DOCSLIB.ORG

The Year in Review 2018: Selected Cases from the Alaska Supreme

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Year in Review 2018: Selected Cases from the Alaska Supreme THE YEAR IN REVIEW 2018 SELECTED CASES FROM THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT AND THE ALASKA COURT OF APPEALS Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1 Administrative Law .........................................................................................................................2 Business Law ...................................................................................................................................7 Civil Procedure ................................................................................................................................9 Constitutional Law ........................................................................................................................14 Criminal Law .................................................................................................................................18 Criminal Procedure ........................................................................................................................21 Election Law ..................................................................................................................................37 Employment Law ..........................................................................................................................40 Environmental Law .......................................................................................................................44 Evidence Law ................................................................................................................................45 Family Law ....................................................................................................................................46 Health Law ....................................................................................................................................63 Insurance Law ...............................................................................................................................68 Legal Ethics ...................................................................................................................................70 Property Law .................................................................................................................................72 Tort Law ........................................................................................................................................75 Trust & Estates Law ......................................................................................................................78 INTRODUCTION The Alaska Law Review’s Year in Review is a collection of brief summaries of selected state and federal appellate cases concerning Alaska law. They are neither comprehensive in breadth, as several cases are omitted, nor in depth, as many issues within individual cases are omitted. Attorneys should not rely on these summaries as an authoritative guide; rather, they are intended to alert the Alaska legal community to judicial decisions from the previous year. The summaries are grouped by subject matter. Within each subject, the summaries are organized alphabetically. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court,1 the court of appeals held the Public Defender Agency or the Office of Public Advocacy must pay for an indigent defendant’s travel to the site of their trial, including the expenses of a parent accompanying a minor who is unable to travel alone, if the defendant is (1) not in custody and (2) unable to afford transportation to trial. J.B., a minor defendant represented by the Public Defender Agency, lives in Marshall and lacked the funds to travel with a parent to Bethel to appear at his trial. The superior court ordered the Public Defender Agency to pay for J.B. and his parent’s travel. The Agency appealed, arguing that either the Division of Juvenile Justice or the Court System should be responsible those expenses. The court of appeals affirmed the superior court’s order, reasoning that the case presented a question of administration best decided by deferring substantially to the state agencies responsible for administering the Public Defender Agency’s authorizing statute. The court referenced two Alaska Attorney General opinions issued in 1977 and 1978 respectively, declaring that the Public Defender Agency is responsible for the transportation costs of indigent defendants, including juveniles. The court of appeals reasoned that these opinions supported the Division of Juvenile Justice’s argument that travel expenses are a necessary “service” or “facility” of representation, required to be paid by the Public Defender Agency according to its authorizing statute. The court also relied on a Department of Administration regulation that the court interpreted as accepting the Attorney General’s opinion. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that the Public Defender Agency must pay the transportation expenses of an indigent defendant, not in custody, who cannot afford to travel to their trial. The Agency must also pay for the expenses of a parent accompanying a minor defendant who cannot travel alone. Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage In Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage,2 the supreme court held that section 21.15.010 of the Anchorage Municipality Code (AMC) requires property owners to substantially satisfy each one of its seven standards to obtain a zoning variance. In 1965, the Corkerys’ lot was zoned so that, at maximum, 30% of the surface could be covered by a structure. However, in 1983 a prior owner expanded the house beyond this limit without a variance. In 2013, when rot was found in a wall, the Corkerys applied for a permit to rebuild that section of the home. The Municipality issued a permit conditioned on the Corkerys first obtaining a zoning variance for the exceeded limit. However, the zoning board denied the Corkerys’ application for a variance because it found three of seven requirements for a variance were not met. On appeal the Corkery’s argued that the code only required applicants “substantially” meet the seven criteria as a whole, and by meeting four of them they had done so. The Supreme Court disagreed. The court reasoned that though the code’s requirement that an application “substantially meet[] the . standards” could be read as the Corkerys argued, it was more natural to read it to require applicants substantially meet each of the seven standards individually. The court explained that this reading was supported by the individual listing of each factor, that two of them operated interdependently, and that a separate portion of the municipal code (which should be interpreted to create a harmonious whole) implied that in reviewing an application the board must find each of the seven criteria to be substantially satisfied. 1 413 P.3d 1221 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018). 2 426 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2018). 2 The court concluded that the word “substantially” was not made superfluous by this interpretation as it meant applicants need not satisfy each factor in full. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that section 21.15.010 of the AMC requires property owners to substantially satisfy each one of its seven standards to obtain a zoning variance. Eberhart v. Alaska Pub. Offices Comm’n In Eberhart v. Alaska Pub. Offices Comm’n,3 the Supreme Court of Alaska held that Section 15.13.145 of the Alaska Statutes prohibits the use of both a public entity’s cash and its non- monetary resources for the purpose of influencing a state or municipal election of a state or municipal candidate. AS 15.13.145(a)(4) prohibits elected officials from using “money held by the entity [they work for] to influence the outcome of the election of a candidate to a state or municipal office.” Eberhart allegedly used his city email address during his mayoral campaign to email the city clerk to request all of the ordinances and resolutions that he and his opponent had sponsored. APOC opened an investigation and concluded that most of Eberhart’s emails were permissible under AS 15.13.145; however, it identified Eberhart’s email exchange with the clerk as a possible violation. APOC imposed a $37.50 fine because the cost of sending the emails to the clerk was de minimus and did not cause significant public harm; Eberhart appealed. The Supreme Court of Alaska found that the phrase “to influence the outcome of the election” does not require proof of actual influence as the word “to” can be understood to mean “for the purpose of.” Further, the court found that it was reasonable for APOC to interpret the term “money” to include property and assets including the city’s email system. The court explained that it was unlikely that the legislature intended to ban public cash from being used to influence a candidate while allowing public non-monetary resources to be used for the same purpose. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that that AS 15.13.145 prohibits the use of both a public entity’s cash and its non-monetary resources for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election of a state or municipal candidate. Griswold v. Homer City Council In Griswold v. Homer City Council,4 the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the attorney-client and work-product privileges are state law exceptions to section 40.25.120 of the Alaska Statutes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996
    YEAR IN REVIEW Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................. 167 II. A dm inistrative Law ................................................................. 167 A . Public Contracting .................. ..... ............. 167 B. Land Use and Resource Management ........................... 171 C. A dm inistrative Procedure ............................................... 175 III. Business Law ............................................................................ 176 IV . Civil Procedure ........................................................................ 178 A. Timeliness of Prosecution and Appeal .......................... 179 B . M odification of Judgm ent ............................................... 181 C. M iscellaneous .................................................................... 183 V . Constitutional Law .................................................................. 188 A . D ue Process ....................................................................... 188 B . D ouble Jeopardy .............................................................. 191 C. Right to Jury Trial ............................................................ 192 D . M iscellaneous .................................................................... 193 V I. Crim inal Law ............................................................................ 197 A . Constitutional Protections ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • NN 9.17.2015 Diana.Qxp Layout 1
    GLORIOUS GRAND CENTRAL— Fall colors grace Grand Central Valley with a rainbow adding to the magic of a beautiful fall morning. Photo by Nikolai Ivanoff C VOLUME CXV NO. 37 September 17, 2015 Hammond in as city clerk; police chief contract extended By Sandra L. Medearis turned in by Wolverine Supply of jobs over $40,000 going out to com- turn around and collect the funds, is Turned out that a 5 percent ad- The Nome Common Council Wasilla. petitive bid. that legal?” Councilman Louis vantage for a local bidder had to be stepped onto the slippery slope of The Council should set aside “You accept the best bid, not the Green Sr. piped up, pointing out stated in the call for bids, the law conflict of interest on Monday Wolverine’s bid and give the approx- lowest,” Andersen said. Pomeranz’ conflict of interest. said. evening, teetered and retreated. Then imately $50,000 job to Pomeranz for The best bid is a subjective issue, “We authorize public funds and It had not been stated. they whacked a plan to upgrade City local hire, Councilman Stan Ander- Councilman Matt Culley responded. then turn around and …” Culley questioned whether the Hall’s public service counter area. sen told the panel. Andersen chaired How do you determine that? he City of Nome has a procurement money for the renovation was in- When a bid award for the work the meeting as presiding council asked. policy containing language giving a cluded in the FY 16 spending plan. came up for Council approval, $200 member in the absence of Mayor “I said he [Pomeranz] was,” An- local bidder a 5 percent edge.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE V. JENKINS--FIRST DISSENT
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE v. JENKINSÐFIRST DISSENT KATZ, J., dissenting. Both the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, it is undisputed that the initial stop of the defendant, Chris- topher Jenkins, for improperly changing lanes was rea- sonable and, therefore, valid under both of these provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • 141097NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. .. ,. .... ... ... • ... 'r .. .., ~~ • -- .. -•• •... --• ""' - • .. .. .. ·r ,.. .. ~ .. ., J' -- ., I - - I . 4" '. • ~ ". ',.. • •~ ~ • ~ 'I -.,,- <.. • - • I. - • --"~ ,'pi.. alaska judicial council 1029 W. Third Avenue, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1917 (907) 279-2526 FAX (907) 276-5046 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NON-ATIORNEY MEMBERS William T. Cotton Jim A. Arnesen David A. Dapcevich Leona Dkakok ATIORNEY MEMBERS Mark E. Ashburn Daniel L. Callahan Thomas G. Nave CHAIRMAN. EX OFFICIO Daniel A. Moore, Jr. Chief Justice Supreme Court Message From the Executive Director We are pleased to present the Alaska Judicial Council's Sixteenth Report to the Legislature and Supreme Court for the years 1991 and 1992. The Council reports biennially on its dual constitutional responsibilities of nominating candidates for judicial vacancies and of making reports and recommendations to the supreme court and legislature. The report also covers the statutory mandate to evaluate judges standing for retention and applicants for the Public Defender. This report includes a brief narrative section that summarizes Council activities during 1991 and 1992, and a series of appendices. The appendices include a current listing of statutory and constitutional law affecting the Judicial Council, a log of judicial applicants, nominees and appointees, a log of all sitting judges and their retention election dates, and summaries of Council procedures for judicial selection and retention evaluation. Summaries of the Council's major reports during 1991 and 1992 also are included as appendices. The Judicial Council welcomes your comments and questions about this report. Very truly yours, ~;('~ William T. Cotton Executive Director 141097 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it.
    [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]
  • THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT, the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and RETROACTIVITY Paul E.Mcgreal*
    A TALE OF TWO COURTS: THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND RETROACTIVITY Paul E.McGreal* SINTRODUCTION Whether out of homage to superior wisdom, judicial economy, desire for uniformity, or simple agreement, many state courts look to decisions of the United States Supreme Court for guidance on state constitutional issues or other issues where an analogy from federal law might be helpful. Many state supreme courts, such as the Alaska Supreme Court expressly reserve the power to interpret protections under their state constitutions more broadly than similar protections under the federal Constitution. At times, those courts that faithfully adhere to this republican spirit find sharp division within their ranks.2 Copyright © 1992 by Alaska Law Review * B.A., Williams College, 1989; I.D., Southern Methodist University School of Law, 1992. Law Clerk to the Honorable Warren W. Matthews, Alaska Supreme Court, 1992-93. 1. See Roberts v. State, 458 P.2d 340, 342 (Alaska 1969) ("We are not bound in expounding the Alaska Constitution's Declaration of Rights by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, past or future, which expound identical or closely similar provisions of the United States Constitution."); Baker v. City of Fairbanks, 471 P.2d 386,402 (Alaska A.2d 793, 800 (N. 1990); the1970) highest ("We court need thenot he stand land."); by idly see andalso passively, State v. Hempele, waiting for576 constitutional direction from Statev. Boland, 800 P.2d 111 1114 319(Wash. S.E.2d 1990); 254, Pool 260 v. (N.C. Superior 1984). Court, 677 P.2d 261, 271 (Ariz.Professor 1984); Lawrence State v.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Acts and Cases for Alaska Tribal Court Jurisdiction
    Key Acts and Cases for Alaska Tribal Court Jurisdiction Item Type Article Authors Fortson, Ryan Citation Fortson, Ryan. (2014). "Key Acts and Cases for Alaska Tribal Court Jurisdiction." Alaska Justice Forum 31(3–4): 12–13 (Fall 2014/Winter 2015). Publisher Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage Download date 01/10/2021 23:45:06 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/6578 12 Alaska Justice Forum 31(3–4), Fall 2014/Winter 2015 Key Acts and Cases for Alaska Tribal Court Jurisdiction Ryan Fortson recognized tribe, that it had not attempted to (1998). This case addressed whether the Alaska Native Claims Settlement reassume jurisdiction under the procedures land selected by Alaska Native corporations Act (ANCSA) (1971). ANCSA resolved set out in ICWA, and that federal law granted through ANCSA constituted Indian country. the outstanding land claims of Alaska Na- Alaska exclusive jurisdiction over custody This status is important because tribes can tives through Congressional action. Prior matters involving Indian children. do things in Indian country normally as- to ANCSA, Alaska Natives held what is Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council sociated with sovereign governments, such known as aboriginal title to land in Alaska. v. State of Alaska, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. as tax business conducted on tribal lands Through a series of United States Supreme 1991). In this case, two village councils and exercise criminal jurisdiction. Venetie Court cases dating back to 1823, aboriginal and two individuals who had adopted chil- had tried to collect taxes from the State title was held to mean that Native American dren through tribal courts sued the State and a private contractor for constructing tribes were domestic dependent nations for refusing to recognize the legal validity a school on ANCSA land to which it held that had a right to occupy lands they had of tribal court adoptions by denying the title.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Mischief
    Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 4: Conspiracy; Criminal Mischief; Business and Commercial Offenses; Escape and Related Offenses; Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings; Obstruction of Public Administration; Prostitution; Gambling Item Type Report Authors Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission Citation Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission. (1977). Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 4: Conspiracy; Criminal Mischief; Business and Commercial Offenses; Escape and Related Offenses; Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings; Obstruction of Public Administration; Prostitution; Gambling. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission. Publisher Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission Download date 06/10/2021 06:00:16 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/10752 Scholarworks@UA — UAA Justice Center July 1977 Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 4: Conspiracy; Criminal Mischief; Business and Commercial Offenses; Escape and Related Offenses; Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings; Obstruction of Public Administration; Prostitution; Gambling Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission Suggested citation Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission. (1977). Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 4: Conspiracy; Criminal Mischief; Business and Commercial Offenses; Escape and Related Offenses; Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings; Obstruction of Public Administration; Prostitution; Gambling. Anchorage,
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Supreme Court MO&J No Sm-1741
    NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA MICHAELA ROBINSON and ELIAS ) ROBINSON, ) Supreme Court No. S-17140 ) Appellants, ) Superior Court No. 3AN-16-09559 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND JUDGMENT* STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT ) OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, ) No. 1741 – September 18, 2019 DIVISION OF SENIOR & ) DISABILITIES SERVICES, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Pamela Scott Washington, Judge pro tem. Appearances: Michaela and Elias Robinson, pro se, Anchorage, Appellants. Anna Jay, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Kevin G. Clarkson, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee. Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices. Michaela and Elias Robinson, appearing unrepresented, appeal from the Anchorage Superior Court’s dismissal of their claims against the Alaska Division of Senior and Disabilities Services in a long-running dispute over Michaela’s Medicaid * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services. Michaela was the only plaintiff in the original complaint, but the superior court later granted her motion to join Elias as a co-plaintiff. The superior court only considered the claims raised in Michaela’s original complaint, disregarding several claims raised in her and Elias’s later filings. By doing so the court left several of the Robinsons’ claims unaddressed, and we remand so that they may be resolved. A. The Superior Court Did Not Consider The Robinsons’ Claim About Pre-2016 Benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Masterarbeit / Master's Thesis
    MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master‘s Thesis “The Community Subsistence Hunt in the Copper River Basin, Alaska – A Case Study in Political Ecology” verfasst von / submitted by Clemens Elmecker, BA angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2019 / Vienna 2019 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 066 810 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Masterstudium Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Peter Schweitzer Acknowledgments I want to thank all the people, who contributed to the completion of my master thesis. I am especially grateful to the Ahtna people and the residents of the Copper River Basin for supporting my research and showing me their way of life. Without the information and knowledge they shared with me, this thesis could not have been written. Further, I want to thank Robbin LaVine, from the Anthropology Division of the Office of Subsistence Management and James Van Lanen, from the Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, who guided me to the case of the Ahtna and who supported me on site in many ways. My sincere thanks go to my supervisor Peter Schweitzer for his theoretical input and his patience. I am grateful for the emotional and practical support of my girlfriend Elke. Without her motivation and encouragement this thesis would still be in the process of writing. Finally, I want to thank my parents, Brigitte and Christoph, for their support along my studies and this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Conspiracy: What's the Use?
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 54 Number 1 Article 2 10-1-1999 Civil Conspiracy: What's the Use? Thomas J. Leach Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Thomas J. Leach, Civil Conspiracy: What's the Use?, 54 U. Miami L. Rev. 1 (1999) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol54/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. University of Miami Law Review VOLUME 54 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 Civil Conspiracy: What's the Use? THOMAS J. LEACH* I. INTRODUCTION Any lawyer, given a few moments to think about it, could offer a reasonably correct definition of civil conspiracy. She would say it involves an agreement or combination. Extrapolating from the criminal context, she would probably formulate a phrase to convey the object of the agreement: something like "to do an unlawful act." If pressed for explanation, she would probably come to the point of realizing that the "unlawful act" is most likely to be a recognized tort. She might refine the definition in light of the requirement of an "agreement," which imports intent, to confine the applicability to intentional torts. Such a definition of civil conspiracy satisfactorily matches the usual formulation found in the cases and texts: "The essence of conspir- acy is an agreement - together with an overt act - to do an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner."' * Associate Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Work of State Courts 2004, A
    3 4185 00319802 4 Examin ng the Work of State Courts, 2004 A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project I. x .I L. m m.rm Incoming :% imbm 9,911 93.514 38 522 Connectcut 36 450 Wlswnsin 55 138 NOnh Dakota 6.296 % lowa m 314 Sanh Dakota 6 277 lllinrx 96 320 Califomla 2d6 034 Kansas 18 527 Mnnewa 29 125 Y KF 180 .C74A m c. 4 Examining the Work of State Courts, 2004 ..- A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project __ . -__ -. mmm Edited by 15,mDm- Richard Y. Schauffler 1 Robert C. LaFountain ,omm -- Neal B. Kauder Shauna M. Strickland Court Statistics Project Staff and Contributors Richard Y. Schauffler, Director Fred L. Cheesrnan, Senior Court Research Associate Neal B. Kauder, Consultant, VisualResearch, Inc. Robert C. LaFountain, Court Management Consultant Shauna M. Strickland, Court Research Analyst Nicole L. Waters, Court Research Associate Brenda G. Otto, Program Specialist Library Mational Center for State Courts 300 Newport Ave. Williamsburg, VA 231 85 A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics Project 0 Copyright 2005 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-253-0 Suggested Citation: R. Schauffler, R. LaFountain, N. Kauder, & S. Strickland, Examining tbe Work of State Courts, 2004: A National Perspectioefrom tbe Court Statistics Project (National Center for State Courts 2005) This report was developed under Grant 2003-BJ-CX-KI03Supplement # 01 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics : Acknowledgments 0 I ' The members of the Court Statistics Project do not necessarily represent the policies of (CSP) gratefully acknowledge assistance and that agency.
    [Show full text]