DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Department Arkansas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Department Arkansas If you have issues viewing or accessing this file -contact us at NCJRS.gov. I ,.t"'7~~";;'~";;;:;;'~;;;~~"~~~'-""'C'~~~=-~'::~ ·"-;;"';~~~"""""-~::.Jil:t~~~'-\"'''':~~~~'''7'''''t4>-'~;t:'i'c,::,:~:;;;:;::~~.;n:=.:~~_~ .; ... ~ National Criminal Justice Reference Service Ii i This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the doc\fments submitted, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. OF 2 1.0 :: 11111 ,8 IIIE~ wW III!I~ 22. ARKANSAS w I~ Il.I :;: ~,f;;g I .0 1.1 '"W'"-1.'" u --- --- 111111.8_ 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST. CHART NATloriAL 8URE.~U OF STANDARDS-1963-A Microfilming proceclures used to create this fiche comply with 'the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. , lDate Filmed , , . 1978 JUDICIAL STATISTICS Nat~()llaI 11)§.~!!!lte of ,Justice I. United States Department of Justice ";02/0~l8}'1 I ,Washington,'D.C.20531. Compiled By The Office of \ ' EXECUTIVE SECRETARY j ~ .. - "-'7 - EI I~ :~ , I CHIEF JUSTICE STATE OF ARKANSAS j CARLETON HARRIS [ JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT .. EXECUTIVE SECRItTARY , C. R. HUIE JUSTICE BUILDING [ . 1501-3715-7001 LITTLE ROCK 72201 May 29, 1979 To the Honorable, The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas: The Office of the Executive Secretary of the Judicial Department submits herewith its Fourteenth Annual Report of the activities of the courts of Arkansas, statistical data covering the calendar year 1978 and comparative data of previous years. It is hoped that the contents of the Report will be of value to you in making policy decisions as Administrative Director of Arkansas Courts and of assistance to the executive and legislative branches of the government in their deliberations. Respectfully, ~tJ+f~ C. R. Huie Executive Secretary NC,JRS JUL 1 b 1980 ACQUISITIONS .. ... ; - Ci ~1~--'-- l 7 il t SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS ,. I, ~' LITTLE ROCK e~ :,1 CARLETON HARRIS CHI!:F .JUSTICE May 29, 1979 ~ I "fABLE OF CONTENTS To the Honorable Bill Clinton, Governor and '1 ~ - ': Members of the Seventy-second General Assembly: r~ I FOREWORD .........................................•....... Arkansas Judicial Departm~nt Chart. .V Submitted herewith is the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Executive Secretary ~~ ,'~ of the Judicial Department of Arkansas. The Report includes court statistics for I Arkansas Court System - Route of Appeal ......................... vi the year 1978 with comp,rative data for previous years. " ~ [;: .,: The Supreme Court again topped its previous record by disposing of 585 appeals I THE SUPREME COURT . .. 1 which exceeds by 9 the record le~el reported in 1977. Backlog of pending cases was reduced by 69, a 20.6 percent reduction. [ Supreme Court Statistics. .. 6 The total of majority opinions handed down was 555 representing an average I Workload Graph ........................................... 12 of 79.3 pet' Justicfl, another all time record. GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS ................................ 15 By almost superhuman effort, the Court remains curreDt; that is, prior to I I recess it disposes of all cases ready for decision. Workload Graphs ........................................... 17 As these words are written, preparation is almost complete for the activation I I ASSignment of judges .. " ..................................... 22 of an Intermediate Appellate Court whi.ch will come into existence on July 1, 1979. Impact on the Supreme Court workload will not be fully appreciated, however, until Comparative Tables .........................................26 1980 when the Court of Appeals will inaugurate its first full year of operation. ,I I Trial Court Administration ....... , ......................... " .32 That appeals from the trial courts of general jurisdiction wi"ll continue their upward trend is anticipated in view of the continued record-shattering number of 'Prosecuting Attorneys ....................................... 33 cases filed in these courts. A total of 81,559 cases filed in the Circuit, Chancery I ,I Public Defenders ......... : ................................. 38 and Probate Courts in 1978 a compared with 77,360 in 1977 reflects an increase of », 4, 199 or 5.42 percent. It is hoped that the creation of new judgeships by the Court Reporters ........... < ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 1977 Legislature effective January 1979 and the realignment of judicial and chancery I I circuits also effective January 1, 1979 will serve to facilitate the disposition of Clerks of the Courts. • , . .41 cases in the trial ccurts of general jurisdiction. However, appeals from these courts which will increase in number will add t~ the workload of the newly created Circuit Court Statistics. .44 Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. I I Chancery Court Statistics ..................................... 58 Other notable achievements in 1978 and early 1979 were the publication of the Probate Court Statistics ...................................... 70 new Rules of Civil Procedure which will take effect on July 1, 1979 and the expected I I publication of Model Jury Instructions - Criminal. LIMITED JURISDICTION COURTS ................................. 73 Assignment of Judges continues to be a very valuable asset in providing I I temporary relief in meeting the problems of docket congestion and in providing County Judges ............................................ 75 flexibility of administration. Juvenile Court Referees ...................................... 77 It is hoped that the report herewith submitted will give assistance to you in I I your further consideration of matters affecting the administration of justice in Courts of Common Pleas ...................................... 79 '. , Arkansas. Municipal' Courts. .. ....................................... 80 Respectfully submitted, ()(1 ~ I I' ei144~~ ~TV~ Municipal Court Statistics ................... , ................. 84 Carleton Harris I City, Justice of the Peace and Police Courts ......................... 88 Chief Justice I City, Justice of the Peace and Police Court Statistics ................... 91 I il" I II ,": • Ci - .......1 III I l I FOREWORD The Arkansas Court System still maintains separate This report, covering all phases of the Arkansas Judi­ courts oflaw and equity. Judges of courts oflaw are des­ cial System, carries statistics on the Supreme Court, ignated Circuit Judges and those of courts of equity are courts of general jurisdiction, and courts of limited juris­ designated Chancellors. Circuit Judges are elected to the diction. Statistics on the Court of Appeals will not be bench by the voters of their respective judicial circuits published until the following year. Statistics regarding every four years, and Chancellors are likewise elected to the offices of Public Defender in the state are also carried in order to reflect the extent to which defense services I terms of six years. are provided for indigents in those areas which have estab­ Generally speaking, Circuit Judges preside over civil lished public defender offices. Those areas not served by [ and criminal cases and hear appeals from courts of limit­ public defenders continue the practice of appointed local ed jurisdiction. Trial by jury is a matter of right in the attorneys" to represent indigents. Other information re­ Circuit Courts. Chancellors hear cases involving domestic flecting a broad outline of the Arkansas Judicial System relations matters, land disputes, reciprocal support ac­ is contained herein. [ tions, and other cases where equitable relief is sought. Trial by jury is not available as a matter of right in Chan­ A partial unification of the court system occurred in cery Courts. Chancellors also serve as probate judges, 1965 when the Geni':ral Assembly passed Act 496 of hearing cases involving wills, guardianships, adopUDns, 1965 in which the Chief Justice was designated the Ad­ [ mental commitments, and other probate matters. ministrative Director of the Judicial Department and .Ad­ Prior to July 1, 1979, cases appealed from the Circuit ministrative Head of the entire court system. Act 496 and Chancery Courts were taken directly to the Arkansas also provided for the appointment of an Executive Sec­ Supreme Court, there being no intermediate appellate retary, by the Chief Justice, with the approval of the court in the Arkansas Judicial System prior to that time. State Judicial Council, whose duties consist of assisting After July 1, 1979, cases appealed from the Circuit and the Chief Justice in carrying out his administrative re­ Chancery Courts are taken to the Court of Appeals, with sponsibilities. the exception of the following types of cases which are One of the chief functions of the Arkansas Judicial appealed directly to the Supreme Court: Department is the collection, analysis, and publication (a) Cases involving interpretation or construction of of judicial statistics. The Judicial Department also con­ the Arkansas Constitution. ducts continuing judicial education programs for all levels of personnel in the state's court system through the assis­ (b) Cases involving validity, interpretation, construc­ tance of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. tion or constitutionality of an act of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts
    Michigan Law Review Volume 59 Issue 3 1961 Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts Brainerd Currie The University of Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Brainerd Currie, Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts, 59 MICH. L. REV. 337 (1961). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol59/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Vol 59 JANUARY 1961 No. 3 ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS Brainerd Currie* I. TllE PROBLEM AND ITS ORIGINS ERSONAL injuries allegedly caused by the negligent manufac­ P ture of safety fuses used in blasting operations in a coal mine were suffered by Raymond Davis, apparently a citizen of Arkansas. The manufacturer, Ensign-Bickford Company, was a Connecticut corporation that could not be personally served with process within Arkansas. But it happened that two foreign corporations, ame­ nable to process in the state, were indebted in substantial amounts to Ensign-Bickford Company. Accordingly, counsel for Davis, in­ voking the diversity jurisdiction, filed an action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Without issue of sum­ mons, the plaintiff, in conformity with Arkansas statutes, sued out orders of general attachment, for notice by publication, and for warning the defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States LANELL WILLIAMS-YULEE, Petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ERNEST J. MYERS ANDREW J. PINCUS LEE W. MARCUS CHARLES A. ROTHFELD Marcus & Myers, P.A. MICHAEL B. KIMBERLY 1515 Park Center Drive Counsel of Record Suite 2G PAUL W. HUGHES Orlando, FL 32835 Mayer Brown LLP (407) 447-2550 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 EUGENE R. FIDELL (202) 263-3127 Yale Law School mkimberly@ Supreme Court Clinic mayerbrown.com 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-4992 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally solicit- ing campaign funds violates the First Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented ..................................................... i Table of Authorities................................................... iii Opinions Below............................................................1 Jurisdiction..................................................................1 Constitutional Amendment and Canon of Conduct Involved.........................................1 Statement ....................................................................2 A. Factual background..........................................3 B. Procedural background ....................................3 Reasons for Granting the Petition..............................6 A. There is a deep and acknowledged conflict
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the EIGHTH CIRCUIT ______
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1858 ___________ Curtis Ray Frisby, Special * Administrator of the Estate of * Shirley Fay Frisby, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Milbank Manufacturing Co., * * Defendant - Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: February 16, 2012 Filed: July 31, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Shirley Frisby collapsed and died from an apparent heart attack while working on an assembly line at Milbank Manufacturing Company’s facility in El Dorado, Arkansas. A claim for workers’ compensation death benefits was filed just before the two-year statute of limitations expired. See Ark. Code § 11-9-702(a)(1). After a contested hearing, the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the claim, concluding that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence both “that Mrs. Frisby sustained a compensable myocardial infarction injury” and “that an accident is the major cause of the physical harm that Mrs. Frisby Appellate Case: 11-1858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Entry ID: 3937185 sustained.” See Ark. Code §§ 11-9-102(4)(A)(i), (iv); 11-9-114(b)(1). Curtis Frisby as administrator of his wife’s estate then commenced this wrongful death diversity action against Milbank. The district court1 dismissed the action as time barred. Frisby appeals, arguing that the filing of a workers’ compensation claim tolls the statute of limitations for a tort claim against the employer for the same injury, and alternatively that the Arkansas “savings statute” applies and provided him one year after the workers’ compensation claim denial to file this action for the same injury.
    [Show full text]
  • GINAL Fsupr—Rne Cou
    Jle GINAL FSupr—rne CoU. U S emFILED No. LC) NOV1U21 OFFICE Of EID" Before The Supreme Court of The United States James E. Whitney Petitioner V. Cindy Glover, et al. Respondent On a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Case no. 18-1227 Petition for Writ of Certiorari James E. Whitney,ProSe Sui Juris In Propria Persona 163817 P.O.Box 600 Grady, Arkansas 71644-0600 RECEIVED NOV 192018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S. Preface Pay heed and hear me, be still and I will speak; If you have what to say, answer me; But if not, listen to me; Be still and I will teach you wisdom. But where does wisdom come? Where is the source of understanding? See! Fear of the Lord is wisdom; to shun Evil is understanding; no man can set a value on the for it is the breath of El Shaddai from which they come. It is not the aged who are wise, nor the elders who understand how to judge. As long as there is life in me, and God's breath is in mynostrils, my lips will speak no wrong, nor my tongue utter deceit. Until I die I will maintain my integrity, I persist in my righteousness and I will not yield; I shall be free of reproach as long as I live. I would not temper my speech for anyone's sake nor show regards for any man, for I do not know how to temper my speech- my maker would soon carry me off.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Public Health Law Bench Book Was Provided by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H
    Arkansas Public Health Bench Book Page | 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sarah Elizabeth Pitman, Editor. Funding for the completion of the Arkansas Public Health Law Bench Book was provided by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law and the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement. The materials contained in the Bench Book were compiled by the Health Law Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association. Special thanks to the following Members: Elizabeth Andreoli, J.D.; Elisa White, J.D.; Amy Dunn Johnson, J.D.; Joe Volpe, J.D.; Brandon Harrison, J.D.; Kathy DiMaggio, J.D.; Kristy Moody, J.D.; Rhonda Wood, J.D.; Carol Roddy, J.D.; Jack McNulty, J.D.; Shannon Fant, J.D.; Diane Mackey, J.D.; J. Lineé Ophof. This Bench Book could not have been completed without the support of the Arkansas Department of Health, in particular the Center for Health Protection, Preparedness, and Response Branch, William Mason, M.D., Branch Chief. Special thanks to the following individuals who contributed comments and expertise to this project: Rick Hogan, J.D., M.P.H.; Diane Mackey, J.D.; Karen Kim, Ph.D.; Jay Gandy, Ph.D.; Kevin Ryan, J.D., M.A., R.N. Please send any comments, suggestions, or corrections to: Rick Hogan General Counsel Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham, Slot H-31 Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 Office (501)661-2252, Fax (501)661-2357 Disclaimer: This Bench Book is intended to be a resource and guide for judges sitting on the bench and those practicing in public health. It is not intended to serve as legal advice in place of a qualified attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • A National Call to Action
    A National Call to Action Access to Justice for Limited English Proficient Litigants: Creating Solutions to Language Barriers in State Courts July 2013 For further information contact: Konstantina Vagenas, Director/Chief Counsel Language and Access to Justice Initiatives National Center for State Courts 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350 Arlington, VA 22201-3326 [email protected] Additional Resources can be found at: www.ncsc.org Copyright 2013 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 ISBN 978-0-89656-287-5 This document has been prepared with support from a State Justice Institute grant. The points of view and opinions offered in this call to action are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policies or position of the State Justice Institute or the National Center for State Courts. Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgments i Executive Summary ii Introduction iv Chapter 1: Pre-Summit Assessment 1 Chapter 2: The Summit 11 Plenary Sessions 12 Workshops 13 Team Exercises: Identifying Priorities and Developing Action Plans 16 Chapter 3: Action Steps: A Road Map to a Successful Language Access Program 17 Step 1: Identifying the Need for Language Assistance 19 Step 2: Establishing and Maintaining Oversight 22 Step 3: Implementing Monitoring Procedures 25 Step 4: Training and Educating Court Staff and Stakeholders 27 Step 5: Training and Certifying Interpreters 30 Step 6: Enhancing Collaboration and Information Sharing 33 Step 7: Utilizing Remote Interpreting Technology 35 Step 8: Ensuring Compliance with Legal Requirements 38 Step 9: Exploring Strategies to Obtain Funding 40 Appendix A: Summit Agenda 44 Appendix B: List of Summit Attendees/State Delegations 50 Preface and Acknowledgments Our American system of justice cannot function if it is not designed to adequately address the constitutional rights of a very large and ever-growing portion of its population, namely litigants with limited English proficiency (LEP).
    [Show full text]
  • Bicentennial Celebration of the U.S. Attorneys
    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that. But with the celebration of the Constitution must also come the commemoration of those sharing responsibility for the realization of those noble principles in the lives of the American people, those commissioned throughout our nation’s history as United States Attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Supreme Court Received a New Chief Council, Inc
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. , ,~E==-===:::::::::=~_"-'" .. "".'.-----'--~ .. ~_".'-~ ... -.'."""_ .... ~--..._~._ ~_~.;_ ~'~";'_." ,'---'-----C., .... --::.:::::::= ..... ~.. c:. :'~l'::C""";'C:"C='=,.".j.... :'" .I__ "~ ___ ~_ ---------- J: ' " .., • • • ~ -' National crim~,-t_ic_e_R_e_fe_r_e_n_c_e_s_e_rv_ic_e______ ---------:1·. • ... - .- • ~~-1 '• - nCJrs ::1 • -• I • I ; • .. -. This microfiche was produced from documents received for I -- inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, ., I " .A ., ..,• A T .. ~ J I I the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on , 1 - • • ... this frame may be used to eva!,yate the document quality. \ , ~.-,-;..~ :'-'- - . .::..:.. .... .....l.'-_'__ •. ~..:..~_._~... , •• "".:......:~ .........:.- i, I~' .~ . '. ~ - , ,' .. ! I -, :; 1I11I?·8 1111'2.5 • " 1.0 Ww ~3.2 22. '" nm3.6 "=- 1l1U~ &:.i Q :! Ug ... u L:.:t.::.u '1 111111.1 1/ ( ~ "'" 1.25 111111.4_ 111111.6 ,t I MICROCOPY PESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A I ! ,,~ .... _ ·4'•. "\ ..... ,.:. '1 Microfilmingprocedures used to create this fiche comply with . ij; ·•.... 1 the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. .,I Points of view or opinions stated in this document are I' I those of the author(s) and do not represent the official I ! ' position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. " . ~- --,.-....,....,.,,- ... '-.,;.~-~, .,-;--.,..,..,~.1 I -II y- , .. o rN;:'ti~.i>aI I~~Jiut~ otJ~siic~-=jt:f~~ .. ~~~~,.. ~~~ ", •'" . United States Department of Justice .-._-.. _..... I Washington, D. C. 20531 f f 'I • • I, i I:, , · . /' STATE OF iKANSAS CHIEF JUSTICE Richard B. Adkisson JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Bob Lowery JUSTICE BUILDING 371-2295 LITTLE ROCK 7220 I ~ 0 ru, n Honorable Richard B.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Department of Arkansas
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT, .. ' .~~ .... ·.c--·'~~·-:-·I i ".' .... · ... .,. I ~-=-' . .::.-...... n:::e;nG;:::ACt:I:w=a: _~,_.~~- .-"~ JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS 975 JUDICIAL STATISTICS Compiled By The Office of EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS NCJRS M~'( ~ 5 1979 1975 JUDICIAL STATISTICS Compiled By The Office of EXECUTIVE SECRETARY "To be effective, judicial administration must not be leadfooted." Frankfurter, J. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, at 325 (1940) iii CHIEF' JUSTICE CARLETON HARRIS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY C. R. HUIE COURT PLANNER 150'.3715.700' STATE OF ARKANSAS LARRY JEGLEY 150'·37'·22915 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RESEARCH COORDINATOR JACK JARRETT JEAN LANGFORD 150'·37'·22915 JUSTICE BUILDING 501.37'·22915 CHIEF. A"'ALYTICAL SERVICES INTER·AGENCY COORDINATOR JIM ~IENDERSON LITTLE ROCK 72201 TIM MASSANELLI 1501·371·22915 50'.371·22915 To the Honorable, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas,; For its Bleventh Annual Report the office of Executive Secretary of the Judicial Department submits her.ewith a report of the activities of the courts of Arkansas and statistical data covering the calendar year 1975 together with comparative data of previous years. It is hoped that the contents of the report will be of value to you in making policy decisions as Administrative Director of Arkansas courts, and of assist~nce to the executive and legislative branches of the government in their deliberations. Respectfully, --/J~L vL-cS C. R. Huie Executive Secretary v SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK CARLETON HARRIS To the Honorable David Pryor, Governor and Members of the seventieth General Assembly Submitted herewith is the Eleventh Annual Report of the Executive Secretary of the Judicial Department of Arkansas.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Last Chance Cle No Late Fee
    2017 LAST CHANCE CLE NO LATE FEE. NO NON‐MEMBER FEE. NO HASSLE. El Dorado - June 29, 2017 El Dorado Conference Center · 311 S. West Avenue · El Dorado 2017 Last Chance CLE Pulaski County Bar Association Thursday, June 29, 2017 Seminar Schedule 2017 Last Chance CLE Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.……………………..…………………….…...…Registration/Coffee and Danish 8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.…………………………………………………………………Legislative Update Matthew Shepherd, Arkansas State Representative 9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.……….....No Longer Mixing Apples and Oranges: A Guide to the New Act 3 Mental Evaluation Laws Bettina Brownstein, Cooperating Attorney, ACLU of Arkansas 10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.……………………………….……………....……………………………..Break 10:45 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.…………....................................Admission and Exclusion of Unique Evidence and Ethical Considerations John Thomas Shepherd, Shepherd & Shepherd PA 11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.………………………………..…………………………..Lunch (On Your Own) 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.………………………………..............................The Three Stages of Mediation Jimmy Lawson, Hamlin Dispute Resolution LLC 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.……....Cybercrimes: Protecting our Children Through Online Investigations Will Jones, Arkansas Attorney General's Office 3:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m………………………………………………………………………………..Break 3:15 p.m. - 4:15 p.m...............Ethics in Arkansas: A Year in Review and a Glimpse into the Future Michael Harmon, Deputy Director, Office of Professional Conduct 4:15 p.m.………………………………..………….………...…………………………………..Adjourn Table of Contents 2017 Last Chance CLE Thursday,
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018
    Administrative Office of the Courts 1 Annual Report 2018 Annual Report OF THE ARKANSAS JUDICIARY 2018 Administrative Office of the Courts 2 Annual Report 2018 In This Report Chief Justice’s Message 1 Letter from the Director 2 Court Structure 3 About the Data 4 Arkansas Supreme Court 5 Court of Appeals 8 Appeals on Wheels 11 Boards and Committees 12 Funding the Judiciary 15 Administrative Office of the Courts 16 Judicial Council 22 Courts of General Jurisdiction 23 Arkansas Judicial Circuits 25 Limited Jurisdiction Courts 90 State District Judges 95 Local District Judges 98 Specialty Courts 100 In Memorium 103 Administrative Office of the Courts 1 Annual Report 2018 From The Chief Justice My fellow Arkansans, Keeping in mind our Vision Statement that the Arkansas Judiciary will embody integrity, transparency, and accountability to the public, which it serves, I am excited and pleased to introduce the 2018 Annual Report. The Annual Report is designed to bring even more transparency to the People of Arkansas and highlights the essential efforts of all the state’s courts in administering justice this past year. As in years past, statistics, data, and other information that demonstrate the courts’ extraordinary dedication can be found in these pages. For the first time, Arkansas has a long-term, strategic plan for the judiciary. The Strategic Planning Committee worked tirelessly to establish a vision for what Arkansas courts may – indeed must – become over the next few years. In some ways, the material presented in this year’s annual report can be used in future editions to evaluate our courts’ progress toward the six goals presented in the Strategic Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Juvenile Courts: Do Lay Judges Satisfy Due Process in Delinquency Cases
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 6 Issue 4 Article 2 1983 Arkansas Juvenile Courts: Do Lay Judges Satisfy Due Process in Delinquency Cases Paula J. Casey Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons, and the Juvenile Law Commons Recommended Citation Paula J. Casey, Arkansas Juvenile Courts: Do Lay Judges Satisfy Due Process in Delinquency Cases, 6 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 501 (1983). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol6/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARKANSAS JUVENILE COURTS: DO LAY JUDGES SATISFY DUE PROCESS IN DELINQUENCY CASES? Paula J. Casey* INTRODUCTION A separate criminal jurisprudence for children was unheard of until the twentieth century. Prior to the creation of juvenile courts at the beginning of this century, children who were charged with crimes were subjected to adult criminal proceedings. The belief that the causes of delinquency could be predicted and treated so as to prevent deviant behavior in children fostered reforms in the applica- tion of criminal law to juveniles.' These reforms eventually resulted in the creation of juvenile courts.' The first juvenile courts resem- bled social agencies and were designed to protect and rehabilitate rather than punish juveniles who were charged with crimes. Juve- nile proceedings, which were not structured as adversarial proceed- ings, were often summary and informal with juveniles forfeiting due process safeguards.' There was little need for a juvenile court judge to be trained in the law.
    [Show full text]