DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition BY Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango KF 547 K45 2003 KF 59 3 K45 200 3 c.3 I Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition BY Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango Library National Centor fcr State Courts 300 Ncwpcrt Ave. Williamsburg, VA 23 185 This paper has been published by the National Center for State Courts -- to present current work from the organization’s staff, developed in cooperation with the courts and court leadership organizations. Support from the states along with seminar and conference fees, grants, contracts, and private support fund the mission of NCSC-to help courts r17zprovingthe ad’7zinist1~ationOf improve judicial administration by providing information, research, .justice through leadership and education, and consulting services. For more information visit NCSC’s service to state courts Web site at www.ncsconline.org. 0 2002, 2003 National Center for State Courts All rights reserved. First edition 2002 Second edition 2003 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23 185-4147 Web site: www.ncsconline.org ISBN: 0-89656-229-8 The first edition of this book was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant From the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-00-N-209). The points of view expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce DeOay Second Edition PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION INTRODUCTION SECTION I: PROJECT OVERVIEW SECTION II: PROMISING PRACTICES IN EXPEDITING PERMANENCY: EIGHT STEPS 1. Assess the Appellate Environment 11. Appoint a Leader 111. Assemble a Task Force 1V Develop a Plan c/: Drafta Rule VI. Implement Internal Operating Procedures VI/. Consider Strategies to lmprove the Appellate Process Vlll. Review and Refine the Process SECTION 111: STATE COURT HIGHLIGHTS APPENDIX A: STATE AND TRIAL COURT CONTACTS APPENDIX B: TELEPHONE SURVEY APPENDIX C: A PROCESS FOR EXPEDITING DEPENDENCY APPEALS APPENDIX D: STATE STATUTES AND COURT RULES APPENDIX E: IOWA’S PETITION AND RESPONSE FORMS I i www.ncsconline.org 0 iii Advisory Committee for the First Edition The Honorable Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Chair Alexander McNeil Justice Court Administrator The Supreme Court of Ohio The Appeals Court 30 E. Broad Street. I500 New Courthouse Columbus, OH 43266-041 9 Boston, MA 02108 Leslie D. Gradet Edward McSweeney National Conference of Appellate Court Clerks Staff Attorney Maryland Court of Special Appeals Vermont Supreme Court 36 1 Rowe Boulevard 109 State Street Annapolis, MD 21301 Montpelier, VT 05609-0801 Cy Gurney, MSW The Honorable Justice Charlotte Annc Perrctta Regional Administrator Commonwealth of Massachusetts North Carolina Guardian ad Litem Services Division The Appeals Court Superior Court Judges Chambers 1500 New Courthouse Durham County Judicial Building, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02 108 201 E. Main Street Durham, NC 27701 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Members Mary V. Mentaberry The Honorable Sharon McCully Director Third District Juvenile Court Permanency Planning for Children Department 450 S. State Street, Suite 209 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Salt Lake City, UT 841 14-04431 PO. Box 8970 Reno, NV 89507 National Center for State Courts Ted Rubin Carol R. Flango Consultant Project Director Toni Knorr Ann L. Keith Program Specialist Court Research Associate Deborah Siege1 Dawn Rubio Intern Senior Court Management Consultant State Justice Institute Ohia Grant SJI Project Monitor 1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 223 14 iv + Expediting Dependency Appeals The National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute originally published Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay in fall 2002. One thousand copies were distributed to the chief justices, state court administrators, and court improvement coordinators in every state. An online version was also published on the National Center’s Web site: www.ncsconline. org/WC/PubIications/KIS-ExpDepAppealsPub.pdf. Because of the urgent need to share effective strategies that reduce the time children spend with- out a permanent home, the National Center has updated the first edition to include revised court rules and procedures states have shared with our project since its first release. This second edition of Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay includes revised rules and forms from Iowa’s unique appellate procedures for children in need of assistance (CINA) and termination of parental rights (TPR) cases. We also welcome Idaho to the company of forty-three states that use aspects of an expedited appellate procedure for cases involving children. We encourage states to share their progress in expediting dependency appeals and will post accomplishments on the National Center’s Web site. For example, the Michigan Court of Appeals’ Dependency Appeals Work Group recently proposed significant reforms in court rules and adopted reforms in their appellate practices. As a product of Michigan’s concerted efforts to address this criti- cal area, the court of appeals has reduced its time to dispose of these cases by forty-six days. We hope that state courts and those who are dedicated to ensuring permanency for children will find this second edition helpful in reducing the time children spend in limbo before crossing the threshold into permanent homes. www.ncsconline.org + v D This report on expediting dependency appeals is the result of a collaboration between the National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute, with information, contributions, and assislance fiom the appellate courts in all fifty states (see Appendix A). The project’s advisory committee included representatives from state supreme courts, intermedi- ate appellate courts, a juvenile court, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The committee analyzed surveys of the state courts and developed a process for appellate courts to use when implementing an expedited procedure for dependency appeals. In addition to the conimittee members and state court contacts, the following individuals contributed their expertise and experi- ences: Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals contributed suggestions to the process for expediting dependency appeals and included the project on the Conference of Chief Justices’ Child Welfare Committee’s agenda, and Connie Crim, clerk to Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Supreme Court of Ohio, assisted with the coordination and communication between the National Center and Justice Stratton. The authors would also like to express their appreciation to the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for their hospitality during the project’s site visit-in particular, to Associate Justice Charlotte Anne Perretta, Chief Judge Christopher Arnistrong, Court Administrator Alex McNeil, Clerk of Court Ashley Ahearn, and Assistant Clerk Chris Micchia. Dr. Victor E. Flango, vice-president of the National Center, presented the importance of outcome measures to the project’s committee and participated in the site visit to the Appeals Court of thc Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bill Hewitt, principal court research consultant at the National Center, contributed ideas and suggestions to the project regarding transcript and record production. The National Center’s Education and Technology Center’s Ray Foster and Kevin Mittler answered technical questions about courtroom technology for the committee during their meeting in Williamsburg. Sara Lewis and Chuck Campbell copyedited the final publication and coordinated its printing. Finally, we are very gratehl for the State Justice Institute’s support and to Ohia Grant, project monitor, for her help, guidance, and enduring patience to see this project to completion. vi 0 Expediting Dependency Appeals We are very pleased to present the final report on Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay. This project has been exciting and rewarding, as we have studied what different states are doing to expedite appeals while, at the same time, challenging the states to get started now if they do not have such an effort already under way. The federal government enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997 to reduce the length of time courts take to find permanent homes for children removed from the custody of their birth parents. The goal is to prevent these children from languishing in the foster care system. Although the focus of the ASFA legislation is on the trial court level, the appeals process is part of the permanency process. An appeal may considerably extend a child’s placement in foster care. While several months or a year may seem a reasonable period for an appeals process to an adult, it is an eternity in the life of a child. Because we recognized the delay in permanency an appeal can cause, we wanted to study the efforts states have already undertaken. How did they get started? What were their roadblocks? How did they succeed? This report is the result of that research and, hopefully, a useful tool that you can use to start your efforts or improve your existing plan. It is a labor of love because the lives of these children are so precious and their moments in childhood must not be wasted. Please join me in meeting this challenge. The Honorable Evelyn L. Stratton Justice Ohio Supreme Court www.ncsconline.org vii Expediting Dependency
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P
    Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement Volume 2012 Article 2 2012 No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P. Newton Teresa L. Welch Neal G. Hamilton Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Newton, Samuel P.; Welch, Teresa L.; and Hamilton, Neal G. (2012) "No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts," Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement: Vol. 2012 , Article 2. Available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw/vol2012/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah OnLaw: The tU ah Law Review Online Supplement by an authorized editor of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NO JUSTICE IN UTAH’S JUSTICE COURTS: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS, AND THE FAILURE TO PROTECT † DEFENDANTS IN UTAH’S INFAMOUS LOCAL COURTS Samuel P. Newton,* Teresa L. Welch,** & Neal G. Hamilton*** [T]here’ll be no Justice of the Peace for you; just a big piece of justice.1 INTRODUCTION Justice courts2 could be called the most loved and hated court in the judicial system. The justices of the peace who preside over the courts are equally polarizing figures. The courts have been called “a powerful, multifaceted, local legal institution”3 which “helped design and weave together the social, economic, and political fabric”4 of American society.
    [Show full text]
  • Records Relating to Criminal Trials, Appeals, and Pardons Information Leaflet #9
    Records Relating to Criminal Trials, Appeals, and Pardons Information Leaflet #9 INTRODUCTION This leaflet contains summary information on records of New York trial and appellate courts pertaining to criminal prosecutions (felonies and misdemeanors) and appeals, and on records relating to applications for and grants of clemency by the Governor (pardons, commutations, reprieves). Thus the scope of the information here presented covers the continuum of the State's involvement with a criminal, from arraignment, through trial, conviction (or acquittal or dismissal), sentencing, appeal, and pardon (if any). (The leaflet does not discuss records or files of district attorneys or police agencies, which investigate crimes, apprehend suspects, and prepare cases for prosecution.) Records in the State Archives pertaining to criminal appeals and executive clemency are described in considerable detail. Records held by the trial courts or other repositories are discussed in general terms. Many of the records described in this leaflet contain information that is restricted by statute; the restrictions are noted in the appropriate location. New York's criminal justice system is large and complex, and this leaflet aims to assist researchers to locate sets of records or individual cases in that labyrinth. NEW YORK CRIMINAL COURTS County Court (1847+) In all counties outside of New York City the County Court has jurisdiction over felonies and over misdemeanors that may be prosecuted by indictment. (In exceptional circumstances the Supreme Court may accept a criminal case.) Prior to 1896 the criminal term of the County Court was called the Court of Sessions. For varying periods during the later nineteenth century certain city courts had jurisdiction over felony cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Members of the Task Force
    New York State Justice Task Force Name Title Chief Judge of the State of New York Hon. Janet DiFiore Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of the State of New York Co-Chairs Hon. Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick Greenberg Traurig LLP; Former Senior Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals Hon. Deborah A. Kaplan Administrative Judge, New York County Supreme Court, Civil Term Permanent Members Hon. Madeline Singas Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals Hon. William C. Donnino Co-Chair for the Committee for Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquies and Co-Chair for the New York Unified Court System Guide to New York Evidence Committee; Former Justice, New York Supreme Court, Nassau County Hon. Barry Kamins Aidala Bertuna & Kamins; Former Justice, New York Supreme Court; Administrative Judge, New York City Criminal Court Hon. Judy Harris Kluger Executive Director, Sanctuary for Families; Former Chief of Policy and Planning for the New York Court System, and Administrative Judge, New York City Criminal Court Hon. Hector LaSalle Presiding Justice, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department Hon. Richard B. Lowe III Former Presiding Justice, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. District Attorney, New York County Zachary W. Carter Former New York City Corporation Counsel and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Dermot Shea Commissioner, New York City Police Department Hon. Richard Giardino Sheriff, Fulton County; Former Fulton County Court Judge Seymour James Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco LLP; Former Attorney- in-Charge, Legal Aid Society Janet Sabel Attorney-in-Chief/Chief Executive Officer, Legal Aid Society Michael Polenberg Vice President of Government Affairs, Safe Horizon Paul Shechtman Bracewell LLP; Former Director of Criminal Justice to Governor Pataki Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Reply Brief
    __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, 450 S. State Street, Salt Lake City. Utah 84078 (801) 578-3900 __________________________________________________________________ MACAELA DANYELE DAY, : APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF Appellee, : vs. : Case No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, : Appellant. : APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER REGARDING RELOCATION THE HONORABLE DAVID M. CONNORS PRESIDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLISHED OPINION REQUESTED __________________________________________________________________ THEODORE R. WECKEL, JR. ERIC B. BARNES Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Appellee 299 S. Main Street, Suite 1300 47 N. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Kaysville, UT 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 801-546-3874 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii-iii ARGUMENT I. MACAELA’S DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED. 1-5 II. TYLER’S SUFFICIENCY/MARSHALING ARGUMENT FAILS. 5-10 III. REVERSAL IS WARRANTED FOR ERIC BARNES’S ACTIONS. 10- 12 . CONCLUSION . 12 -13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Day v. Barnes, 2018 UT App. 143, 427 P.3d 1272 . 2 Farley v. Utah County, 2019 UT App 45, 440 P.3d 856 . 9 Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App. 290, 989 P.2d 491 . 8 Paryzek v. Paryzek, 776 P.2d 78 (UT App. 1989) . 6 Pledger v. Cox, 626 P.2d 415 (UT 1981) . 3 Robertson v. Robertson, 2016 UT App. 55, 370 P.3d 569 . 6, 8 Sterling Fiduciaries, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2017 UT App. 135, 402 P.3d 130 . 10 United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1996) . 1, 2 ii STATUTES U.C.A. § 30-3-10 . 5 U.C.A. § 30-3-10.2 .
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Case 1:18-cv-07315-ALC Document 21 Filed 08/14/18 Page 1 of 118 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------- X ALEXIS MARQUEZ, : : Plaintiff, : 18-cv-07315 : v. : : COMPLAINT DOUGLAS HOFFMAN, : SALIANN SCARPULLA, : GEORGE SILVER, : Jury Trial Demanded LAWRENCE MARKS, : JOHN MCCONNELL, : LAUREN DESOLE, : KAY-ANN PORTER, : LISA EVANS, : LORI SATTLER, : DENIS REO, : EUGENE FAHEY, : PAUL FEINMAN, : MICHAEL GARCIA, : JENNY RIVERA, : LESLIE STEIN, : ROWAN WILSON, : in their individual capacities, : : and JANET DIFIORE, : in her individual capacity and in her official : capacity as Chief Judge of New York State, : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------- X Case 1:18-cv-07315-ALC Document 21 Filed 08/14/18 Page 2 of 118 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 4 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................... 10 III. PARTIES ................................................................................................................. 10 IV. DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION BY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS..... 12 Douglas Hoffman ..................................................................................................... 12 Initial Conduct .............................................................................................. 12 October 8 Email ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • David Lee Hewitt V. State of Utah : Brief of Appellee
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 1993 David Lee Hewitt .v State of Utah : Brief of Appellee Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca1 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Jan Graham; Attorney General; James H. Beadles; Assistant Attorney General; Attorney for Appellee. David Lee Hewitt; Utah State Prison; Appearing Pro Se. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellee, Hewitt .v Utah, No. 930035 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1993). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca1/3924 This Brief of Appellee is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. UTAH COURT OF APPEALS UTAH DOCUMENT KFU 50 .A10 IN THE tJTAH C0URT 0F DOCKET NO APPEALS DAVID LEE HEWITT, : Petitioner and Appellant, s: Case No, 930035-CA V. J : Priority No, 3 STATE OF UTAH, s Respondent and Appellee. ; BRIEF OF APPELLEE APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J.
    [Show full text]
  • Finlayson V. State of Utah [10846589] 07/28/2021
    Appellate Case: 19-4151 Document: 010110554585 Date Filed: 07/28/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 28, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ JEFFERY RUSSELL FINLAYSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 19-4151 STATE OF UTAH, Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00818-DAK) _________________________________ Andrew Parnes, the Law Office of Andrew Parnes, Ketchum, Idaho, for Petitioner- Appellant Jeffery Russell Finlayson. Erin Riley, Assistant Solicitor General, Salt Lake City, Utah, (Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General, Salt Lake City, Utah, with her on the brief) for Respondent-Appellee State of Utah. _________________________________ Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ CARSON, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ A Utah state court dismissed Petitioner Jeffery Russell Finlayson’s habeas corpus proceeding for failure to prosecute. After appealing that decision, Petitioner brought a petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But the district court Appellate Case: 19-4151 Document: 010110554585 Date Filed: 07/28/2021 Page: 2 found the state court’s dismissal procedurally barred federal relief. So the district court dismissed the petition and granted judgment for Respondent the State of Utah, denying a certificate of appealability. Petitioner appealed, and a judge of this Court issued a certificate of appealability on two issues. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a) and affirm the district court on both issues. I. In 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a Utah state court, related to his 1995 conviction for sex crimes (the state court petition).
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GREG ANDERSON Petitioner, VS. GARY HERBERT et. al. Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Greg Anderson pro se 24 South 7' Street Tooele, Utah 84074 Phone: 385 231-5005 NOV 1 - 2018 QUESTION PRESENTED Is a judgment void on its face, when a State Court steals a paid-for home at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings, under the guise that the owner was a tenant, where plaintiff attorneys misrepresented the law and contractual terms of the purchase contract 30 times in a 6 page document, then wrote the "Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law," with no reference to the purported record, and the judge rubber-stamped plaintiffs claims, and the court denied itself jurisdiction by not strictly adhering to the statute, thereby implicating conspiracy. 11 PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioner is Greg Anderson. Respondents Are Gary Herbert in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Utah, Sean Reyes in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Utah, Clark A McClellan, in His Individual Capacity, and in His Official Capacity for His Extra- judicial Acts, Third District Court, in its Official Capacity, Eighth District Court in its Official Capacity, Utah Court of Appeals in its Official Capacity, Daniel W. Kitchen, James L. Ahistrom, Terry Welch, Lynn Kitchen, Gary Kitchen, Mathew J. Kitchen, Mark R. Kitchen, Sandbay LLC Sunlake LLC, Orchid Beach LLC Roosevelt Hills LLC, John or Jane Doe(s) 1 Through 10 Note: No John or Jane Doe's have been named, nor have any other parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: the Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court
    City University of New York Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Summer 2002 Is a "Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: The Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court Harvey Gee Follow this and additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvey Gee, Is a "Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: The Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court, 5 N.Y. City L. Rev. 1 (2002). Available at: 10.31641/clr050101 The CUNY Law Review is published by the Office of Library Services at the City University of New York. For more information please contact [email protected]. Is a "Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: The Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court Acknowledgements Professor Jack Chin at the University of Cincinnati School of Law provided the topic for this article. This article has also benefited from the ideas and suggestions offered by Professor Russell Engler at the New England School of Law. This article is available in City University of New York Law Review: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol5/iss1/2 IS A "HEARING OFFICER" REALLY A JUDGE?: THE PRESUMED ROLE OF "JUDGES" IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NEW YORK HOUSING COURT Harvey Gee* The Civil Court.. .includes the Housing Part, which disposes of hundreds of thousands of matters annually yet isn't even a con- stitutional court. -Chief Judge Judith Kaye1 I. INTRODUCTION Since its creation in 1972, the New York Housing Court (here- inafter "housing court") has been "widely regarded as an ineffec- tive institution that has not fulfilled its mandate of preserving the City's housing stock."2 "Despite the Legislature's broad delegation of power to the housing court, it has never been accorded the stat- ure or resources essential to fulfill its vital role." 3 This fact has not escaped the attention of legal scholars who have recently addressed problems of the housing court.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellee's Brief
    IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS 450 South State Street, SLC, UT 84111 (801) 578-3900 MACAELA DAY, PUBLIC Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Appellate Court No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, Respondent/Appellee BRIEF OF APPELLEE ________________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Second Judicial District Court, Davis County, from a final order denying a change in physical custody through a motion to relocate before the Honorable David M. Connors, District Court No. 134700668 ________________________________________________________________________ Theodore R. Weckel, JR. Eric B. Barnes 299 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 47 North Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Kaysville, Utah 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 546-3874 Attorney for Appellant Attorney for Appellee Oral Argument Requested Non-Public Opinion Requested __________________ Table of Contents Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................ iv Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Jurisdictional Statement .................................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Issues and Standards of Review ...................................................... 1 Determinative Provisions ............................................................................................... 2 Statement of the Case .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Brief
    __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, 450 S. State Street, Salt Lake City. Utah 84078 (801) 578-3900 __________________________________________________________________ MACAELA DANYELE DAY, : APPELLANT’S PRINCIPAL BRIEF Appellee, : vs. : Case No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, : Appellant. : APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER REGARDING RELOCATION THE HONORABLE DAVID M. CONNORS PRESIDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLISHED OPINION REQUESTED __________________________________________________________________ THEODORE R. WECKEL, JR. ERIC B. BARNES Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Appellee 299 S. Main Street, Suite 1300 47 N. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Kaysville, UT 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 801-546-3874 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii-iv INTRODUCTION . 1-2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . I. WHETHER THE RELOCATION HEARING DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS? . 2 II. WHETHER THE COURT’S FINDINGS ARE DEFICIENT? . 2 III. WHETHER THE RELOCATION RULING WAS ERRONEOUS? . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . 2-4 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . 4-32 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . 32 ARGUMENT . I. THE RELOCATION HEARING DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS. 33-35 II. THE FINDINGS ARE GROSSLY INADEQUATE . 35-50 III. THE RELOCATION RULING IS ERRONEOUS . 50-55 CONCLUSION . 55 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 55 ADDENDUM . 56 Addendum A — U.C.A. Section 30-3-37 ii Addendum B — Utah R. Civ. P. 108 Addendum C — Findings of Fact and Order on Objection (Filed 4/25/14) Addendum D –– Order Regarding Petitioner’s Objections to Commissioner’s Recommendation (Filed 10/19/16) Addendum E — Ruling and Order On Petitioner’s Objections to Commissioner’s Recommendation (After Remand) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Day v. Barnes, 2018 UT App. 143, 427 P.3d 1272 .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Appeals
    CHAPTER 7 APPEALS IN GENERAL This chapter provides information about state law provisions concerning appeals authorities and time limitations for review for first-level appeals, second-level appeals, and judicial review. The Social Security Act (SSA) requires states to offer “opportunity for a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, for all individuals whose claims for unemployment compensation are denied.” Hence, all states’ laws provide for a right to appeal. Further, all but a few states’ laws provide for a second-level appeal. In all states, individuals who are not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal(s) may appeal their cases in the state court system, federal courts, and, as a last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court. In all states, employers who have an interest are granted the right to appeal decisions on claims as well. As a result of California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java, 402 U.S. 121 (1971), once a UI claimant has been found eligible for benefits, such claimant will continue to receive benefits until a decision is issued reversing the determination allowing benefits. Thus, an employer’s appeal will not affect the continuance of payment of benefits until a subsequent decision is issued denying benefits. The majority of state laws specifically provide for the payment of benefits pending an appeal of a determination or decision allowing benefits, while other states have either interpreted their laws or have been required by court order to follow this procedure. In all states, this procedure applies to any determination or decision issued allowing benefits. Most of the states specify that findings of fact, conclusions of law, or final orders made by a UI hearing officer or board of review will not be binding in any separate or subsequent proceeding brought in any court, judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding in that state or of the U.S.
    [Show full text]