DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 Annual Convention Materials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013 Annual Convention Materials REDRAFTING KENTUCKY'S APPELLATE RULES: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION CLE Credit: 1.5 Friday, June 21, 2013 10:10 a.m. - 11:25 p.m. Combs-Chandler Room Galt House Hotel Louisville, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Kanet Pol & Bridges 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Draft Kentucky Appellate Rules of Procedure (KAP) ....................................................... 1 Proposed Structure of Appellate Rules ............................................................................ 5 Kentucky Appellate Rules of Procedure .......................................................................... 7 THE PRESENTERS Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson Supreme Court of Kentucky Jefferson County Judicial Center 800 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Louisville, Kentucky 40202-4737 [email protected] JUSTICE LISABETH HUGHES ABRAMSON was sworn in as a Justice for the Supreme Court of Kentucky on Sept. 10, 2007, after being appointed to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the late Justice William E. McAnulty, Jr. She was subsequently elected to the office in November 2008. She has served on the Kentucky Court of Appeals twice in her career – she was appointed on June 30, 2006, to fill a vacancy in Division 2 of the 4th Appellate District and was subsequently elected to that position in November 2006. She first served as a Court of Appeals judge from 1997 to 1998. From January 1999 until her 2006 appointment to the Court of Appeals, Justice Abramson served as a circuit judge in Jefferson County. She earned a bachelor’s degree, with highest honors, from the University of Louisville and graduated magna cum laude from the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville and was named the Outstanding Graduate of her law school class. Before serving as a judge, she practiced law for fifteen years, concentrating on business and commercial litigation. In addition, she is a past president of the University of Louisville School of Law Alumni Council and is a Master and incoming President of the Louis D. Brandeis Inn of Court. Justice Abramson also served as a trustee for the Kentucky Judicial Form Retirement System Board, is the Supreme Court representative on the Kentucky IOLTA Board, Chairs the Civil Rules Committee, is a frequent lecturer for the Kentucky Circuit Judges Judicial College, and a 2007 graduate of Leadership Louisville. Jeanne D. Anderson 1613 Gardiner Lane Louisville, Kentucky 40205 (502) 696-5342 [email protected] JEANNE D. ANDERSON is the Executive Director of the Office of Criminal Appeals for the Office of the Attorney General in Frankfort. She received her B.A. from the University of Minnesota and J.D. from Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. Ms. Anderson is the 2012-2013 Chair of the Kentucky Bar Association Appellate Advocacy Section. i Bethany A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3352 (502) 587-3400 [email protected] BETHANY A. BREETZ is an attorney with the Louisville office of Stites & Harbison, PLLC, where she focuses her practice on both federal and state appellate advocacy, complex commercial litigation, including financial institutions, real estate, and trust and estate litigation. She received her B.A. from the University of Chicago and J.D., cum laude, from the University of Michigan Law School. Ms. Breetz was the first Chair of the Kentucky Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Section when it was established by the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2007. She is the past Chair of the Louisville Bar Association’s Appellate Section. Ms. Breetz was recently appointed to the Kentucky Supreme Court Civil Rules Committee and was named Chair of the Appellate Rules Subcommittee. She is listed in The Best Lawyers in America® (2009-2013) in the category of Appellate Practice and in Louisville Magazine’s Top Lawyers for 2013 in the categories of Appellate Law and Media Law. Kenneth L. Sales Bubalo Goode Sales & Bliss, PLC 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215 Louisville, Kentucky 40222 (502) 753-1560 [email protected] KENNETH L. SALES is Of Counsel with the firm Bubalo Goode Sales & Bliss, PLC, where he is widely recognized as one of the nation’s premier mesothelioma and products liability lawyers. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Kentucky and J.D. from the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. Mr. Sales is a member of the American Association for Justice and serves on the Board of Governors for the Kentucky Justice Association. He received the Peter Perlman Outstanding Trial Lawyer Award in 2006 from the Kentucky Academy of Trial Attorneys (now known as Kentucky Justice Association) and is rated as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in the nation by the American Trial Lawyers Association. ii Kathleen K. Schmidt Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-8006 [email protected] KATHLEEN K. SCHMIDT is the Appellate Branch Manager for the Department of Public Advocacy’s Post Trial Division. She received her B.S. from Vanderbilt University and her J.D. from the University of Kentucky College of Law. Ms. Schmidt is admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. She is a member of the Bullitt County and Kentucky Bar Associations. iii iv DRAFT KENTUCKY APPELLATE RULES OF PROCEDURE (KAP) Attached is a working draft of the Kentucky Appellate Rules of Procedure (also known as KAP). The Appellate Rules Subcommittee of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Civil Rules Committee has been working on these rules for a year and a half. They are not yet completed. For example, a number of rules relating to the record on appeal are omitted as "Under Construction." The Subcommittee is attempting to reach consensus on revisions to those rules before submitting them for more extensive review by the bench and bar. Other rules, while ready for review by persons outside the Subcommittee, may still be subject to further revision. After the Subcommittee has completed the draft rules, they will go to the Civil Rules Committee for that committee’s review and recommendation to the Supreme Court. The rules will then, likely, be discussed at the rules hearing at the 2014 KBA Convention before the Supreme Court votes on adopting revised appellate rules. The Subcommittee would like general feedback on the structure and content of the rules, including potential unintended consequences of any changes or recommendations for further revisions. While comments regarding the exact phrasing or punctuation of the rules would be appreciated as well, keep in mind that these rules are not yet in final form for recommendation to the Civil Rules Committee, let alone recommendation to the Supreme Court. History In 2007, the Appellate Advocacy Section began as a new section of the Kentucky Bar Association. Among the purposes of the section were to assist in improving the level of practice by attorneys who do not regularly practice in the appellate area. To that end, the first order of the section was to create and present at District Bar meetings throughout the state on the nuts and bolts of appeals, providing both verbal and written guidelines for non-appellate practitioners to handle the occasional appeal. Among other purposes of the Appellate Advocacy Section were to "promote discussion within the KBA of concerns of lawyers engaged in appellate advocacy" and to "research and recommend new procedures" that will improve the practice of appellate advocacy in Kentucky. Those discussions quickly led to the realization that Kentucky’s appellate rules of practice needed to be revised, preferably as stand-alone rules of appellate practice. The then-chair of the Appellate Advocacy Section discussed the rules issue with Justices Noble and Abramson (the former and current chairs of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Civil Rules Committee). It was suggested that the Appellate Advocacy Section begin the process of drafting stand-alone appellate rules that could be used as a starting point for any subsequent official committee action on revising the appellate rules. Accordingly, from 2008 through 2010 all the then current and former officers of the Appellate Advocacy Section, along with the Clerk and the Chief Staff Attorney of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, worked on creating a working draft of stand-alone
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    NO. 19-__ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ PHILIP J. WEISER GRANT T. SULLIVAN Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. OLSON LEEANN MORRILL Solicitor General First Assistant Attorney Counsel of Record General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] (720) 508-6000 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED Like most States, Colorado requires its presidential electors to follow the will of its voters when casting their Electoral College ballots for President. In the 2016 Electoral College, one of Colorado’s electors violated Colorado law by attempting to cast his presidential ballot for a candidate other than the one he pledged to vote for. Colorado removed him as an elector, declined to accept his ballot, and replaced him with an alternate elector who properly cast her ballot for the winner of the State’s popular vote, consistent with Colorado law. The removed elector later sued Colorado for nominal damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State’s popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Access to Constitutional Justice
    Strasbourg, 27 January 2011 CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2010)039 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS....................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...............................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS .................................................................................................17 I.1.1. Indirect access...................................................................................................17 I.1.2. Direct access.....................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................28 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ..............................................................................................29 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
    TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Table of Contents SECTION ONE. (c) Where to File. GENERAL PROVISIONS (d) Order of the Court. Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Local Rules of Courts of Rule 5. Fees in Civil Cases Appeals Rule 6. Representation by Counsel 1.1. Scope. 6.1. Lead Counsel 1.2. Local Rules (a) For Appellant. (a) Promulgation. (b) For a Party Other Than Appellant. (b) Copies. (c) How to Designate. (c) Party's Noncompliance. 6.2. Appearance of Other Attorneys Rule 2. Suspension of Rules 6.3. To Whom Communications Sent Rule 3. Definitions; Uniform Terminology 6.4. Nonrepresentation Notice 3.1. Definitions (a) In General. (b) Appointed Counsel. 3.2. Uniform Terminology in Criminal Cases 6.5. Withdrawal (a) Contents of Motion. Rule 4. Time and Notice Provisions (b) Delivery to Party. (c) If Motion Granted. 4.1. Computing Time (d) Exception for Substitution of (a) In General. Counsel. (b) Clerk's Office Closed or Inaccessible. 6.6. Agreements of Parties or Counsel 4.2. No Notice of Trial Court’s Judgment Rule 7. Substituting Parties in Civil Case (a) Additional Time to File Documents. 7.1. Parties Who Are Not Public Officers (1) In general. (a) Death of a Party. (2) Exception for restricted appeal. (1) Civil Cases. (b) Procedure to Gain Additional Time. (2) Criminal Cases. (c) The Court’s Order. (b) Substitution for Other Reasons. 4.3. Periods Affected by Modified 7.2. Public Officers Judgment in Civil Case (a) Automatic Substitution of Officer. (a) During Plenary-Power Period. (b) Abatement. (b) After Plenary Power Expires.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the California Appellate System J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 45 | Issue 3 Article 2 1-1994 A Report on the California Appellate System J. Clark Kelso Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Clark Kelso, A Report on the California Appellate System, 45 Hastings L.J. 433 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol45/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Report on the California Appellate Systemt by J. CLARK KELSO* Introduction Although the right to appeal is not recognized as one of our fun- damental rights of due process or equal protection, the ability to ap- peal an adverse decision would nevertheless appear to be one of the most cherished indicia of civilized government.' We learn at a very early age that one way to avoid having our toys taken away by an older sibling or playmate is to protest this unfair treatment to the nearest authority figure-usually a parent. And if relief is not granted by one parent, we seek help from the other parent. The underlying sentiment that there is (or must be) a higher au- thority which may be consulted to correct injustice has been ingrained in formal, governmental dispute-resolution systems throughout re- corded history. The right of appeal has been a component of govern- f The first draft of this Article was sent out to more than 125 reviewers, including all appellate judges in California.
    [Show full text]
  • State Supreme Courts' Attempts to Remove Themselves from the Federal Habeas Exhaustion Requirement
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 51 Issue 2 Article 4 2000 Thanks, but No Thanks: State Supreme Courts' Attempts to Remove Themselves from the Federal Habeas Exhaustion Requirement Kirk J. Henderson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kirk J. Henderson, Thanks, but No Thanks: State Supreme Courts' Attempts to Remove Themselves from the Federal Habeas Exhaustion Requirement, 51 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 201 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol51/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ARTICLE THANKS, BUT No THANKS: STATE SUPREME COURTS' ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THE FEDERAL HABEAS EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT t Kirk J. Henderson INTRODUCTION A state prisoner who wants to file a federal habeas corpus peti- tion must first exhaust his or her remedies in state court.' In the ab- stract, this is a simple enough concept. The details of what consti- tutes an exhausted claim, however, have been and continue to be un- clear. Prior to 1999, the federal circuits were split on whether the ex- haustion requirement obligated prisoners to file for discretionary re- view in state supreme court.2 The Supreme Court attempted to re- solve this conflict in O'Sullivan v. Boerckel by holding that discre- tionary review is required to fulfill the exhaustion requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposal for Descretionary Review in Federal Courts of Appeals
    SMU Law Review Volume 34 Issue 5 Article 4 1980 A Proposal for Descretionary Review in Federal Courts of Appeals Donald P. Lay Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Donald P. Lay, Comment, A Proposal for Descretionary Review in Federal Courts of Appeals, 34 SW L.J. 1151 (1980) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol34/iss5/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. ESSAYS A PROPOSAL FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS by Donald P. Lay* p ROFESSOR Kallay has written: Whether access to appellate review can be denied or curtailed by means of a dismissal should test ultimately on the difference between appeals as of right and discretionary appeals. Ifaparty can perfect an appeal as a matter of right, he should necessarilybe entitled to the bene- fits of the entire deliberativeprocessoffered by theforum to which he has taken his appeal' No one should seriously challenge Kallay's observations. Federal liti- gants in both civil and criminal cases have been given the right of appel- late review in the courts of appeals since the Act of 1891 creating the federal courts of appeals. 2 The problem existing today is that federal courts of appeals are so inundated by the volume of appeals that appeals of right can no longer be given the full deliberative process to which they are entitled.
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanor Appeals
    MISDEMEANOR APPEALS NANCY J. KING & MICHAEL HEISE ABSTRACT Misdemeanor cases affect far more people than felony cases, outnumbering felony cases by more than three to one. Yet little empirical information exists on many aspects of misdemeanor prosecutions. This Article provides the first quantitative look at appellate review in misdemeanor cases nationwide. It uses data drawn from a random sample of direct criminal appeals decided by every state appellate court in the nation, unpublished aggregate data on misdemeanor trial court cases provided by the Court Statistics Project, and published state court statistics. We provide the first estimate of the rate of appellate review for misdemeanors, concluding that appellate courts review no more than eight in ten thousand misdemeanor convictions and disturb only one conviction or sentence out of every ten thousand misdemeanor judgments. This level of oversight is much lower than that for felony cases, for reasons we explain. To develop law and regulate error in misdemeanor cases, particularly in prosecutions for the lowest-level offenses, courts may need to provide mechanisms for judicial scrutiny outside the direct appeal process. Additional findings include new information about the rate of felony trial court review of lower court misdemeanor cases; ratios of appeals to convictions for various misdemeanor-crime categories; detailed descriptive information about misdemeanor cases that reach state appellate courts; the results of a complete statistical analysis examining which features are significantly associated with a greater or lesser likelihood of success, including crime type, claim raised, judicial-selection method, and type of representation; and the first quantitative look at how misdemeanor appeals differ from felony appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES Supreme Court of the United States
    RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States ADOPTED APRIL 18, 2019 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543 Clerk of the Court ............................... (202) 479-3011 Reporter of Decisions.......................... (202) 479-3390 Marshal of the Court........................... (202) 479-3333 Librarian................................................ (202) 479-3175 Telephone Operator ............................. (202) 479-3000 Visit the U.S. Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4) Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE COURT Page Rule 1. Clerk ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 2. Library ............................................................................................ 1 Rule 3. Term ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum ................................................................... 2 PART II. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Rule 5. Admission to the Bar.................................................................... 2 Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice.............................................................. 3 Rule 7. Prohibition Against Practice ...................................................... 4 Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary
    [Show full text]
  • The Exceptions Clause As a Structural Safeguard Tara Leigh Grove William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2013 The Exceptions Clause as a Structural Safeguard Tara Leigh Grove William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Grove, Tara Leigh, "The Exceptions Clause as a Structural Safeguard" (2013). Faculty Publications. 1540. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1540 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE AS A STRUCTURAL SAFEGUARD Tara Leigh Grove Scholars have long treated the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court’s central constitutional function: establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law. This Article argues that scholars have overlooked an important function of the Clause. Congress has repeatedly used its broad “exceptions power” to facilitate, not to undermine, the Supreme Court’s constitutional role. Drawing on insights from social science, this Article asserts that Congress has an incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court’s role in settling disputed federal questions. Notably, this argument has considerable historical support. When the Supreme Court’s mandatory appellate docket grew to the point that it was un- manageable for a single tribunal, Congress responded by exercising its authority under the Exceptions Clause. Congress made “exceptions” to the Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction and replaced it with discretionary review via writs of certiorari—precisely so that the Court could concentrate its limited resources on resolving important federal questions.
    [Show full text]
  • One Supreme Court and the Writ of Certiorari J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 15 | Issue 2 Article 4 1-1963 One Supreme Court and the Writ of Certiorari J. Warren Madden Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Warren Madden, One Supreme Court and the Writ of Certiorari, 15 Hastings L.J. 153 (1963). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol15/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. One Supreme Court and the Writ of Certiorari By J. WARREN MADDEN* IN the establishment of the national government, the Constitution pro- vided that the legislative power should be vested in a Congress. That provision assures that all national legislation shall be the product of a single national body, deliberating as such, and that no part of the legislative power may be delegated to regional legislative bodies, legis- lating for parts of the nation. The executive power was vested in a President, and unity in that function is thus assured. But as to the third great function of government, the judicial power, the Constitution was not so specific. It vested the judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress might establish. The crea- tion of one Supreme Court was suggestive of unity, comparable to the unity of one Congress and one Executive. But the Constitution makers did not contemplate that all the judicial business of the new national government should be done by the one Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rap) Table of Rules
    Rules of Appellate Procedure RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE (RAP) TABLE OF RULES TITLE 1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF RULES Rule 1.1 Scope of Rules 1.2 Interpretation and Waiver of Rules by Court TITLE 2 WHAT TRIAL COURT DECISIONS MAY BE REVIEWED--SCOPE OF REVIEW 2.1 Methods for Seeking Review of Trial Court Decision--Generally 2.2 Decisions of the Superior Court That May Be Appealed 2.3 Decisions of the Trial Court Which May Be Reviewed by Discretionary Review 2.4 Scope of Review of a Trial Court Decision 2.5 Circumstances Which May Affect Scope of Review TITLE 3 PARTIES 3.1 Who May Seek Review 3.2 Substitution of Parties 3.3 Consolidation of Cases 3.4 Title of Case and Designation of Parties TITLE 4 WHERE TO SEEK REVIEW OF A TRIAL COURT DECISION 4.1 Review of Trial Court Decision by the Court of Appeals 4.2 Direct Review of Superior Court Decision by Supreme Court 4.3 Direct Review of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 4.4 Transfer of Cases by Supreme Court TITLE 5 HOW AND WHEN TO INITIATE REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT DECISION: COURT OF APPEALS SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE 5.1 Review Initiated by Filing Notice of Appeal or Notice for Discretionary Review 5.2 Time Allowed To File Notice 5.3 Content of Notice--Filing 5.4 Filing and Service of Notice 5.5 Settlement Conference in Court of Appeals TITLE 6 ACCEPTANCE OF REVIEW 6.1 Appeal as a Matter of Right 6.2 Discretionary Review 6.3 Direct Review of a Final Decision of an Administrative Agency TITLE 7 AUTHORITY OF TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE COURT PENDING REVIEW 7.1 Authority of Trial Court Before Review
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review Douglas E
    BYU Law Review Volume 2005 | Issue 2 Article 1 5-1-2005 The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review Douglas E. Beloof Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Douglas E. Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255 (2005). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2005/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1BEL-FIN 8/9/2005 2:18:25 PM The Third Wave of Crime Victims’ Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review Douglas E. Beloof.∗ I. Introduction and Background ............................................................ 256 A. Introduction: Crime Victims’ State Constitutional Rights Are Often Illusory................................................................. 256 B. Background........................................................................... 261 II. How Victims Are Denied Standing.................................................. 273 A. Real Rights Require Standing, Adequate Remedy, and Review.................................................................................. 274 B. The Discretion Problem.......................................................
    [Show full text]