DOCSLIB.ORG

Literature on Court Unification: "An Annotated Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. -- ~ - '\ Literature on Court Unification: "An Annotated Bibliography . ' ".' ".' c"_.;:il~~d f7:):{;:;;f~Jj 0 olll~ o I I •• ~ . ( l'loIationallnstitute of Law Enf~rcement an~ !=rim~nal Justice I Law Enforcement Ass1stance Admmlstrat1on, t U. 31. Department of Justice " () -~----,~! Literature on Court Unification: An Annotated Bibliography (, " by Susan Carbon and Larry Berkson ./ ( (, June 1978 I l National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice f Law Enforcement Assistance Adl~jnjstratjon U. S. Department of Justrt.~ f \ 0 t '\ \\ National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Blair G. Ewing, Acting Director Law Enforcement Assistance Administration James M. hi. Gregg, Acting Administrator This project was supported by Grant Number 76-NI-99-1024 awarded to the American Judicature Society by the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U. S. Depart­ me\1t of Justice, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. 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. ''':::\ ~ I For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office tJ Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 027-000-00694-9 () o CONTENTS .' \ PREFACE .................................................."....... v I. INTRODUCTION 1 n. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY. 3 A. An Overview ....................•............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Bo Deficiencies in the Literature . 0 •• 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 000 .0. 0 , 00 0 0 •• 0 0000 7 C. Questions Yet To Be Addressed . 0 o. 0 0 0 0 .00000 •• 000000000. 0 0"' 8 III. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHy ............ 0 ............. o. 0 11 A. Studies of National Scope, and Commission Reports 00000000000 11 B. General and State Studies of Court Unification 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 14 C. Consolidation and Simplification of Court Structure 0 000000 o' 000 19 D. Centralized Administration 00' 0 0 • 0 0 0000.0.000. 00 00' 0 00' 0 0 0 0 0 21 Eo Centralized Rule-Making 0 • 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 00000000000 •• 0 27 F 0 Unitary Budgeting and State Financing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 •••• 0 0 0 • 0 0 29 G. Tactics for Adopting Unification Measures ........ , .000.000. 0 0 30 H. Implementation and Evaluation of Unification 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 33 10 Bibliographies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 36 AUTHOR INDEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 0 00 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 •• 0 • 0 • 37 C) iii J ) ,j PREFACE This monograph represents a comprehensive literature search which was under­ taken during the initial stages of a national study of court unification. We thank the many people who have contributed to this undertaking. Carolyn Burstein, the project monitor, and Allan Ashman, the project director, provided invaluable guidance throughout the duration of the study. Karen Knab and Judy Rosenbaum helped peruse the literature and wrote a number of the annotations. Camilla Linss typed the entire manuscript. Naturally none of these people are responsible for whatever errors remain in the monograph. Susan Carbon Ll>l.rry Berkson Chicago, 1977 () v i\ )1 I. INTRODUCTION Numerous bibliographies have been published Second, federally oriented materials are categori­ dealing with such topics as court reform, court cally excluded. The bibliography focuses strictly on organization and criminal justice, altof which encom­ state court unification. Third, minor treatises, prog­ pas::. some literature on state court unification. But ress reports and legislative hearings have not been to date no single bibliography has examined this cataloged, nor have mere restatements of fact such concept exclusively. The present effort is an attempt as news items, updates, editorials and dinner to fill the void·. speeches. These materials simply do not offer a The purpose of a bibliography is to provide the substantive contribution to the subject under consid­ reader with a compilation of literary SDurces which eration. can be used to examine a topic in question. An Emphasis was placed on including materials of a annotated bibliography provides greater information scholarly and inquisitive nature having broad impli­ by summarizing briefly the content of each entry. cations for administrators as well as interested legis­ Yet standing alone the reader is not enlightened as lators, jurists and lay citizens. The annotations have to the historical development, strengths and weak­ been grouped into nine general categories. The first nesses of the overall body of literature. For this two include broad-reaching state and national studies reason the monograph begins with a brief biblio­ by commissions, practitioners and academics. The graphic essay. It presents an overview of the litera­ four which'follow are much more restricted in scope. ture on court unification, examines its deficiencies, Each contains articles on the separate elements of and suggests myriad questions which are yet to be court unification: consolidation and simplification of posed, addressed, explored and analyzed. court structure, centralized administration, rule-mak­ This monograph does not contain every article ing, and bUdgeting and state funding. written on the subject of state court unification. Rather, it represents a compilation of th~ most The seventh category includes articles which illus­ insightful aGd relevant materials for use today by trate the political process utilized in adopting unifi­ practitioners as well as academics. Generally ex­ cation measures. The eighth contains articles on the cluded are works published before 1%0. Yet a few methods and difficulties of implementing unification exceptions have been made. For example, the sem­ as well as evaluating the concept. The final category inal works of eminent jurists such as Roscoe Pound contains a listing of other bibliographies which may and Arthur Vanderbilt are included. be of use in related areas. 1 o II. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY A. An Overview Constitution (New York: National Municipal Lea­ gue, 1961); 6th ed.; and President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The concept of court unification has been pivotal (Washington: Gov­ . ~\' in nearly every attempt to modernize state court Task Force Report: The Courts , , ernment Printing Office, 19(7). systems since t'::~ early 1900's. Yet until recently, Countless articles have been published that relate court unification was plagued with myriad conflicting to unification generally. Two of the seminal works definitions regarding its essential composition. Today on unified systems were authored by Roscoe Pound: it is generally agreed that unification consists of "The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the consolidating and simplifying trial court structure, Administration of Justice," reprinted in Journal of centralizing the state court administration, vesting the American Judicature Society, 46 (August, 1962), rule-making authority in the state's highe5t court, 54-66; and "Principles and Outline of a Modern providing for a unitary budget, and placing responsi­ Unified Court Organization," JournaL of the Ameri­ bility for financing the entire judiciary in the state can Judicature Society, 23 (April, 1940),225-33, government. Recently two articles have· been published which The literature is replete with national studies and provide comprehensive historical, definitional and commission reports relating to numerous facets of analytical overviews of court unification. The more court reform in general. While most extend well recent, Larry Berkson, "The Emerging Ideal of beyond the parameters of court unification, those Court. Unification." Judicature, 60 (March, 1977), which devote a substantial portion to unification 372-82, expands upon an earlier work by Allan have been included in the bibliography. For the most Ashman and Jeffrey Parness, "The Concept of a part these reports contain widely cited recommenda­ Unified Court System," DePauL Law Review, 24 tions and current developments in the area of judicial (Fall, 1974). 1-41. ' modernization. Those which are particularly compre­ Other articles which broadly examine the princi~ hensive or illuminating include: Advisory Commis­ pIes of court unification include: Jerome Berg,"As­ sion ori IntergoYernmental Relations, State-LocaL sumption of Administrative Responsibility by the Relations in the CriminaL Justice Sys(em (Washing­ Judiciary: Rx for Reform," Suffolk University Law ton: Government Printing Office, 1971); American Review, 6 (Summer, 1972), 796-814; Robert Hall, Bar Association, Standards Relating to Court Orga­ "Court Organization and Administration," Alabama nization (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1974); Lawyer, 28 (April, 19(7), 148-52; Kenneth O'Connell, the "Judicial Administration" articles which appear "We Should Unify the Trial Courts in Oregon," each year in Annual Survey of American Law (New Oregoll Law Review, 51 (Summer, 1972),641-49; York: New York University School of Law); Larry Temporary Commission ,on the New York.,State Berkson and Susan Carbon, Court Unification: Its c Court System, .. and Justice for All [Dominick History, Politics and ImpLementation (Washington: Commission Report}> (New York, 1973); Harvey Government Printing Office, forthcoming); Depart­ Uhlenhopp, "The Integrated Trial Court," American ment of Justice, National Survey of Court Organi­ Bar Association J oumaL,. 50~Noyember, 1964), zation (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1061-64; and Arthur T. Vanderbilt (ed.), Minimum 1973), and 1975 and 1977 SuppLements,· National Standards of JudiciaL Administration' (New York: Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards New York University Law-:Center, 1949), and Goals, Courts (Washington: Government Print­ Articles which relate the'unification experiences of ingQffice, 1973); National Conference on the Judici­ individual states permeate the literature.
Recommended publications
  • Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. Regarding LD 719, Resolve, To

    Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. Regarding LD 719, Resolve, To

    Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. regarding LD 719, Resolve, To Establish the Commission To Create a Plan To Incorporate the Probate Courts into the Judicial Branch submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, April 1, 2021. Good afternoon, Senator Carney, Representative Harnett, and other members of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. My name is Deirdre M. Smith, and I am a resident of Pownal, Maine. I am an attorney as well as a professor on the faculty of the University of Maine School of Law. I am also the Director of the Law School’s legal aid clinic, where I supervise student attorneys who represent low-income Maine residents with matters in federal and state courts and agencies. My testimony in support of LD 719 represents my personal views only and not the position of the University of Maine School of Law or the University of Maine System. Our Clinic students represent litigants in matters in county Probate Courts around the state. When I started supervising those cases several years ago, I was immediately struck by the sharp differences between the Probate Courts and state courts. The District and Superior Courts are part of a system, and therefore they have a central administration to support and oversee the work of all clerks and judges, as well as uniform procedures and forms, training programs, an alternative dispute resolution program, data collection, and other features. By contrast, each Probate Court operates independently--with its own procedures, forms, and protocols--and therefore cannot benefit from the efficiencies, uniformity, and support of being part of a system of courts.
  • Howell-V-Howell-Petition.Pdf

    Howell-V-Howell-Petition.Pdf

    FiL.L~D 15 FEB I 6 2 316 No. ©FF]CE ©F T~E CLEfiK IN THE JOHN HOWELL, Petitioner, Vt SANDRA HOWELL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI KEITH BERKSHIRE ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY BERKSHIRE LAW OFFICE Counsel of Record 5050 N. 40th St., BENJAMIN M. EIDELSON* Suite 340 JENNER & BLOCK LLP Phoenix, AZ 85018 1099 New York Ave., NW (602) 396-7669 Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 aunikowsky@j enner.com *Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the Firm. BLANK PAGE i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act preempts a state court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in the former spouse’s portion of the veteran’s military retirement pay, where that reduction results from the veteran’s post-divorce waiver of retirement pay in order to receive compensation for a service-connected disability. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ...............................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................v PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .................1 OPINIONS BELOW ..........................................................1 JURISDICTION .................................................................1 STATUTES INVOLVED .................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................4 A. Statutory Framework .................................5 B. Proceedings Below ......................................7
  • FINAL REPORT Judicial Council Study Committee on Technology Brought Into the Courtroom April 10, 2012

    FINAL REPORT Judicial Council Study Committee on Technology Brought Into the Courtroom April 10, 2012

    FINAL REPORT Judicial Council Study Committee on Technology Brought into the Courtroom April 10, 2012 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP . 4 COMMITTEE CHARGE . 5 INTRODUCTION . 6 CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM . 6 ELECTRONIC PORTABLE DEVICES IN COURTHOUSES AND COURTROOMS . 13 AUDIO RECORDING IN JUSTICE COURTS . 17 CONCLUSION . 18 APPENDIX Radio Television Digital News Association’s State-by-State Guide Tab 1 Televising the Judicial Branch: In Furtherance of the Public’s First Amendment Rights, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1519 (1996) Tab 2 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two Courts of Appeals (1994) Tab 3 Of Cameras and Courtrooms, 20 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 1107 (2010) Tab 4 Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) Tab 5 Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981) Tab 6 Proposed Rule 4-401 Tab 7 2 Existing Rule 4-401 Tab 8 Report and Recommendations of the Social Media Subcommittee of the Judicial Outreach Committee on the Possession and Use of Electronic Devices in Court Facilities Tab 9 Electronic Media Report of the Board of District Court Judges Tab 10 Proposed Policy on the Possession and Use of Electronic Portable Devices in Court Facilities Tab 11 3 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Justice Jill Parrish Judge Randy Skanchy Utah Supreme Court District Court Judge Study Committee Chair Third Judicial District Rick Davis Nancy Volmer Trial Court Executive Public Information Officer Fifth Judicial District Administrative Office of the Courts Judge Christine Decker Staff: Diane Abegglen Juvenile Court Judge Appellate Court Administrator Third Judicial District Randy Dryer, Esq.
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville

    United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. 2:15-CR-101 ) THOMAS LEE NEWMAN, SR., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The defendant, Thomas Lee Newman, Sr., was convicted of four drug trafficking offenses after a bench trial before the undersigned. After the Court rendered its verdict, a sentencing hearing was scheduled and a presentence investigation report (“PSR”) was ordered. The PSR, disclosed to the parties on October 27, 2016, has been objected to by the defendant. The Court received evidence and heard argument on the objections on February 1, 2017. The government has filed a supplemental brief, [Doc. 103].1 This memorandum opinion and order will address defendant’s objections to the PSR. On September 9, 2015, a federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging the defendant, Thomas Lee Newman, Sr., a/k/a “Tree” in Count One with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A) (Count One), possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Counts Two and Four), and distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count Three). On September 15, 2015, the United States filed an information to establish a prior conviction 1 The parties were given a deadline of February 13, 2017, to file a supplemental memorandum.
  • Police Department

    Police Department

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. " ~ .. -----.-~---... ... /i3157 Two Hundred Years of American Criminal Justice An LEAA Bicentennial Study Law Enforcement Assistance Administration U.S. Department of Justice Washington: 1976 Independence Hall. Foreword Lucy Gray (front row, in black), pictured with the As American society has developed, its Los Angeles Police Department-. She was the first perception of and response to crime have Los Angeles police matron and a pioneer woman in the criminal justice system. Her family had traveled changed. In the years since colonial times, West in a covered wagon during the 1850's. By the when the groundwork for American legal 1880's she had created a police department posi­ institutions was laid, many improvements tion to aid women and children-both victims and offenders-who were not receiving appropriate have been made. Often they resulted from care. She was fearless and kind-lmown for her the work of a few concerned individuals or ability to calm unruly prisoners. She earned the organizations. More recently, the Federal title City Mother, and although not a policewoman, performed many of the duties associated with that Government, through the Law Enforce­ position. (1889) ment Assistance Administration, has begun to assist State and local governments in 143157 their crime prevention and reduction U.S. Oepartm!nt ~f JUltlce efforts. Nltlon~! Inltltute of JUltlce This study presents an historical view of This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the the origins and development of American person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated In criminal justice.
  • Coffin's Court: a Colleague's View

    Coffin's Court: a Colleague's View

    Maine Law Review Volume 63 Number 2 Symposium:Remembering Judge Article 6 Frank M. Coffin: A Remarkable Legacy January 2011 Coffin's Court: A Colleague's View Levin Campbell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Levin Campbell, Coffin's Court: A Colleague's View, 63 Me. L. Rev. 417 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol63/iss2/6 This Article and Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COFFIN’S COURT: A COLLEAGUE’S VIEW The Honorable Levin Campbell I. JOINING THE COFFIN COURT II. MORE ABOUT THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF THE ‘70S III. ABOUT COLLEAGUES AND FACILITIES ON THE COFFIN COURT IV. WHERE THE JUDGES WORKED V. FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDGES VI. GOING TO PUERTO RICO VII. COLLEGIALITY 418 MAINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:2 COFFIN’S COURT: A COLLEAGUE’S VIEW The Honorable Levin Campbell* I. JOINING THE COFFIN COURT These reminiscences focus on the eleven years, from 1972 to 1983, that Frank M. Coffin of Maine was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While Coffin’s judicial career extended over more than forty years, I chose this period because it was a time when his influence over the court’s work was at its peak, as well as because he himself later singled it out as a “judicial Garden of Eden,”1 during which the First Circuit enjoyed its status as the last remaining three-judge federal court of appeals in the nation.
  • TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts

    TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts

    Public Document TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts FOR TABLES OF CONTENTS OF REPORTS 1 to 15, 1924 TO 1939 AND A LIST OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER MATERIAL RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SINCE 1780, SEE 15th. REPORT (1939) 93-108. FOR THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESULTS OF ITS WORK, SEE 14th. REPORT (1938) 43-73. CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT page Index to Statistical T a b l e s ............................................................................................... 2 T he Act C reating the C ouncil — M em bers of C o u n c il .................................... 4 I ntroductory R emarks and C hapter 27 of R esolves of 1925 . 5 R ecommendations Adopted in 1943 ................................................................................. 6 E mergency J urors and W aiver of F ull J ury in C riminal C ases — D raft A c t ............................................................................................................................... 7 Consolidation of C ases for T rial under St. 1943 c. 369 D raft Act . 14 Procedure for D eclaratory J udgments in C iv il C ases — D raft A ct . 15 A P lan for an O ptional Alternative P rocedure w ithin the Superior C ourt for R ehearing w ithout P rinting M atters of L aw in C ivil Cases — D raft A c t ............................................................................................................. 21 N ew T rials W hen D amages Awarded Are I nadequate — D raft A ct . 25 D istrict C ourts and F ull-tim e J udicial Service — D raft Acts . 28 P robate C ourts — P ractice as to A uthority to C arry on B usiness of a D eceased P erson — D raft Ac t .................................................................................
  • Open PDF File, 1.3 MB, for Report of the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts

    Open PDF File, 1.3 MB, for Report of the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts

    The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts Report to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall J. Donald Monan, S.J., Chair, Patricia McGovern, Vice-Chair, William C. Van Faasen, Vice-Chair Charles D. Baker, Wesley W. Marple, Jr., Ralph C. Martin, II, Honorable A. David Mazzone, Dorothy Terrell March 2003 The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts March 4, 2003 To the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: Six short months ago, in August, 2002, you appointed us as a Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts, to provide an independent perspective on the state of management in the Judiciary and to make recommendations for its improvement. Our work brought a new understanding of the immense managerial challenge that the size and complexity of the Courts pose. The pride in the Judiciary and the dedication to its high purpose that you expressed in establishing the Committee, we found reflected in the hundreds of court personnel with whom we spoke in the course of our study. Throughout the Commonwealth, we found islands of managerial excellence. Other parts of the Court system do not share that advantage. But it is among the links that are needed to forge all the Courts into a unified system that we found the most significant managerial gaps. These gaps will not ultimately be bridged by personal talents of individual personnel, but by assuring that the best organizational structures and management practices are at work in molding the Courts into a true “system,” as opposed to a loose collection of parts. It is for this reason that neither our recommendations nor your acceptance of them can, of themselves, create a well-managed Court system.
  • Committee on the Impact of Wireless Mobile Technologies and Social Media on Court Proceedings

    Committee on the Impact of Wireless Mobile Technologies and Social Media on Court Proceedings

    Committee on the Impact of Wireless Mobile Technologies and Social Media on Court Proceedings Meeting Agenda Thursday, June 7, 2012 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM State Courts Building * 1501 West Washington * Conference Room 119 * Phoenix, AZ Conference call-in number: (602) 452-3193 Access code: 7002 Call to Order Item no. 1 Introductory comments Justice Brutinel, Chair Approval of the April 6, 2012 meeting minutes Item no. 2 Use of social media and the internet by jurors Ms. Rosalind Greene Item no. 3 Jury instructions on use of social media and the internet All Lunch Item no. 4 Policy decisions All Item no. 5 Revisions to Rule 122 All Item no. 6 Call to the Public Justice Brutinel Adjourn Items on this Agenda, including the Call to the Public, may be taken out of the indicated order. Please contact Mark Meltzer at (602) 452-3242 with any questions concerning this Agenda. Persons with a disability may request reasonable accommodations by contacting Julie Graber at (602) 452-3250. Please make requests as early as possible to allow time to arrange accommodations. Please note the date of the next Committee meeting: Thursday, August 30 2012: 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. State Courts Building, 1501 West Washington, Conference Room 119, Phoenix AZ Page 1 of 515 Page 2 of 515 1 ARIZONA SUPREME COURT Committee on the Impact of Wireless Mobile Technologies and Social Media on Court Proceedings Draft Minutes April 6, 2012 Members present: Members present (cont’d): Guests: Hon. Robert Brutinel, Chair Karen Arra Jennifer Liewer Hon.
  • 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

    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.
  • Occupational Licensing and Certification: Remedies for Denial

    Occupational Licensing and Certification: Remedies for Denial

    William & Mary Law Review Volume 14 (1972-1973) Issue 1 Article 3 October 1972 Occupational Licensing and Certification: Remedies for Denial Douglas A. Wallace Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Repository Citation Douglas A. Wallace, Occupational Licensing and Certification: Remedies for Denial, 14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 46 (1972), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol14/iss1/3 Copyright c 1972 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: REMEDIES FOR DENIAL DOUGLAS A. WALLACE* INTRODUCTION In the past three to four decades, occupational licensing has become one of the most pervasive forms of state regulation of the economy. At one time, with a few exceptions, only the "learned professions" of law and medicine were subject to state licensing;' today it is not unusual for a state to license as many as 60 separate occupations. The Council of State Governments reported in 1952 that at least one state had licensed more than 80 different "professions" ranging from abstractors to egg graders, to yacht and ship brokers, and salesmen. State licensing in its modern form, therefore, does not encompass only such occupa- * B.A., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Member, Florida bar. 1. The licensing of lawyers and doctors in this country began in the latter part of the eighteenth century and the first years of the nineteenth. COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERN- MENTs, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING LEGISLATION IN THE STATES 15-16 (1952); R.
  • Ro BROOKS & DERENSIS

    Ro BROOKS & DERENSIS

    260 Franklin Street BROOKS & DERENSIS Suite 700 ro Boston, MA 02110 (857) 259-5200 (857) 259-5212 fax Paul R. DeRensis, Esq. pdet·ensis@ bd boston.com March 21, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL to [email protected] Select Board Town of Cohasset 41 Highland Ave Cohasset MA 02025 RE: Response to RFQ for Legal Services Town of Cohasset Dear Members of the Select Board: We submit this application to continue to provide legal services for the Town of Cohasset. Our response to this RFQ includes a unified encompassing proposal to provide comprehensive legal services as we have in the past, so that we propose to provide legal service areas combined with other legal service areas labelled in the RFQ as "A" through "E", (Town Counsel, Labor & Employment, Environmental and Land Use, and Litigation and Special Counsel) or some combination of areas, or each of these areas separately. I, Paul DeRensis, have been Town Counsel for the Town of Cohasset for twenty-five years, with responsibility (except in the last few years), for comprehensively all legal services needed by the Town. As was required by the Agreement between the Town and Town Counsel, and by the General Bylaws of the Town regarding Town Counsel, whatever area of legal practice has been needed by the Town, I made sure was supplied to the Town. You know our accomplishments including successfully extracting the Town from some precarious situations, and you know that the Town of Cohasset has been safe from harm for that entire period. The Agreement for Legal Services currently in place with the Town of Cohasset has been with me personally, and names me as a primary obligor but allows me to draw upon others that I am working with for additional legal support.