DOCSLIB.ORG

State Court Systems Profiles Comparative Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Court Systems Profiles Comparative Research State Court Systems Profiles Co mpiled by: The Office of the State Courts Administrator Strategic Pla nning Unit August 25 th, 2010 Contents (Press <ctrl> and click to navigate) Alabama 1 I. State Overview and Demographics 1 II. State Court System 2 III. Governance 3 Image - Alabama Judicial Branch 10 Arizona 11 I. State Overview and Demographics 11 II. State Court System 12 III. Governance 14 Image - Arizona Judicial Council and Standing Committees 20 California 21 I. State Overview and Demographics 21 II. State Court System 22 III. Governance 24 Image - California Judicial Branch 38 Minnesota 39 I. State Overview and Demographics 39 II. State Court System 40 III. Governance 42 Image - Minnesota Judicial Branch Administrative Structure 53 Missouri 54 I. State Overview and Demographics 54 II. State Court System 55 III. Governance 56 Nevada 62 I. State Overview and Demographics 62 II. State Court System 63 III. Governance 65 New Jersey 70 I. State Overview and Demographics 70 II. State Court System 71 III. Governance 72 New York 78 I. State Overview and Demographics 78 II. State Court System 79 III. Governance 80 Image - New York Court Structure 85 Image - New York Administrative Structure 86 Utah 87 I. State Overview and Demographics 87 II. State Court System 88 III. Governance 90 Vermont 98 I. State Overview and Demographics 98 II. State Court System 99 III. Governance 100 Virginia 106 I. State Overview and Demographics 106 II. State Court System 107 III. Governance 108 Image - Virginia Judicial Branch 119 Alabama I. State Overview and Demographics Total Population Estimate – 2009: 4,708,708 Percent Population Growth Estimate – 2000-2009: 5.90% Race (as of 2008): White (including Hispanic/Latino Origin) 71.00% White not Hispanic/Latino 68.40% Black or African-American 26.40% Hispanic/Latino origin * 2.90% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.50% Asian 1.00% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander **Z% Multi-racial 1.10% Other % *Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories **Z indicates less than ½ of 1% Age (as of 2008): Persons under 5 years old 6.70% Persons under 18 years old 24.10% Persons aged 65 years and older 13.80% Cultural Diversity (as of 2000): Foreign born 2.00% Language other than English spoken at home 3.90% Population Dispersion (as of 2000): Average number of persons per household 2.49 Average number of persons per square mile 87.6 Number of Urban Centers/Areas in State 4 (Population of 100,000 or greater as of 2008) Sources: The U.S. Census at http://quickfacts.census.gov 1 Alabama II. State Court System Jurisdictional Structure and Number of Officers Trial Courts: Number of Courts Number of Judges General Jurisdiction 41 circuits 144 Limited Jurisdiction 67 counties District Courts 68 districts 103 Probate Courts 68 68 Municipal Courts 263 272 Quasi-judicial Officers Some municipalities have their own courts, while other municipal courts are part of the state court system. Intermediate Appellate Courts: Number of Courts Number of Judges Court of Civil Appeals 1 5 Court of Criminal Appeals 1 5 Court of Last Resort Number of Courts Number of Justices Supreme Court 1 9 Selection Authority for: Unexpired Term Full Term Trial Court Judges GU PE Intermediate Appellate Court Judges Court of Civil Appeals GU PE Court of Criminal Appeals GU PE Supreme Court Justices GU PE GU = Gubernatorial appointment PE = Partisan election 2 Alabama Terms of Office: (years) Trial Court Judges 6 Intermediate Appellate Court Judges Court of Civil Appeals 6 Court of Criminal Appeals 6 Supreme Court Justices 6 Selection Authority for: (Presiding/Chief/Administrative Judges/Justices) Trial Court Judges CS Intermediate Appellate Court Judges Court of Civil Appeals S Court of Criminal Appeals CS Supreme Court Justices PE CS = Court selection S = Seniority PE = Partisan election Terms of Office: (Presiding/Chief/Justices) Trial Court Judges 6 Intermediate Appellate Court Judges Court of Civil Appeals 6 Court of Criminal Appeals 6 Supreme Court Justices 6 Sources: The National Center for State Courts at www.ncsconline.org/D Research/Ct Struct/Index.html The Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Alabama III. Governance Number of Supreme Court Justices: 9 Head of the Judicial Branch: Supreme Court Chief Justice X Supreme Court Other: 3 Alabama Authority establishing head of judicial branch: Constitution X Statute Other: Rulemaking Authority: Court Administration: Appellate C Trial C Procedure: Appellate C Civil/Criminal L/C Evidence L/C Discipline: Judicial L/C Attorney C Trial Court Costs and Fees L/C L = Legislature C = Constitution Rulemaking Process – Participants: Supreme Court X Legislature Local Courts Court-appointed Committees X Bar-appointed Committees X Other: Local courts are not allowed to make rules. Policy Development – Process/Participants: Supreme Court (centralized) & AOC X Local Courts (decentralized) Court-appointed Committees/Councils X Other: 4 Alabama Funding/budget Authority - Percent of budget from: State 75% Local/Federal 4% Fees and costs 21% Other: % These numbers are for AOC and trial courts. Appellate courts have separate budgets and financial management systems. Fiscal authority -D evelopment/Allocation of Budget: Chief/Administrative Justice Supreme Court State-level Budgetary Commission Chief Judges of Individual Courts Other: The AOC director and other directors have input into trial court budget recommendations; sometimes the Chief Justice. Budget recommendations from trial courts and appellate courts are submitted to the Governor; the Governor develops recommended budget and submits to Legislature. Planning for the Court System: The Chief Justice is in charge of planning for the court system; planning participants include the Chief Justice, the Administrative Director of the Courts (AOC), AOC Division Directors, and various AOC Committees. The AOC does planning for the AOC and the state trial courts, with input from the Judicial Study Commission and the circuit and district courts. The appellate courts (appeals courts, Supreme Court) are autonomous. • Operational planning is conducted by AOC/Division Directors • Long-range or strategic planning is conducted by the Judicial Study Commission • Ad hoc or situational planning is conducted by various Unified Judicial System committees, i.e., judges and clerks Education committees Court system planning types: Operational X Long-range or strategic X Ad hoc or situational X Other: 5 Alabama Timeframe of most recent plan (begin and end dates): Plan Effective Dates Operational Long-range or strategic Ad hoc or situational Other: Funding and governance of information technology in the judicial branch: IT is a line item in the (trial) court budget; it is a pay-as-you go process based on available funds. No funding source earmarked for technology per se. There has been a big push for to go paperless, e.g., e-filing, e-citations, videoconferencing and video arraignments. There is an interagency technology committee including judges, court staff, representatives from other state agencies, who conduct planning for IT; they do what they can with what they have; budget cuts have made it difficult to undertake new projects. General Fund appropriations are made by the Legislature to the AOC; various state and federal grants, and user fees may also be used. Leadership of the judicial branch (lines of authority, clarity, shared understanding of leadership roles): The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Branch (Code of Alabama, Section 12-2-30); the Administrative Director of courts is appointed by the Chief Justice (Code of Alabama, Section 12-5-10). AOC Division Directors and Presiding Circuit Judges also part of branch leadership. Judicial branch Decision-making (centralization versus decentralization of authority, decision-making): A great deal of input is sought from trial courts, judges, etc. - it is a major component of decision making. Everyone wants more staff, judges; we can't meet all their needs. See III. I. Leadership above. Entity(ies) that represent the judicial branch to the legislature: Supreme Court Chief Justice State Court Administrator Judges Other: The Chief Justice makes a State of the Judiciary Address to a joint session of the legislature at the beginning of the regular Legislative session and appears before the House General Fund Committee. The Chief Justice's Chief of Staff and others in the AOC are registered lobbyists to ensure that the court's positions on various bills are known. 6 Alabama Is the entity(ies) involved in other political activities? Yes No If yes, what are they? The Administrative Director of the Courts serves as a liaison with the executive and legislative branches of state government. (Code of Alabama, 12-5-10) Coordinating council or committee for the judicial branch: No Yes X Committee Name: Judicial Study Commission Role: This commission shall continuously study the judicial system of the state, the courts of the state, the administration of justice in Alabama, criminal rehabilitation, criminal punishment methods and procedures and all matters relating directly or indirectly to the administration of justice in Alabama and make recommendations pertaining thereto. Structure and Membership: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission; members include: • Six members of the House of Representatives; • Six members of the Senate; • Members of the judicial conference; and, • The Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, legal advisor to the Governor, and a member of the staff of the Attorney General. Other committees: • Legislative Steering Committee • Technology Committee • Numerous other committees appointed by the AOC Effectiveness of council in fulfilling or performing its role: The Judicial Study Commission is a great vehicle to develop long range goals and to study the effectiveness of the courts and determine where gaps in services exist or the need for new, innovative strategies must be employed. The Judicial Study Commission is as good as their membership and their commitment to these goals; they are creative and dedicated to the task.
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]
  • Arizona Courts
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. THE FUTURE OF '-. ARIZONA COURTS Report of ,..................................................... : .... THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS : .... ; '. · \ REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1989 120983 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by A r j z on a Snp..r.e.rne-c.uur.:./-'-___ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. Arizona Supreme Court COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1314 North 3rd Street, Suite 330, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, (602) 255-2136 The Honorable Frank: X. Gordon, Jr. Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court 201 West Wing, State Capitol Phoenix,Arizona85007 Dear Chief Justice Gordon: I am privileged to present to you the report of the Arizona Supreme Court's Commission on the Courts. This report reflects the action-oriented vision shared by the Executive Committee and the various Task Forces for shaping the direction of Arizona's courts into the next decade and beyond. We believe the evaluations and suggestions of the report reflect the need for a balance between continuity and adaptability in the judiciary; between the need for stability and a realistic appraisal of the changes necessary as we face a new century.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No
    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. WC-11-0001-IR IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) Maricopa County Superior THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM AND SOURCE ) Court Case Nos.: W-1, W-2, ) W-3 and W-4 ) (Consolidated) (Gila) IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) [Contested Case OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) No. W1-104] THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM ) AND SOURCE ) Apache County Superior ) Court Case No. 6417 (LCR) ) [Contested Case ) No. 6417-100] ) ) ) O P I N I O N __________________________________) Review from the Superior Court in Apache County and Maricopa County The Honorable Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr., Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ THOMAS C. HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix By Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Theresa M. Craig, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Arizona THE SPARKS LAW FIRM PC Scottsdale By Joe P. Sparks Laurel A. Herrmann Attorneys for the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Tonto Apache Tribe SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By M. Byron Lewis John B. Weldon, Jr. Mark A. McGinnis Attorneys for Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District and Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By Paul R. Orme Attorney for Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District and Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District SNELL & WILMER LLP Phoenix By L. William Staudenmaier, III Andrew M. Jacobs Attorneys for Arizona Public Service Company, Freeport- McMoran Corporation, Roosevelt Water Conservation District POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC Phoenix By Lucas J. Narducci Margaret LaBianca Attorneys for BHP Copper Inc. ENGELMAN BERGER PC Phoenix By William H.
    [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]
  • 2020-229 (Supreme Court)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ____________________________________ In the Matter of: ) ) DISPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL ) Administrative Order EVICTION CASES RELATED TO THE ) No. 2020 - 229 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY ) (Replacing Administrative ) Order No. 2020-163) ____________________________________) Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona declared a statewide public health emergency on March 11, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) into law. The CARES Act required a temporary moratorium on evictions from public housing, federally subsidized rental housing, and rental housing with federally-backed mortgages, as well as a ban on accrual during the moratorium of fees, penalties, and interest related to nonpayment of rent. While the CARES Act eviction moratorium has expired, certain tenant protections related to the accrual of fees, penalties, and interest on unpaid rent remain in effect. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order entitled “Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19” effective September 4, 2020 through December 31, 2020 (CDC No. 2020-19654, 85 Fed. Reg. 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020)) (CDC order). This order prohibited a landlord from taking any action to evict for nonpayment of rent a residential tenant who provided the landlord a declaration under the order. The CDC order also provided: “Under 42 U.S.C. 243, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is authorized . to accept State and local assistance in the enforcement of Federal quarantine rules and regulations, including in the enforcement of this Order.” The Congress has passed and the President has signed into law the “Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021.” The Act extends the CDC moratorium through January 31, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Licensure General Disclosure Juris Doctor
    Last Updated: 8/17/2020 Professional Licensure General Disclosure Juris Doctor In accordance with 34 C.F.R. §668.43, and in compliance with the requirements outlined in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) Manual, DePaul University provides the following disclosure related to the educational requirements for professional licensure and certification1. This disclosure is strictly limited to the University’s determination of whether its educational program, Juris Doctor, if successfully completed, would be sufficient to meet the educational licensure or certification requirements in a State for a licensed attorney.2 DePaul cannot provide verification of an individual’s ability to meet licensure or certification requirements unrelated to its educational programming. This disclosure does not provide any guarantee that any particular state licensure or certification entity will approve or deny your application. Furthermore, this disclosure does not account for changes in state law or regulation that may affect your application for licensure and occur after this disclosure has been made. Enrolled students and prospective students are strongly encouraged to contact their State’s licensure entity using the links provided to review all licensure and certification requirements imposed by their state(s) of choice. DePaul University has designed an educational program curriculum for a Juris Doctor, that if successfully completed is sufficient to meet the licensure and certification requirements for a licensed attorney in the following
    [Show full text]
  • 10-1001 Martinez V. Ryan (03/20/2012)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MARTINEZ v. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10–1001. Argued October 4, 2011—Decided March 20, 2012 Arizona prisoners may raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel only in state collateral proceedings, not on direct review. In petitioner Martinez’s first state collateral proceeding, his counsel did not raise such a claim. On federal habeas review with new counsel, Martinez argued that he received ineffective assistance both at trial and in his first state collateral proceeding. He also claimed that he had a constitutional right to an effective attorney in the collateral proceeding because it was the first place to raise his claim of ineffec- tive assistance at trial. The District Court denied the petition, find- ing that Arizona’s preclusion rule was an adequate and independent state-law ground barring federal review, and that under Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, the attorney’s errors in the postconviction proceeding did not qualify as cause to excuse the procedural default. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 Victim-offender relationship in violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault) by sex of victim Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trial courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 By David B. Rottman Carol R. Flango Melissa T. Cantrell Randall Hansen Neil LaFountain A joint effort of Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts June 2000, NCJ 178932 U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Marika F.X. Litras of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K002. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman, Ph.D., Carol R. Flango, Melissa T. Cantrell, Randall Hansen, and Neil LaFountain. Tom Hester and Carol DeFrances of BJS provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798.
    [Show full text]
  • 07-542 Arizona V. Gant (4/21/2009)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2008 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA v. GANT CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA No. 07–542. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided April 21, 2009 Respondent Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. The Arizona trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of drug of- fenses. Reversing, the State Supreme Court distinguished New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454—which held that police may search the pas- senger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a con- temporaneous incident of a recent occupant’s lawful arrest—on the ground that it concerned the scope of a search incident to arrest but did not answer the question whether officers may conduct such a search once the scene has been secured. Because Chimel v. Califor- nia, 395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be justi- fied by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserv- ing evidence and the circumstances of Gant’s arrest implicated neither of those interests, the State Supreme Court found the search unreasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020
    JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP HANDBOOK 2019-2020 The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office C. Blake McDowell Law Center 150 University Avenue Akron, OH 44325 Phone: 330-972-5321 https://www.uakron.edu/law/career-services/ Alisa Benedict O’Brien, Assistant Dean Alecia Bencze, Assistant Director 1 | Page The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office ___________________________________________________________________ Judicial Clerkships A judicial clerkship is one of the strongest foundations upon which any law career can be built. Judicial clerkships are post-graduate positions, usually lasting one or two years, in which you work as the right-hand analytical and research person for a judge. The positions usually start in August or September of each year. Deadlines for applications to federal judges are rolling and determined by individual judges. Student applicants should apply beginning in February of 2L year (2D, 3E). Some federal judges will accept applications from students during the fall or spring of their 3L year. For Class of 2020 grads, applications will be released beginning June 17, 2019. For Class of 2021 grads, applications will be released beginning June 15, 2020. Applications for judicial clerkships with state court judges are due for some states during the 2nd year of law school, and for most states, during the fall of the 3rd year of law school. More positions are available with state court judges in your final semester as well. Judicial law clerk (“judicial clerk”) experience is universally recognized by the legal community to be extremely useful in law practice, so it is one of the most valuable experiences you could ever want on your resume.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Activism”
    THE PROPER ROLE OF “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” THE HONORABLE CLINT BOLICK* The last time I was invited to speak at the Federalist Society National Student Symposium,1 never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the next time I spoke at the Symposium would be as a Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Yet, here I am, as a judge. And once again, I am going to extol the virtues of an activist judiciary—here at the Federalist Society, of all places. How on earth could I make such a provocative, if not down- right shocking, argument? “Judicial activism” is the universal pejorative. It is one thing on which both the right and left, red and blue, agree—that judicial activism is horrible.2 But think about this for a moment: Every single person in this room is an activist. We are here because we are activists. After all, the op- posite of activism is passivity, and perish the day that any of us are accused of passivity. The devil, of course, is in the definition. I define judicial ac- tivism as any instance in which the courts strike down a law that violates individual rights or transgresses the constitutional boundaries of the other branches of government. In that re- gard, the problem with judicial activism is not that there is far too much, but that there has been far too little. This is due to the explosive growth of government power at every level.3 * Associate Justice, Arizona Supreme Court. 1. Clint C. Bolick, Jump-Starting K–12 Education Reform, 40 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIAL COURTS Fund 0060 General, Department 201 Lawrence G
    TRIAL COURTS Fund 0060 General, Department 201 Lawrence G. Lees, County Administrative Officer PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The “Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997" (AB233), Chapter 850, became effective on January 1, 1998. The legislation finds and declares that the judiciary of California is a separate and independent branch of government, recognized by the Constitution and statutes of the State. The Legislature has previously established the principle that the funding of trial court operations California Rules of Court (CRC 810) is most logically a function of the state. Such funding is necessary to provide uniform standards and procedures, economies of scale, and structural efficiency and simplification. This decision also reflects the fact that the overwhelming business of the trial courts is to interpret and enforce provisions of state law and to resolve disputes among the people of the State of California. The County transferred responsibility for five court facilities to the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), on December 17, 2008. The County is the managing party in three facilities: Burney Joint Use Building, Justice Center, and Juvenile Hall. The AOC is the managing party in the Main Courthouse and Courthouse Annex. A Joint Occupancy Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the AOC memorialize the party’s roles and responsibilities. The County is obligated to pay the AOC an annual County Facility Payment (currently $457,370), to offset the Court’s historical expense for operations and maintenance of the court facilities. The expenses remaining in this budget unit are considered County costs under the rules of “trial court funding.” This includes court facilities, maintenance of effort (MOE) responsibilities, debt payment on courthouse renovation and justice center construction, and the costs associated with the collection division.
    [Show full text]