DOCSLIB.ORG

State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 Victim-offender relationship in violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault) by sex of victim Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trial courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 By David B. Rottman Carol R. Flango Melissa T. Cantrell Randall Hansen Neil LaFountain A joint effort of Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts June 2000, NCJ 178932 U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Marika F.X. Litras of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K002. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman, Ph.D., Carol R. Flango, Melissa T. Cantrell, Randall Hansen, and Neil LaFountain. Tom Hester and Carol DeFrances of BJS provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798. An electronic version of this report may be found on the Internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. ii State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee Hugh M. Collins Chair (1982 to present) Judge Aaron Ment (1991 to present) Judicial Administrator, Louisiana Chief Court Administrator, Connecticut J. Denis Moran, Co-Chair (1983 to present) William J. O’Brien (1994 to present) Director of State Courts, Wisconsin State Court Administrator, Iowa John A. Clarke (1988 to present) John T. Olivier (1991 to present) Trial Court Administrator, Essex County, New Jersey Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of Louisiana Howard W. Conyers (1990 to present) Howard P. Schwartz (1992 to present) Administrative Director of the Courts, Oklahoma Judicial Administrator, Kansas Marc Galanter (1986 to present) Joseph C. Steele (1999 to present) Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin State Court Administrator, Nebraska Daniel J. Hall (1990 to present) Patricia Tobias (1999 to present) Director of Planning, Colorado Administrative Director of the Courts, Idaho Mary McQueen (1999 to present) Robert Wessels (1995 to present) State Court Administrator, Washington Court Manager, Texas National Center for State Courts Board of Directors Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey, Chair Jack. B. Middleton Supreme Court of Delaware McLane, Graf, Rauleron & Middleton, New Hampshire Howard W. Conyers, Vice-Chair Chief Judge Thelma Cummings Moore Administrative Director, Oklahoma Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chair-elect Presiding Judge Gayle A. Nachtigal Supreme Court of North Dakota Circuit Court of Washington County, Oregon Judge Roberto A. Arias Dwight Opperman Judge, Duval County Courthouse, Florida Key Investment, Inc., Minnesota Byron Attridge Kenneth R. Palmer King & Spalding, Georgia State Court Administrator, Florida Frank Broccolina Louise M. Parent, Exec. Vice-President & General Counsel Deputy State Court Administrator, Maryland American Express, New York Chief Justice David A. Brock, Past Chair Carroll D. Stevens Supreme Court of New Hampshire Associate Dean, Yale Law School, Connecticut Judge Kevin S. Burke Judge Sandra Ann Thompson Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota Los Angeles Municipal Court, California David K. Byers Ruth Walsh McIntyre Administrative Director, Supreme Court of Arizona Bellevue, Washington Justice William Cousins William C. Vickrey, Past Vice-Chair Illinois Appellate Court State Court Administrator, California Justice Ann K. Covington Chief Judge Annice M. Wagner Supreme Court of Missouri District of Columbia Court of Appeals Gordon M. Griller Roger K. Warren Court Administrator, Arizona President, National Center for State Courts Judge William G. Kelly Robert Wessels U.S. District Court Judge, Michigan Court Manager, Texas Court Statistics Committee iii Acknowledgments This volume like its three predecessors is a product of Staff from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the court community. The Conference of State Court especially Dr. Marika Litras, our project monitor, shared Administrators sponsors the State Court Organization their expertise in survey design and the display of series and makes available its Court Statistics information in print and on the Web. As a result, this Committee to guide compilation of each edition. edition is easier on the eye and easier to access than Committee members participated in selecting the were previous editions. The Bureau’s funding makes contents of the volume, designing the data collection the entire SCO enterprise possible. strategy, and volunteered their states for pilot testing of survey instruments. At meetings and through mailing The NCSC’s Information Service gave access to its the Committee provided an on-going check on the records of recent information requests and offered accuracy and usefulness of the volume’s contents. The recommendations in the search for new topics for the bulk of the volume and the detailed nature of the 1998 edition. We were also able to rely upon our contents make the Committee members’ contribution colleagues in the NCSC Research Division to identify above and beyond that which can reasonably be and frame questions to tap emerging trends within the expected, even of members of a committee devoted to state courts. Particular thanks are due Pamela Casey, court statistics. Paula Hannaford, Susan Keilitz, Brian Ostrom, Tom Munsterman, Dawn Spinozza, and Karen Way. Lin The state court administrators of the 50 states, District Walker provided the information on court automation in of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and their staff, the more Table 21 and John Rockwell the information on than 135 clerks and deputy clerks of appellate courts, cameras in the courtroom in Table 37. and staff from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts were the original source for most At various stages along the way we also were able to information included in the volume. In that capacity, draw upon the talents of other colleagues. We are administrators and clerks completed surveys, updated grateful to Karin Armstrong, Catina Burrell, Tom forms, and responded to requests for clarification and Carlson, Margaret Fonner, Lynn Grimes, Valerie elaboration by telephone, fax and e-mail over a twelve- Hansford, and Pam Petrakis. month period. The generosity of their investment of time and effort and the patience with which they Despite all of this guidance, advice, and assistance, endured what must have seemed an endless process responsibility for the accuracy of all of the contents of of clarification and verification are greatly appreciated. this volume rests with the project staff. Project Staff David B. Rottman Randall Hansen Project Director Research Assistant Melissa T. Cantrell Carol Moninger Program Specialist Research Analyst Heather Conoboy Neil LaFountain Research Assistant Research Analyst Carol R. Flango Neal Kauder Research Associate Consultant, VisualResearch iv State Court Organization, 1998 Contents Highlights ix Introduction 1 Part I. Courts and Judges 7 Table 1 Appellate Courts in the United States 9 Number of court locations that have: separate administrative rules í Chief justice/judge í Place of session 2 Number of Appellate Court Justices 13 Number of court of last resort justices (COLR): Authorized/Serving í Number of intermediate appellate court justice (IAC): Authorized/Serving 3 Trial Courts and Trial Court Judges of the United States 15 Number of Full-time Authorized Judges Part II. Judicial Selection and Service 19 Table 4 Selection of Appellate Court Judges 21 Method of selection for unexpired term í Method of selection for full term í Method of retention í Geographic basis for selection 5 Terms of Appellate Court Judges 26 Length of term í Selection of chief justice/judge í Term of office for chief justice/judge í Chief justices/ judges can they succeed themselves? 6 Qualifications to Serve as an Appellate Court Judge 30 Local residency í State residency í Minimum age í Maximum age í Legal credentials 7 Selection and Terms of Trial Court Judges 34 Method of selection to fill unexpired term í Method of selection for full term í Method of retention í Geographic basis for selection í Length of term í Method of selection for presiding judge í Term of office for presiding judge í Can presiding judges succeed themselves? í Do presiding judges have administrative authority? í What is source of presiding judge's authority? 8 Qualifications to Serve as a Trial Court Judge 50 Local residency í State residency í Minimum age í Maximum age í Law degree í Other legal qualifications 9 Judicial Nominating Commissions 57 Name of commission íOffices encompassed í Authorization í Year established í Interim í Full í Retention 10 Provisions for Mandatory Judicial Education
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)
    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
    [Show full text]
  • The Joint Inspection of the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Area
    THE JOINT INSPECTION cpsi OF THE H M Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate DEVON AND CORNWALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA ON-SITE SEPTEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 HM Inspectorate of Court Administration THE JOINT INSPECTION cpsi OF THE H M Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate DEVON AND CORNWALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA ON-SITE SEPTEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 HM Inspectorate of Court Administration THE JOINT INSPECTION OF THE DEVON AND CORNWALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA ON-SITE SEPTEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 The Joint Inspection Report on the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Area The Joint Inspection Report on the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Area CONTENTS Preface 1. Introduction . .1 Devon, Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly . 1 Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Board. 1 Scope of inspection . 2 Methodology . 2 Structure of the report. 3 2. Executive Summary . .5 Overview. 5 Public confidence and community engagement . 6 Bringing offenders to justice . 6 Reducing ineffective trials. 7 The treatment of victims and witnesses. 8 The treatment of defendants . 8 The enforcement of community sentences . 8 Key performance results. 9 3. The governance and structure of the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Board . 13 Overview. 13 Governance. 13 Structure . 15 Strategic plan and direction . 16 Accountability . 16 The criminal justice office. 18 4. Improving public confidence and community engagement . 19 Overview. 19 Improving public confidence. 19 Equality and diversity . 20 Strategic partnerships . 21 5. Bringing offenders to justice. .23 Overview. 23 Offences brought to justice . 23 Pre-charge advice and decision-making scheme . 25 The structure of the statutory charging scheme . 25 The operation of the scheme .
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts
    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Certiorari
    No. 17-________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TYSON TIMBS AND A 2012 LAND ROVER LR2, Petitioners, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Indiana Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DARPANA M. SHETH WESLEY P. H OTTOT* SAMUEL B. GEDGE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 10500 NE 8th Street, 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 1760 Suite 900 Bellevue, WA 98004 Arlington, VA 22203 (425) 646-9300 (703) 682-9320 [email protected] [email protected] *Counsel of Record [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Tyson Timbs and his 2012 Land Rover LR2. Respondent is the State of Indiana. Addi- tional plaintiffs before the trial court were the J.E.A.N. Team Drug Task Force, the Marion Police Department, and the Grant County Sheriff ’s Department. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal on the Provision of Courts Services in Wales
    Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales Consultation Paper CP15/10 Published on 23 June 2010 This consultation will end on 15 September 2010 Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales A consultation produced by Her Majesty's Courts Service, part of the Ministry of Justice. It is also available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales Contents The HMCS national estates strategy 3 Introduction 5 Magistrates’ courts in Dyfed Powys 7 Magistrates’ courts in Gwent 17 Magistrates’ courts in South Wales 23 Magistrates’ courts in North Wales 32 County courts in Wales 39 Annex A – Map of proposals 47 Questionnaire 49 About you 54 Contact details/How to respond 55 The consultation criteria 57 Consultation Co-ordinator contact details 58 1 Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales 2 Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales The HMCS national estates strategy HMCS is committed to providing a high quality courts service within a reasonable travelling distance of the communities that use it, while ensuring value for money for taxpayers. HMCS currently operates out of 530 courthouses – 330 magistrates’ courts, 219 county courts and 91 Crown Court centres.1 However, the number and location of these does not reflect changes in population, workload or transport and communication links over the years since many of them were opened. This has resulted in some courts sitting infrequently and hearing too few cases. Some buildings do not provide suitable facilities for those attending or are not fully accessible for disabled court users.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Courts
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. THE FUTURE OF '-. ARIZONA COURTS Report of ,..................................................... : .... THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS : .... ; '. · \ REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1989 120983 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. 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 National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by A r j z on a Snp..r.e.rne-c.uur.:./-'-___ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. Arizona Supreme Court COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1314 North 3rd Street, Suite 330, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, (602) 255-2136 The Honorable Frank: X. Gordon, Jr. Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court 201 West Wing, State Capitol Phoenix,Arizona85007 Dear Chief Justice Gordon: I am privileged to present to you the report of the Arizona Supreme Court's Commission on the Courts. This report reflects the action-oriented vision shared by the Executive Committee and the various Task Forces for shaping the direction of Arizona's courts into the next decade and beyond. We believe the evaluations and suggestions of the report reflect the need for a balance between continuity and adaptability in the judiciary; between the need for stability and a realistic appraisal of the changes necessary as we face a new century.
    [Show full text]
  • NDLS Update 10/1995 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship NDLS Updates Law School History 10-1-1995 NDLS Update 10/1995 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_updates Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "NDLS Update 10/1995" (1995). NDLS Updates. Paper 34. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_updates/34 This Newsletter is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in NDLS Updates by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. C'- .f) 1 1995 NDLSUpdate New~framthe Nctre Dame Law Schaal .- Vol. V,No.3 TEXDUllLE October, 1995 EDITOR PRESIDENT CLINTON NOl\fiNATES private law practice. They have two NDLS ALUM FOR children, Brett, 6, and Kathryn, 5. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT *** President Clinton has announced that he would nominate Cuyahoga County (Ohio) NDLS ALUM NAMED Judge Patricia A. Gaughan, NDLS '78, for a PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMY judgeship in the United States District Court OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS for the Northern District of Ohio. An honors graduate of St. Mary's College in At its annual convention in Orlando, 1975, Patricia has served on the county-court the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers bench for eight years. At NDLS, she won named Richard W. Slawson, NDLS '70, the Edward F. Barrett Award for outstanding President of the Tallahassee-based trial advocacy. organization, which represents over 3,500 Admitted to both the Ohio and trial attorneys statewide. For the last five Indiana Bars, she worked seven years for the years, Slawson has been listed in "Best Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office in its Lawyers in America," a publication based on major-trial division.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No
    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. WC-11-0001-IR IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) Maricopa County Superior THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM AND SOURCE ) Court Case Nos.: W-1, W-2, ) W-3 and W-4 ) (Consolidated) (Gila) IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) [Contested Case OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) No. W1-104] THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM ) AND SOURCE ) Apache County Superior ) Court Case No. 6417 (LCR) ) [Contested Case ) No. 6417-100] ) ) ) O P I N I O N __________________________________) Review from the Superior Court in Apache County and Maricopa County The Honorable Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr., Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ THOMAS C. HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix By Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Theresa M. Craig, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Arizona THE SPARKS LAW FIRM PC Scottsdale By Joe P. Sparks Laurel A. Herrmann Attorneys for the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Tonto Apache Tribe SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By M. Byron Lewis John B. Weldon, Jr. Mark A. McGinnis Attorneys for Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District and Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By Paul R. Orme Attorney for Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District and Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District SNELL & WILMER LLP Phoenix By L. William Staudenmaier, III Andrew M. Jacobs Attorneys for Arizona Public Service Company, Freeport- McMoran Corporation, Roosevelt Water Conservation District POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC Phoenix By Lucas J. Narducci Margaret LaBianca Attorneys for BHP Copper Inc. ENGELMAN BERGER PC Phoenix By William H.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures
    APPELLATE COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASURES Appellate Court Performance Standards Commission and the National Center for State Courts APPELLATE COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS COMMISSION MEMBERS The Honorable Carl West Anderson Dominick J. Graziano Retired Presiding Justice Bavol, Bush, and Sisco California Court of Appeal Tampa, Florida First District San Francisco, California Phillip A. Lattimore, III Office of Corporation Counsel The Honorable Joseph F. Baca Appellate Division Associate Chief Justice Washington, DC New Mexico Supreme Court Santa Fe, New Mexico John E. Mueller Nielsin, Merksamer, Parrinello, Robert N. Baldwin Mueller & Naylor State Court Administrator Mill Valley, California Supreme Court of Virginia Richmond, Virginia Larry L. Sipes President Emeritus The Honorable Wallace P. Carson, Jr. National Center for State Courts Chief Justice Williamsburg, Virginia Supreme Court of Oregon Salem, Oregon Ella M. Williams Retired Chief Clerk The Honorable Martha Craig Daughtrey Michigan Court of Appeals U.S. Circuit Judge Lansing, Michigan U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Nashville, Tennessee Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of the Court The Honorable Martin M. Doctoroff New York Supreme Court Judge Appellate Division Michigan Court of Appeals New York, New York Southfield, Michigan The Honorable Sarah D. Grant Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Phoenix, Arizona APPELLATE COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASURES National Center for State Courts and the Appellate Court Performance Standards Commission ROGER A. HANSON Project Director June 1999 ã 1999 National Center for State Courts P.O. Box 8798 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798 Publication Number R-213 ISBN 0-89656-198-4 This report was developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute, grant numbers SJI-93-091-B-261 and SJI-93-091-B-261-P96-1.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]