DOCSLIB.ORG

Civil Justice Reform Task Force Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Civil Justice Reform Task Force Final Report Recommendations of the Idaho Supreme Court Civil Justice Reform Task Force Final Report Honorable Molly Huskey Chair Justice Robyn Brody Hon. Steven Hippler Idaho Supreme Court District Court Judge, Fourth District Rick Boardman John Janis Partner, Perkins Coie Partner, Hepworth Holzer Hon. Christopher Bieter Justice Jim Jones (retired) Magistrate Judge, Ada County Idaho Supreme Court Hon. Robert Caldwell Justice Gregory Moeller Magistrate Judge, Kootenai County Idaho Supreme Court James Cook Mike Ramsden Executive Director, Idaho Legal Aid Services Ramsden, Marfice, Ealy & Harris, LLP Gary Cooper Sara Thomas Partner, Cooper & Larsen Administrative Director of the Courts Hon. Stephen Dunn Brian Wonderlich District Court Judge, Sixth District Chief Counsel, Office of the Governor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Data and Evaluation Division, Idaho Supreme Court Finance Department, Idaho Supreme Court Court Assistance Office, Idaho Supreme Court Brittany Kauffman, J.D., Director, Rule One Initiative, Advancement of the American Legal System Paula Hannaford-Agor, Principal Court Research Consultant, National Center for State Courts TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 II. The Task Force Encourages the Idaho Supreme Court to Adopt the Civil Justice Reform Recommendations Endorsed by the Council for Chief Justices......................................................................................................5 A. Task Force Individual Recommendations..........................................................5 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 1: Courts must take responsibility for managing civil cases from time of filing to disposition .........................5 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 2: Beginning at the time each civil case is filed, courts must match resources with the needs of the case .................6 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 3: Courts should use a mandatory pathway-assignment system to achieve right-sized case management .................................................................................................6 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 4: Courts should implement a Streamlined Pathway for cases that present uncomplicated facts and legal issues and require minimal judicial intervention but close court supervision .................................................................................7 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 5: Courts should implement a Complex Pathway for cases that present multiple legal and factual issues, involve many parties, or otherwise are likely to require close court supervision .................................................................................7 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 6: Courts should implement a General Pathway for cases whose characteristics do not justify assignment to either the Streamlined or Complex Pathway ........................8 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 7: Courts should develop civil case management teams consisting of an assigned judge supported by appropriately trained staff ......................................................9 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 8: For right-sized case management to become the norm, not the exception, courts must provide judges and court staff with training that specifically supports and empowers right-sized case management. Courts should partner with bar leaders to create programs that educate lawyers about the requirements of newly instituted case management practices ...............................................9 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 9: Courts should establish judicial assignment criteria that are objective, transparent, and mindful of a judge’s experience in effective case management ..................................10 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 10: Courts must take full advantage of technology to implement right-sized case management and achieve useful litigant-court interaction ..................................................................10 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 11: Courts must devote special attention to high-volume civil dockets that are typically composed of cases involving consumer debt, landlord-tenant, and other contract claims ...........................................................................................11 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 12: Courts must manage uncontested cases to assure steady, timely progress toward resolution .........................12 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 13: Courts must take all necessary steps to increase convenience to litigants by simplifying the court-litigant interface and creating on-demand court assistance services ......................12 III. The Task Force Recommends the Idaho Supreme Court Adopt the Proposed Changes to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 .......................................................................................14 A. Introduction ................................................................................................14 B. Recommendations and Rationale for Changes ..........................................14 1. Discovery Based on a Tiered System ............................................14 2. Requiring a Proportionality Standard in Discovery .......................15 3. Requiring Initial Disclosures .........................................................17 4. Adoption of Limits on Expert Discovery.......................................17 5. Scheduling and Trial Setting ..........................................................18 IV. Additional Support and Resources for Current Programs .....................................19 A. Work by the Court Assistance Office ........................................................19 B. Case Statistic Reports for Judges ...............................................................19 V. Changes Discussed But Not Recommended ..........................................................20 A. Introduction ................................................................................................20 B. Areas with Specialized Rules or Procedures .............................................21 C. Jurisdictional Limit of the Magistrate Division and Small Claims Court ....................................................................................21 D. Small Lawsuit Resolution Act ...................................................................21 E. Attorney Fee Structure ...............................................................................21 VI. Anticipated Results ................................................................................................22 VII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................23 Table of Appendices ..............................................................................................24 I. Introduction Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure (IRCP) 1 states: “These rules should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Because of some troubling signs that the Idaho court system might not be delivering on the promise of IRCP 1, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order on November 21, 2016, establishing the Civil Justice Reform Task Force (Task Force). (Appendix 1) The Court charged the Task Force with examining the civil justice system, determining problem areas, and recommending appropriate solutions. One concern of the Court was the increasing cost of civil litigation. The Court had recently been presented with several appeals where the attorney fees incurred by the parties substantially exceeded the amount in controversy. For example, the attorney fees exceeded $100,000 in a $1,600 timber trespass case,1 over $1 million per side for a $367,000 construction dispute case,2 and in excess of $20,000 per side in a dispute over a $4,385 skid loader.3 The Task Force’s judges and trial attorneys recognize that cases where the dollar amount of attorney fees dwarfs the amount in controversy are becoming more frequent. These cases indicate problems with the system. Another indicator of potential problems was the decline in civil case filings in Idaho between 2006 and 2015. This was a trend for filings at both the trial and appellate level. Since 2006, district court civil filings have fallen by 22 percent. New case filings and re-openings totaled 7,500 in 2006, increased to a high of 10,087 in 2009, and then steadily declined to a total of 5,820 in 2015. Magistrate division civil filings, including re-openings, dropped from 119,484 in 2006 to 96,547 in 2015, a decline of 19 percent. Civil appeals totaled 230 in 2006, reached a high of 259 in 2010, and then declined to 189 in 2015, a reduction of 18 percent. Many observers attributed the decline to increasing costs and delays in our civil courts. Idaho’s experience is not unique. States across the country have similarly experienced declining civil caseloads brought about by lengthy and costly litigation. The national phenomenon has been studied in many quarters and solutions have been suggested. One 1 Stevens v. Eyer, 161 Idaho 407, 413, 387 P.3d 75, 81 (2016). 2 City of Meridian v. Petra, Inc., 154 Idaho 425, 432-34, 299 P.3d 232, 239-41 (2013). 3 Edged in Stone, Inc. v. Northwest Power Systems, LLC, 156 Idaho 176, 179, 321 P.3d 726, 729 (2014). 1 organization on the leading edge of this effort is the IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. The founder and executive director of that organization, Rebecca Love Kourlis, who served on the Colorado
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Emergency Order Regarding Court Services
    In the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho RE: EMERGENCY ORDER ) ORDER REGARDING COURT ) June24,202l SERVICES ) Over the last l5 months, this Court has issued a series of emergency orders intended to address the substantial health and safety risks faced by the public accessing the courts, court personnel, and participants in court proceedings caused by the community spread of the coronavirus. Since the issuance of those orders, vaccines reducing the risks of COVID-19 have become available throughout the state of Idaho. The incidence rate of COVID-19 infection throughout the state has also reduced. The Court continues to monitor the data and information related to the coronavirus, COVID-19, and its variants, and will adjust court operations orders as becomes prudent with the changing circumstances. In light of the improving circumstances, we have concluded that further modification of our emergency orders is now warranted. In order to continue to foster public safety and reduce the risk of the spread of coronavirus and the incidence of COVID-l9 and its variants, court operations shall be governed by the following rules until further order of the Court: 1. Weeklv Publication of COVID-l9 Incidence Rates: The Data and Evaluation Unit of the Administrative Office of Courts shall utilize data obtained from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's COVID-I9 Data Dashboard, and shall determine the weekly COVID-]! incidence rates for each county every Thursday evening after 5:00 p.m. Mounrain Time. The weekly COVID-l9 incidence rates shall be published to the Administrative District Judges and Trial Court Administrators on Friday mornings of each week.
    [Show full text]
  • Bevan Named New Chief Justice, Burdick Moves to Vice Chief in January
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 4, 2020 Bevan Named New Chief Justice, Burdick Moves to Vice Chief in January The Idaho Supreme Court announced today that Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick will be stepping down as Chief Justice at the end of his current term on December 31, 2020. Burdick will remain on the Court as Vice Chief Justice — a position traditionally held by the most senior justice not serving as the Court’s Chief Justice. Justice G. Richard Bevan will take over duties as the Chief Justice beginning January 1, 2021. Burdick has been a member of the Supreme Court since his appointment in 2003 and is concluding his second term as Chief Justice, having previously served in the position from August 2011 to July 2014. As detailed in the Idaho constitution, the Chief Justice serves as the executive head of the state’s judicial system. Terms in the position last four years. Sitting Justices elect a Chief Justice by majority vote at the end of each term. “Justice Bevan has continually set high personal standards in his professional and private lives and has had tremendous success as a result,” Burdick said. “He will continue that distinguished example as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court.” Bevan was appointed as the 56th Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter on September 1, 2017. He was born and raised in Twin Falls, graduating from Twin Falls High School in 1977. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from BYU, graduating in 1987 from BYU’s J.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the SUPREME COURT of the STATE of IDAHO Docket No. 47099 DONNA O. GRIFFITHS, Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross Respondent, V. STAN
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 47099 DONNA O. GRIFFITHS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant- ) Cross Respondent, ) Boise, June 2020 Term ) v. ) Opinion Filed: August 5, 2020 ) STAN REED GRIFFITHS, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk ) Defendant-Respondent- ) Cross Appellant. ) _______________________________________ ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Michelle Radford Mallard, Magistrate Judge. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge. The decisions of the district court are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. David A. Johnson, P.A., Idaho Falls, for appellant. Nalder & Blake, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for respondent. _____________________ BRODY, Justice. This appeal arises from a divorce between Stan and Donna Griffiths. Donna appeals the Bonneville County district court’s decisions: (1) denying her motion to dismiss Stan’s appeal; and (2) reversing in part and affirming in part the magistrate court’s division of the marital estate. On appeal, Donna argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss Stan’s intermediate appeal pursuant to the acceptance of the benefits doctrine. Donna further argues that the district court erred in reversing several of the magistrate court’s rulings, including its valuation of hospital ownership shares, its award of an equalization payment to Donna, and its award of spousal maintenance to Donna. Stan cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court’s admission of expert testimony and unequal division of marital 1 property. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Shackelford V. State Clerk's Record V. 1 Dckt. 42182
    UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 12-24-2014 Shackelford v. State Clerk's Record v. 1 Dckt. 42182 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/ idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs Recommended Citation "Shackelford v. State Clerk's Record v. 1 Dckt. 42182" (2014). Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs. 5594. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/5594 This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. DALE CARTER SHACKELFORD, Defendant/Appellant. Appealed from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Latah HON. JOHN R. STEGNER, DISTRICT JUDGE LAWRENCE WASDEN ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT DENNIS BENJAMIN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Filed this_ day of _____, 2014. STEPHEN W. KENYON, CLERK Deputy SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 42182-2014 VOLUMEIOFIVOLUME IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) SUPREME COURT NO. 42182-2014 Plaintiff/ Respondent, ) ) VS. ) ) DALE CARTER SHACKELFORD , ) ) Defendant/ Appellant. ) _________ ) CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial
    [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]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of Low a STATE of IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF lOWA STATE OF IOWA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) S.CT. NO. 18-0677 ) MIGUEL ANGEL ) LORENZO BALTAZAR, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY HONORABLE SCOTT D. ROSENBERG, JUDGE APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF MARK C. SMITH State Appellate Defender STEPHAN J. JAPUNTICH Assistant Appellate Defender sjapuntich@spd. state. ia. us appellatedefender@!spd. state. ia. us STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE Fourth Floor Lucas Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 ELECTRONICALLY FILED JAN 07, 2019 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT (515) 281-8841 I (515) 281-7281 FAX ATIORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 7th day of January, 2019, the undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon Defendant-Appellant by placing one copy thereof in the United States mail, proper postage attached, addressed to Miguel Baltazar, No. 6717106, Iowa State Penitentiary, 2111 330th Avenue, PO Box 316, Fort Madison, IA 52627. APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE STEPHAN J. JAPUNTICH Assistant Appellate Defender Appellate Defender Office Lucas Bldg., 4th Floor 321 E. 12th Street Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-8841 [email protected] appellatedefender@Jspd. state. ia. us SJJjsm/ 1/19 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Certificate of Service ....................................................... 2 Table of Authorities ........................................................ 4 Statement of the Issue Presented for Review ................... 5 Statement of the Case .................................................... 6 Argument Whether Baltazar had no duty to retreat under the justification statutory scheme introduced in 2017 and the notification requirement contained in the amended justification scheme is not dispositive of the self-defense 1ssue. 1n. t h"1s case .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Investiture Ceremony Robyn M. Brody
    Idaho State Judiciary: Court E-News December 21, 2016 As the Third Branch of Government, we provide access to justice by ensuring fair processes and the timely, impartial resolution of cases. THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT CORDIALLY INVITES YOU TO ATTEND THE INVESTITURE CEREMONY OF ROBYN M. BRODY In This Issue AS A JUSTICE ON THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT Investiture Announced for Justice Robyn Brody Rule amendments, including: IN THE COURTROOM, SUPREME COURT BUILDING > New E-Filing Rule > Comments Sought on Draft of 451 W. STATE STREET, BOISE, IDAHO Updated Criminal Rules iCourt Project Update THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2017 Human Resources News 3:00 P.M. MST Supreme Court/Court of Appeals Staff Honored with Service Awards Problem-Solving Court Graduations R.S.V.P. [email protected] (208) 334-3186 There will be a reception immediately following the ceremony at the Court. Rule Amendments Judicial / Amendment to the Supreme Court’s E-Filing Rule Administrative Further amendments have been made to the E-filing Rule, as set forth in this order, effective January 1, 2017, which sets out strikethroughs and Calendar underlining so that the amendments are readily apparent. The newly updated rule will be available on the Court’s website January 3, 2017. Current Calendar 12-07-16 Due to security concerns, locations are not posted the on Website calendar. Comments Sought on Draft of Updated Criminal Rules The Criminal Rules have been revised in order to update the language of News Links of Interest the rules and organize them into titles. The purpose of the new draft is This Week’s News Articles not to make substantive changes but a few substantive changes were recommended.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Supreme Court Justice Jones Announces Retirement
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 6, 2017 Idaho Supreme Court Justice Jones Announces Retirement (Boise) – Justice Warren E. Jones announced he will be retiring from the Idaho Supreme Court, effective December 31, 2017, due to personal and family health circumstances. Justice Warren E. Jones, an Idaho native who was born in Montpelier, Idaho, in 1943, attended grade school in Ogden, Utah, spending summers with his grandparents on a farm in Burley. He attended high school at Butte County High School in Arco, Idaho, graduating as valedictorian in 1961. He earned a B.A. degree, Magnum Cum Laude, in political science in 1965 from the College of Idaho before attending the University of Chicago Law School where he received his J.D. degree in 1968. After his second year of law school, he received a Ford Foundation Fellowship for advanced study in criminal law and procedure at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. Following graduation from the University of Chicago in 1968, he returned to Idaho to work as a law clerk in 1968-1970 for the Honorable Joseph J. McFadden, Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court. Justice Jones then joined the law firm of Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow, McKlveen & Jones in 1970 where he later became the firm's senior litigator, specializing in litigation of all types, including negligence, products liability, professional malpractice and commercial litigation. During 37 years with the Eberle Berlin firm, Justice Jones tried over 122 jury cases to a verdict in 38 of the State's 44 counties. In July 2007, he was appointed to be the 55th Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court by Governor C.L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carlson Chronicle
    THE CARLSON CHRONICLE Supreme Power Robyn Brody is from Rupert. Sergio Gutierrez is from Nampa. Curt Mckenzie and Clive Strong are from Boise. Only a handful of Idahoans recognize the names, yet in little more than three weeks the election of one of these will lead to a new Chief Justice being selected to head Idaho’s third branch of government---the Idaho Supreme Court. If one garners more than the 50 per cent plus one number in the May 17th primary, the election is over. When Chief Justice Jim Jones,, who is retiring, leaves the bench at the end of the year the new justice and the hold-over four justices will choose a new Chief Justice. With four people in the race, getting over the 50% mark will be difficult. There is a high probability there will be a run-off in November for the top two finishers. Supreme Court races are supposedly non-partisan, but in recent years Republicans across the nation have been systematically turning them into partisan elections. It’s a major theme in their continuing denunciation of “un-elected,” liberal judges who make extra-legal rulings inconsistent with their view of the Constitution and prevailing secular society norms. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court is viewed as partisan depending on where its Chief Justice, John Roberts, lands on an issue and which president appointed them, so are State judges viewed more for their collegiality and amity with an administration than for independence. Races in states where judges are elected are seeing campaign costs soar.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction of the Proposed Nevada Court of Appeals
    JURISDICTION OF THE PROPOSED NEVADA COURT OF APPEALS Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program 2008-09 Phase III Project May 2009 Robin L. Sweet Deputy Director Supreme Court of Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts Carson City, Nevada ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The list of people who should receive my heartfelt thanks for their support, understanding, and encouragement throughout this process could drag on for pages. So, I will try to specifically note those who helped with the report while noting generally that many family, friends, and colleagues offered words of support, encouragement, and inquiry throughout the process and I am grateful to and for each and every one of you! Your questions about my progress and success helped me stay on target and on track! The Nevada Supreme Court Justices were supportive throughout the research, including answering my questions at the beginning of the research idea. Clerk of the Court Tracie Lindeman helped with data for the Nevada Supreme Court as well as regular checkup and encouragement throughout the process. Ted Xie also provided Supreme Court data. Additional support and assistance were provided by Kathleen Harrington, Ann Whitney, Mary Berger, and Paula Doty of the Nevada Supreme Court Law Library. The heads of our Central Staff criminal and civil divisions, Phaedra Kalicki and Sarah Moore, also provided insight when asked. My thanks to Ron Titus, State Court Administrator, for his support of my pursuing this certification. Fortunately for me, Dr. David Rottman of the National Center for State Courts agreed to be my advisor for this project. I am grateful, too, for his encouragement and reviews of this report and its components.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Committees Published on Supreme Court (
    Judicial Committees Published on Supreme Court (https://isc.idaho.gov) Judicial Committees Idaho Supreme Court - Judicial Committees This Committee List and accompanying Committee Rosters are updated regularly. > Please click on a committee name below to see the committee members. < Administrative Conference Chair: Hon. G. Richard Bevan Hon. Roger Burdick Hon. Robyn Brody Hon. John Stegner Hon. Gregory Moeller Hon. Molly Huskey Hon. Richard Christensen Hon. Gregory FitzMaurice Hon. George Southworth Hon. Steven Hippler Hon. Eric Wildman Hon. Richard Naftz Hon. Dane Watkins, Jr. Hon. Barry Wood Karlene Behringer Roland Gammill Doug Tyler Sandra Barrios Shelli Tubbs Kerry Hong Tammie Whyte Michelle Crist-Aguiar Jason Spillman Taunya Jones Kevin Iwersen Christina Iverson Lori Fleming Melanie Gagnepain Andrea Patterson Sara Thomas Advancing Justice Committee Chair: Hon. Stephen Dunn Vice Chair: Hon. Greg Moeller Hon. Barry Wood Hon. Molly Huskey Hon. Barbara Buchanan Hon. Michelle Evans Hon. Brian Lee Hon. Theresa Gardunia Doug Tyler Powered by Drupal Page 1 of 11 Judicial Committees Published on Supreme Court (https://isc.idaho.gov) Erika Birch Jan Bennetts Jerry Woolley John Lothspeich Larry Reiner Raena Bull Teri Jones Christina Iverson Taunya Jones Appellate Rules Advisory Committee Chair: Hon. G. Richard Bevan Hon. Molly Huskey Hon. Jason Scott Hon. Thomas Sullivan Bobbi Dominick Christopher Pooser State App. Public Defender or designee Idaho Attorney General's Office, Criminal Appeals Unit Chief or designee Appellate Practice Section of Idaho State Bar, Chairperson or designee Michael Mehall Lori Fleming, Reporter Bail Bonds Guidelines Hon. Tim Hansen Hon. David Epis Hon. Barry Wood C. J. Nemeth DOI designee Holly Koole Philip McGrane Scott McKay Matt Thomas Larry Reiner Jason Spillman, Reporter Child Protection Committee Chair: Hon.
    [Show full text]