a list of records, data and information classified as public, private, and protected, see Rule 4-202.02. Date and sign the form. Complete the Certificate of Service. Serve the form on the other party. File the form with the trial court clerk. 2010.10 4 Checklist for Removing a Case from Justice Court to District Court You must complete a form before you file it. These instructions will help you complete the forms. Court staff cannot complete a form for you. Attach a copy of any document referred to in the form. Keep a copy of all documents for your records. Attend all court hearings. Some forms may not apply in your case. Contact the Self-Help Center if you need more help: http://www.utcourts.gov/selfhelp/contact/. (1) Notice of Removal from Justice Court First file this document in the district court. Print your name and contact information at the top of the first page. Check whether you are the defendant or the attorney for the defendant. Print the judicial district number, the county name and the court address in the blank lines. Complete the heading exactly as it appears in the complaint. Paragraph (1): This is a requirement. Make sure that it is true before signing the document. Paragraph (2): Either you (defendant) must reside in the jurisdiction of the district court or at least one of the events in the case must have happened in the jurisdiction of the justice court. Check one or both boxes, but at least one of the statements must be true. Paragraph (3): Print the name of the justice court on the blank line. File the original form with the court clerk. (2) Notice of Removal to District Court After you file the Notice of Removal from Justice Court form (described in paragraph (1)) in the district court and have a case number and trial date, file the Notice of Removal to District Court form in the justice court. Print your name and contact information at the top of the first page. Check whether you are the defendant or the attorney for the defendant. Checklist for Removing a Case from Justice Court Rev. November 2017 Page 1 to District Court 5 Print the judicial district number, the county name and the court address in the blank lines. Complete the heading exactly as it appears in the complaint. Paragraph (1): Print the name of the district court on the blank line. Paragraph (2): Either you (defendant) must reside in the jurisdiction of the district court or at least one of the events in the case must have happened in the jurisdiction of the district court. Check one or both boxes, but at least one of the statements must be true. Paragraph (3): Print the district court case number and trial date on the blank lines. Paragraph (5): You have 15 days from the date you were served with the complaint to file this Notice in the justice court and to file this Notice with the district court. File the original form with the court clerk. (3) Notice of Hearing When you file the Notice of Removal from Justice Court, the district court clerk will schedule the case for trial. Select a date that is convenient for you, the other party and the court. Print your name and contact information at the top of the first page. Check district court. Print the judicial district number, the county name and the court address on the blank lines. Complete the heading exactly as it appears in the complaint/petition. Identify plaintiff and defendant by name and address. Print “Trial” on the blank line. Print the date and time of the trial. Print also the judge’s name and courtroom number for the hearing. Date and sign the form. Complete the Certificate of Service. Serve the form and any attachments on the other party by one of the methods described in the certificate of service. URCP 5 governs service. File the original form with the court clerk. Checklist for Removing a Case from Justice Court Rev. November 2017 Page 2 to District Court 6 What is Juvenile Court? What are Juvenile Courts like? Established in 1905, Utah’s Juvenile Court serves Juvenile Courts are different in some ways from many purposes. The court has jurisdiction over juve- adult courts. Attempts are made to protect the juve- niles under the age of 18 who have committed an nile’s privacy, so many of the hearings are closed to Utah’s the public.
Recommended publications
  • No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P

    No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P

    Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement Volume 2012 Article 2 2012 No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P. Newton Teresa L. Welch Neal G. Hamilton Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Newton, Samuel P.; Welch, Teresa L.; and Hamilton, Neal G. (2012) "No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts," Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement: Vol. 2012 , Article 2. Available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw/vol2012/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah OnLaw: The tU ah Law Review Online Supplement by an authorized editor of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NO JUSTICE IN UTAH’S JUSTICE COURTS: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS, AND THE FAILURE TO PROTECT † DEFENDANTS IN UTAH’S INFAMOUS LOCAL COURTS Samuel P. Newton,* Teresa L. Welch,** & Neal G. Hamilton*** [T]here’ll be no Justice of the Peace for you; just a big piece of justice.1 INTRODUCTION Justice courts2 could be called the most loved and hated court in the judicial system. The justices of the peace who preside over the courts are equally polarizing figures. The courts have been called “a powerful, multifaceted, local legal institution”3 which “helped design and weave together the social, economic, and political fabric”4 of American society.
  • Appellant's Reply Brief

    Appellant's Reply Brief

    __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, 450 S. State Street, Salt Lake City. Utah 84078 (801) 578-3900 __________________________________________________________________ MACAELA DANYELE DAY, : APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF Appellee, : vs. : Case No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, : Appellant. : APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER REGARDING RELOCATION THE HONORABLE DAVID M. CONNORS PRESIDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLISHED OPINION REQUESTED __________________________________________________________________ THEODORE R. WECKEL, JR. ERIC B. BARNES Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Appellee 299 S. Main Street, Suite 1300 47 N. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Kaysville, UT 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 801-546-3874 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii-iii ARGUMENT I. MACAELA’S DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED. 1-5 II. TYLER’S SUFFICIENCY/MARSHALING ARGUMENT FAILS. 5-10 III. REVERSAL IS WARRANTED FOR ERIC BARNES’S ACTIONS. 10- 12 . CONCLUSION . 12 -13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Day v. Barnes, 2018 UT App. 143, 427 P.3d 1272 . 2 Farley v. Utah County, 2019 UT App 45, 440 P.3d 856 . 9 Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App. 290, 989 P.2d 491 . 8 Paryzek v. Paryzek, 776 P.2d 78 (UT App. 1989) . 6 Pledger v. Cox, 626 P.2d 415 (UT 1981) . 3 Robertson v. Robertson, 2016 UT App. 55, 370 P.3d 569 . 6, 8 Sterling Fiduciaries, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2017 UT App. 135, 402 P.3d 130 . 10 United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1996) . 1, 2 ii STATUTES U.C.A. § 30-3-10 . 5 U.C.A. § 30-3-10.2 .
  • David Lee Hewitt V. State of Utah : Brief of Appellee

    David Lee Hewitt V. State of Utah : Brief of Appellee

    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 1993 David Lee Hewitt .v State of Utah : Brief of Appellee Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca1 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Jan Graham; Attorney General; James H. Beadles; Assistant Attorney General; Attorney for Appellee. David Lee Hewitt; Utah State Prison; Appearing Pro Se. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellee, Hewitt .v Utah, No. 930035 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1993). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca1/3924 This Brief of Appellee is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. UTAH COURT OF APPEALS UTAH DOCUMENT KFU 50 .A10 IN THE tJTAH C0URT 0F DOCKET NO APPEALS DAVID LEE HEWITT, : Petitioner and Appellant, s: Case No, 930035-CA V. J : Priority No, 3 STATE OF UTAH, s Respondent and Appellee. ; BRIEF OF APPELLEE APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J.
  • Finlayson V. State of Utah [10846589] 07/28/2021

    Finlayson V. State of Utah [10846589] 07/28/2021

    Appellate Case: 19-4151 Document: 010110554585 Date Filed: 07/28/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 28, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ JEFFERY RUSSELL FINLAYSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 19-4151 STATE OF UTAH, Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00818-DAK) _________________________________ Andrew Parnes, the Law Office of Andrew Parnes, Ketchum, Idaho, for Petitioner- Appellant Jeffery Russell Finlayson. Erin Riley, Assistant Solicitor General, Salt Lake City, Utah, (Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General, Salt Lake City, Utah, with her on the brief) for Respondent-Appellee State of Utah. _________________________________ Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ CARSON, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ A Utah state court dismissed Petitioner Jeffery Russell Finlayson’s habeas corpus proceeding for failure to prosecute. After appealing that decision, Petitioner brought a petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But the district court Appellate Case: 19-4151 Document: 010110554585 Date Filed: 07/28/2021 Page: 2 found the state court’s dismissal procedurally barred federal relief. So the district court dismissed the petition and granted judgment for Respondent the State of Utah, denying a certificate of appealability. Petitioner appealed, and a judge of this Court issued a certificate of appealability on two issues. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a) and affirm the district court on both issues. I. In 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a Utah state court, related to his 1995 conviction for sex crimes (the state court petition).
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GREG ANDERSON Petitioner, VS. GARY HERBERT et. al. Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Greg Anderson pro se 24 South 7' Street Tooele, Utah 84074 Phone: 385 231-5005 NOV 1 - 2018 QUESTION PRESENTED Is a judgment void on its face, when a State Court steals a paid-for home at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings, under the guise that the owner was a tenant, where plaintiff attorneys misrepresented the law and contractual terms of the purchase contract 30 times in a 6 page document, then wrote the "Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law," with no reference to the purported record, and the judge rubber-stamped plaintiffs claims, and the court denied itself jurisdiction by not strictly adhering to the statute, thereby implicating conspiracy. 11 PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioner is Greg Anderson. Respondents Are Gary Herbert in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Utah, Sean Reyes in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Utah, Clark A McClellan, in His Individual Capacity, and in His Official Capacity for His Extra- judicial Acts, Third District Court, in its Official Capacity, Eighth District Court in its Official Capacity, Utah Court of Appeals in its Official Capacity, Daniel W. Kitchen, James L. Ahistrom, Terry Welch, Lynn Kitchen, Gary Kitchen, Mathew J. Kitchen, Mark R. Kitchen, Sandbay LLC Sunlake LLC, Orchid Beach LLC Roosevelt Hills LLC, John or Jane Doe(s) 1 Through 10 Note: No John or Jane Doe's have been named, nor have any other parties.
  • Appellee's Brief

    Appellee's Brief

    IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS 450 South State Street, SLC, UT 84111 (801) 578-3900 MACAELA DAY, PUBLIC Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Appellate Court No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, Respondent/Appellee BRIEF OF APPELLEE ________________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Second Judicial District Court, Davis County, from a final order denying a change in physical custody through a motion to relocate before the Honorable David M. Connors, District Court No. 134700668 ________________________________________________________________________ Theodore R. Weckel, JR. Eric B. Barnes 299 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 47 North Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Kaysville, Utah 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 546-3874 Attorney for Appellant Attorney for Appellee Oral Argument Requested Non-Public Opinion Requested __________________ Table of Contents Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................ iv Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Jurisdictional Statement .................................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Issues and Standards of Review ...................................................... 1 Determinative Provisions ............................................................................................... 2 Statement of the Case .....................................................................................................
  • Appellant's Brief

    Appellant's Brief

    __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, 450 S. State Street, Salt Lake City. Utah 84078 (801) 578-3900 __________________________________________________________________ MACAELA DANYELE DAY, : APPELLANT’S PRINCIPAL BRIEF Appellee, : vs. : Case No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, : Appellant. : APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER REGARDING RELOCATION THE HONORABLE DAVID M. CONNORS PRESIDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLISHED OPINION REQUESTED __________________________________________________________________ THEODORE R. WECKEL, JR. ERIC B. BARNES Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Appellee 299 S. Main Street, Suite 1300 47 N. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Kaysville, UT 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 801-546-3874 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii-iv INTRODUCTION . 1-2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . I. WHETHER THE RELOCATION HEARING DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS? . 2 II. WHETHER THE COURT’S FINDINGS ARE DEFICIENT? . 2 III. WHETHER THE RELOCATION RULING WAS ERRONEOUS? . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . 2-4 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . 4-32 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . 32 ARGUMENT . I. THE RELOCATION HEARING DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS. 33-35 II. THE FINDINGS ARE GROSSLY INADEQUATE . 35-50 III. THE RELOCATION RULING IS ERRONEOUS . 50-55 CONCLUSION . 55 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 55 ADDENDUM . 56 Addendum A — U.C.A. Section 30-3-37 ii Addendum B — Utah R. Civ. P. 108 Addendum C — Findings of Fact and Order on Objection (Filed 4/25/14) Addendum D –– Order Regarding Petitioner’s Objections to Commissioner’s Recommendation (Filed 10/19/16) Addendum E — Ruling and Order On Petitioner’s Objections to Commissioner’s Recommendation (After Remand) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Day v. Barnes, 2018 UT App. 143, 427 P.3d 1272 .
  • Chapter 7 Appeals

    Chapter 7 Appeals

    CHAPTER 7 APPEALS IN GENERAL This chapter provides information about state law provisions concerning appeals authorities and time limitations for review for first-level appeals, second-level appeals, and judicial review. The Social Security Act (SSA) requires states to offer “opportunity for a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, for all individuals whose claims for unemployment compensation are denied.” Hence, all states’ laws provide for a right to appeal. Further, all but a few states’ laws provide for a second-level appeal. In all states, individuals who are not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal(s) may appeal their cases in the state court system, federal courts, and, as a last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court. In all states, employers who have an interest are granted the right to appeal decisions on claims as well. As a result of California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java, 402 U.S. 121 (1971), once a UI claimant has been found eligible for benefits, such claimant will continue to receive benefits until a decision is issued reversing the determination allowing benefits. Thus, an employer’s appeal will not affect the continuance of payment of benefits until a subsequent decision is issued denying benefits. The majority of state laws specifically provide for the payment of benefits pending an appeal of a determination or decision allowing benefits, while other states have either interpreted their laws or have been required by court order to follow this procedure. In all states, this procedure applies to any determination or decision issued allowing benefits. Most of the states specify that findings of fact, conclusions of law, or final orders made by a UI hearing officer or board of review will not be binding in any separate or subsequent proceeding brought in any court, judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding in that state or of the U.S.
  • Oral Argument Reform in Utah's Appellate Courts: Seeking to Revitalize Oral Argument Through Procedural Modification Clark Collings

    Oral Argument Reform in Utah's Appellate Courts: Seeking to Revitalize Oral Argument Through Procedural Modification Clark Collings

    Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement Volume 2013 Article 18 2013 Oral Argument Reform in Utah's Appellate Courts: Seeking to Revitalize Oral Argument Through Procedural Modification Clark Collings Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw Part of the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Collings, Clark (2013) "Oral Argument Reform in Utah's Appellate Courts: Seeking to Revitalize Oral Argument Through Procedural Modification," Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement: Vol. 2013 , Article 18. Available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw/vol2013/iss1/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah OnLaw: The tU ah Law Review Online Supplement by an authorized editor of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ORAL ARGUMENT REFORM IN UTAH’S APPELLATE COURTS: SEEKING TO REVITALIZE ORAL ARGUMENT THROUGH PROCEDURAL MODIFICATION Clark Collings* [I]t will be a sorry day for the American bar if the place of the oral argument in our appellate courts is depreciated and oral advocacy becomes looked upon as a pro forma exercise which, because of tradition 1 or because of the insistence of his client, a lawyer has to go through. I. INTRODUCTION The modern institution of appellate oral argument has unfortunately arrived at this “sorry day.” It has simultaneously been both devalued and tediously used as a formalized relic of the past. This dual depreciation stems from
  • State Court Caseload Statistics

    State Court Caseload Statistics

    -- National Center for State Courts 3 4185 00003622 7 State Court Caseload Statistics: A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts - State Court Caseload Statistics:IS‘Seta- 5 < Annual Report, 2992 Court Statistics Project Staff Brian J.Ostrom Steven E. Hairston Director Staff Associate Karen Gillions Way Carol R. Flango Staff Associate Staff Associate Natalie B. Davis Administrative Secretary State Justice lsJI Insti tu te A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1994 /LC& k 4-1-4Y library ‘‘1% Notional Center for State Courts ZCO Newport Ave. Wilfiamsburg, VA 23 187-8798 / I Copyright 1994 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-134-8 National Center Publication Number R-154 Suggested Citation: Brian J. Ostrom, et a]., State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1992 (National Center for State Courts 1994) This Report was developed under Grant SJI-91-07X-C-B-007-P93-1 from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. Conference of State Court Administrators Court Statistics Committee J. Denis Moran, Chairman (1983 to present) Marc Galanter (1986 to present) Director of State Courts, Wisconsin Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Robert Barnoski (1990 to present) Daniel J. Hall (1990 to present) Manager, Research & Information Services, Office Director of Planning and Analysis, Office of the Administrator for the Courts, Washington of the State Court Administrator, Colorado John A.
  • Painewebber, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Kidder Peabody and Co., Inc., a Delaware Corproation, and Van Francis Dunn, Jr., and Individual V

    Painewebber, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Kidder Peabody and Co., Inc., a Delaware Corproation, and Van Francis Dunn, Jr., and Individual V

    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2000 Painewebber, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Kidder Peabody and Co., Inc., a Delaware Corproation, and Van Francis Dunn, Jr., and individual v. The Robertson Faimly Trust, by and through James L. Robertson, Trustee : Reply Brief Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Brian W. Steffensen, Mark A. Riekhof; attorneys for appellants. Byron J. Benevento, Robert W. Payne; Snell, Wilmer; attorneys for appellee. Recommended Citation Reply Brief, Painewebber v. Robertson, No. 20000043 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2000). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/2579 This Reply Brief is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS PAINEWEBBER, INC., a Delaware Corporation, KIDDER PEABODY & CO., APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF INC., a Delaware Corporation, and VAN FRANCIS DUNN, JR., an individual, Case No. 20000043-SC Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Nature of Proceeding: Appeal from the Third Judicial District The ROBERTSON FAMILY TRUST, by and Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah through JAMES L.
  • Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition

    Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition

    Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition BY Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango KF 547 K45 2003 KF 59 3 K45 200 3 c.3 I Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition BY Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango Library National Centor fcr State Courts 300 Ncwpcrt Ave. Williamsburg, VA 23 185 This paper has been published by the National Center for State Courts -- to present current work from the organization’s staff, developed in cooperation with the courts and court leadership organizations. Support from the states along with seminar and conference fees, grants, contracts, and private support fund the mission of NCSC-to help courts r17zprovingthe ad’7zinist1~ationOf improve judicial administration by providing information, research, .justice through leadership and education, and consulting services. For more information visit NCSC’s service to state courts Web site at www.ncsconline.org. 0 2002, 2003 National Center for State Courts All rights reserved. First edition 2002 Second edition 2003 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23 185-4147 Web site: www.ncsconline.org ISBN: 0-89656-229-8 The first edition of this book was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant From the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-00-N-209). 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. Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce DeOay Second Edition PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION INTRODUCTION SECTION I: PROJECT OVERVIEW SECTION II: PROMISING PRACTICES IN EXPEDITING PERMANENCY: EIGHT STEPS 1.