DOCSLIB.ORG

Mitratech's Teamconnect

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mitratech's Teamconnect MITRATECH MITRATECH’S TEAMCONNECT List of Jurisdictions Available on Deadlines.com (Current as of August 7, 2014) ALABAMA • Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure [Civil] • Circuit Court - Alabama [Civil] • U.S. District Court - Middle District of Alabama [Civil] • U.S. District Court - Northern District of Alabama [Civil] • U.S. District Court - Southern District of Alabama [Civil] ALASKA • Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure [Civil] • District Court of Alaska [Civil] • Superior Court of Alaska [Civil] • Superior Court of Alaska - Appeals of Administrative Agency Decisions [Civil] • 3rd Judicial District at Anchorage - Superior Court of Alaska - Civil • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Alaska - Chapter 7 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Alaska - Chapter 9 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Alaska - Chapter 11 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Alaska - Chapter 13 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Alaska - Chapter 15 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. District Court of Alaska [Civil] • U.S. District Court of Alaska – Criminal Rules [Criminal] AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA) • All AAA rules • AAA Accounting and Related Services [AAA] ARIZONA • Apache County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Arizona Corporation Commission - Rules of Practice and Procedure [Civil] • Cochise County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Coconino County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Court of Appeals of Arizona [Civil] • Gila County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Graham County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Greenlee County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • La Paz County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Maricopa County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Mohave County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Navajo County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Pima County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Pinal County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Arizona - Chapter 7 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Arizona - Chapter 11 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. Bankruptcy Court - District of Arizona - Chapter 13 [Bankruptcy] • U.S. District Court of Arizona [Civil] 5001 Plaza on the Lake, Suite 111, Austin, TX 78746 | 512.382.7322 | www.mitratech.com © Mitratech Holdings, Inc. | Confidential & Proprietary MITRATECH • U.S. District Court of Arizona – Criminal Rules [Criminal] • Santa Cruz County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Supreme Court - Arizona [Civil] • Yavapai County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Yuma County Superior Court - Arizona [Civil] • Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure - Arizona - Forcible/Special Detainer Cases in Maricopa County • Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure - Arizona - Forcible/Special Detainer in Counties other than Maricopa • Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure - Arizona - Non Forcible/Special Detainer Cases in Counties other than Maricopa • Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure - Arizona - Non Forcible/Special Detainer Cases in Maricopa County • Limitation of Actions - Arizona [Civil] • Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County) Tax Court [Civil] ARKANSAS • Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure [Civil] • Circuit Court - Arkansas [Civil] • U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Arkansas [Civil] • U.S. District Court - Western District of Arkansas [Civil] CALIFORNIA • Alameda County Superior Court [Family Law] • Alameda County Superior Court [Probate] • Alameda County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Alameda County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Alpine County Unified Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Alpine County Unified Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Amador County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Amador County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Amador County Superior Court - California - Probate • Butte County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Butte County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Butte County Superior Court [Family Law] • Butte County Superior Court [Probate] • Calaveras County Consolidated Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Calaveras County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Calaveras County Superior Court [Probate] • California Code of Regulations, Title 8 - Workers’ Compensation [Civil] • Colusa County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Colusa County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Contra Costa County Superior Court [Family Law] • Contra Costa County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Contra Costa County Superior Court [Probate] • Contra Costa County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 1st Appellate District - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 2nd Appellate District - California [Civil] 5001 Plaza on the Lake, Suite 111, Austin, TX 78746 | 512.382.7322 | www.mitratech.com © Mitratech Holdings, Inc. | Confidential & Proprietary MITRATECH • Court of Appeal - 3rd Appellate District - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 4th Appellate District, Division 1 - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 4th Appellate District, Division 2 - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 4th Appellate District, Division 3 - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 5th Appellate District - California [Civil] • Court of Appeal - 6th Appellate District - California [Civil] • California Appellate Rules of Court (including California Supreme Court) • Del Norte County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • Del Norte County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California [Civil] • El Dorado County Superior Court [Civil] • El Dorado County Superior Court [Family Law] • El Dorado County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • El Dorado County Superior Court [Probate] • Fresno County Superior Court [Family Law] • Fresno County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Fresno County Superior Court [Probate] • Fresno County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Glenn County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Glenn County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Humboldt County Superior Court [Family Law] • Humboldt County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Humboldt County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Imperial County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Imperial County Superior Court [Probate] • Imperial County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Inyo County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Inyo County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Kern County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Kern County Superior Court [Probate] • Kern County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Kings County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Kings County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Lake County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Lake County Superior Court [Probate] • Lake County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Lassen County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Lassen County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Los Angeles County Superior Court [Family Law] • Los Angeles County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Los Angeles County Superior Court [Probate] • Los Angeles County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Madera County Superior Court [Family Law] • Madera County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Madera County Superior Court [Probate] • Madera County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Marin County Superior Court [Family Law] 5001 Plaza on the Lake, Suite 111, Austin, TX 78746 | 512.382.7322 | www.mitratech.com © Mitratech Holdings, Inc. | Confidential & Proprietary MITRATECH • Marin County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Marin County Superior Court [Probate] • Marin County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Mariposa County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Mariposa County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Mendocino County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Mendocino County Superior Court [Probate] • Mendocino County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Merced County Superior Court [Family Law] • Merced County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Merced County Superior Court [Probate] • Merced County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Modoc County Trial Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Modoc County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Mono County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Mono County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Monterey County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Monterey County Superior Court [Probate] • Monterey County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Napa County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Napa County Superior Court [Probate] • Napa County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Nevada County Superior Court [Family Law] • Nevada County Superior Court (Limited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Nevada County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) [Civil] • Orange County Superior Court (Complex Departments) [Civil] • Orange County Superior Court [Family Law] • Orange County Superior
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Summary 111111.25 '"111.4 II
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. "r,'"_" , -" .~,- ~ 7 '~~ :;-~ ~-.. ,j National Criminal Justice Reference Service i ---------------~~--------------------------------------------~ r , ,i Prepared for the­ ""I I , Mississippi Judicial Council "f nCJrs This microfiche was produced frQm documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, fjl, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on Th~ Mississippi Court Finance Study this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. I , I Executive Summary 111111.25 '"111.4 II MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU Of STANDARDS-196;>-A Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with i I the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. i Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official I position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. I \----J Date Filmed Ernest H. Short March, 1980 National Institute of ,Justice I &Associates, Inc. United States Department of Justice 2/12/81 I Washington, 'D. C. 20531 I l i iii Ii 7r o PREFACE The Mississippi Courts Finance Study was conducted by Ernest H. Short & Associates, Inc. under contract with the Mississippi JUdicial Council I with support of funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice. The points of view and opinions in the report series are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position THE MISSISSIPPI COURTS FINANCE STUDY or policies of the Mississippi Judicial Councilor the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporters Handbook
    For Additional Copies Thanks to a grant from the State Justice Insti- tute, copies of this handbook will be provided at no charge as a service to Kentucky journal- ists. To request additional copies of this hand- book, contact: Office of Public Information Administrative Office of the Courts 100 Millcreek Park Frankfort, KY 40601 502-573-2350 or 800-928-2350 [email protected] Copies also available on www.kycourts.net Reporter’s Handbook on Covering Kentucky Courts First Edition, April 2004 This handbook was developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed in this handbook are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or other organizations that contributed to it. Acknowledgments he Reporter’s Handbook on Covering T Kentucky Courts was produced as part of the 2003-2004 Bench/Media Program of the Kentucky Court of Justice. It was developed by the Court of Justice, the Kentucky Press Association and the Kentucky Broadcasters Association under a grant from the State Justice Institute. This project was made possible through the ongoing support of Chief Justice of Kentucky Joseph E. Lambert, who has consistently promoted better understanding of the roles of the courts and the media in our democracy, and by the contributions of the journalists and lawyers who comprise the Handbook Advisory Committee: Bob Schulman Handbook Committee Chair; Veteran Journalist and Commentator Ed Staats Handbook Co-Editor; Former Chief of Bureau, Associated Press/Kentucky David M. Wilkison Handbook Co-Editor; Former Chief of Bureau, Associated Press/Kentucky Linda Sorenson Ewald Associate Dean, University of Louisville Louis D.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction to Pronounce Null a Marriage Celebrated in Another State Or Foreign Country 1 T HE Supreme Court of California in Mayer V
    California Law Review Volume XVIII JANUARY, 1930 Number 2 Jurisdiction to Pronounce Null a Marriage Celebrated in Another State or Foreign Country 1 T HE Supreme Court of California in Mayer v. Mayer has given utterance to a dictum that deserves more than passing mention. It is as follows: "Since the validity of marriage is generally deter- mined by the law of the state where the marriage took place, there are cogent reasons why annulment should be sought in the tribunals of that state." It is the latter part of the statement that we believe merits attention. If the learned Justice in the Mayer case means that a court of the state or country where the marriage was celebrated may set it aside, provided both parties are properly before that court, one may not be tempted to quarrel with his statement, but if he means to give support to the opinion that it should have exclusive jurisdiction to annul such marriages irrespective of the residence or domicile of the parties to the suit, he lends some approval to a highly questionable proposition. Unfortunately that proposition has been championed by a few American writers of great learning and ability, and has been ten- tatively adopted by the American Law Institute in its Restatement of Conflict of Laws.2 It is, we believe, a doctrine that, notwithstanding its distinguished defenders, is without substantial support in adjudicated cases; that rests on no solid reason in theory or convenience; and that is calculated, if it should be given credence, to effect much practical injustice.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts
    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA ERIC FLORES, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Case No. 2:15-cv-00002-SLG Respondents. ORDER OF DISMISSAL On April 24, 2015, Eric Flores, a self-represented resident of Texas, filed a class action Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendment, an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and a Motion to Transfer his case to the District of Columbia.1 Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 requires the Court to review the action, and to dismiss if the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”2 1 Dockets 1, 3, 5, 6. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Congress inserted 1915(e)(2) into the in forma pauperis statute, and we must follow this clear statutory direction.”); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The district court . properly concluded that Calhoun’s [non-prisoner] complaint should not be allowed to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (requiring dismissal of in forma pauperis proceedings that seek monetary relief against immune defendants).”); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2001) (Under section § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . “dismissal is now mandatory. [T]he complaint now may .
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC LAW 85-508-JULY 7, 1958 339 Public Law 85-508 an ACT to Provide for the Admission of the State of Alaska Into the Union
    i2 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 85-508-JULY 7, 1958 339 Public Law 85-508 AN ACT July 7, 1958 To provide for the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union. ta R. 7999—] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Alaska, siaie- United States of America in Congress assemhled. That, subject to the hood. provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 8 (c) of this Act, the State of Alaska is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska entitled, "An Act to provide for the holding of a constitutional convention to prepare a constitution for the State of Alaska; to submit the con­ stitution to the people for adoption or rejection; to prepare for the admission of Alaska as a State; to make an appropriation; and setting an effective date", approved March 19, 1955 (Chapter 46, Session Laws of Alaska, 1955), and adopted by a vote of the people of Alaska in the election held on April 24, 1956, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed. SEC. 2. The State of Alaska shall consist of all the territory, Territory,, together with the territorial waters appurtenant thereto, now included in the Territory of Alaska, SEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms Barnewsfall2014.Pdf
    VOL. LXI FALL 2014 NO. 1 Front Row: Mark B. Higdon; Mark A. Bilbrey; John T. Cossar; Rande K. Yeager; J.M. “Mike” Sellari Back Row: J. Walter Michel; James M. Ingram; Robert Lampton; Harry M. Walker; W. Parrish Fortenberry; Ronnie Smith; Chip Triplett; Stewart R. Speed; Larry E. Favreau We may dress casually, but we’re serious about your title business. Title insurance isn’t something you trust to just anybody. That’s why we’ve assembled a team of the most respected business leaders around for our board of directors. eir vision and integrity have helped make Mississippi Valley Title the leading title insurance company in Mississippi. Add to that our sta’s local knowledge and experience and you have a very serious title insurance partner. Call us today. 601.969.0222 | 800.647.2124 | www.mvt.com Expert underwriters to help you navigate complicated transactions Another reason why Stewart is the right underwriter for you. Choose Stewart Title Guaranty Company as your underwriter, and you’ll be able to call upon the unsurpassed experience of our underwriting team. With hundreds of years of cumulative experience, our experts have the in-depth knowledge necessary to guide you through complex issues. Plus, Stewart also provides our issuing agencies with access to Virtual Underwriter ®, our online resource that provides 24/7 access to all the information needed to close a transaction. Contact us today for more information on why Stewart is the right underwriter for you. (601) 977-9776 stewart.com/mississippi Danny L. Crotwell, Esq. Sean M. Culhane, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: Applying Extra-Constitutional Principles to Constitutional Cases in Hendricks and M.L.B
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Dedicated to the U.S. Supreme Court Fall 1997 Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: Applying Extra-Constitutional Principles to Constitutional Cases in Hendricks and M.L.B. Larry Cata Backer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry C. Backer, Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: Applying Extra- Constitutional Principles to Constitutional Cases in Hendricks and M.L.B., 33 Tulsa L. J. 135 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/10 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Backer: Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: A FAIRNESS AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: APPLYING EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO CONSTITUTIONAL CASES IN HENDRICKS AND M.L.B.* Larry Cat Backert We speak the unifying language of fairness in law-making in the late twentieth century. This is the age of due process. The language offairness provides the unifying glue to our law making.1 It is almost a cliche today that, at its limit, all legal categories explode. It is also a commonplace that legal categories tend to be shoved to their limit over the course of time, unless the categories are redefined or destroyed by the weight of their own expansiveness.2 These quasi-biological truisms affect not only statutory and common law legal categories, but increasingly, constitutional categories as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Seal and Fur Company. Letter from the Secretary of the Interior
    University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 5-4-1888 Alaska Seal and Fur Company. Letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting the Annual Report of the Governor of Alaska upon the operations of the Alaska Seal and Fur Company. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation H.R. Exec. Doc. No. 297, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888) This House Executive Document is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 50TH CoNGRESS, L HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J Ex. Doc. 1st Session. f t No. 297. ALASKA SEAL AND FUR COMPANY. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, TRANSMITTING The annual report of the governor of Alaska upon the operations of the Alaska Seal and Fur Company. MAY 4, 1888.-Referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and ordered to be printed. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, May 2, 1888. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report to Congress by the governor of Alaska of the result of his inquiry into the operations of the Alaska Seal and Fur Company (Alaska Commercial Company), as required of him by sectiou5 of the act of May 17, 1884, entitled "An act providing a civil government for Alaska." Very respectfully, WM.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Annual Report
    A MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR. The judiciary has worked extremely hard to secure adequate funding for the judicial branch of govern- ment, while providing an efficient, cost effective system of justice for the people of the state of Mississippi. The entire appropriation allocated this co-equal branch of state government represents less than 1 percent of the state’s general fund. The 2015 Legislature created seven new trial judge positions as part of its required redistricting. Those new judges began serving in January 2016. The Legislature also authorized pay raises of up to $18,000 a year for court reporters, to be awarded according to longevity and implemented over three years. Much of the work of the judicial branch relies on special funds. The judiciary continues to expand be- yond the traditional courtroom and chambers work with special programs tailored to address specific public needs. Drug courts, which reached statewide coverage in early 2013, continue to be the most successful innovation of the state judiciary. These programs save an estimated $46 million annually in incarceration costs, and save mil- lions more in avoided health and social services expenses for people who are working and supporting themselves and their families. However, our drug courts cannot sustain themselves on the special assessments which were put in place during the early years of the drug court movement. Mississippi Electronic Courts continues to expand into more courts. MEC, an electronic filing system which operated in total of 37 trial courts in 25 counties at the end of 2015, receives no state General Fund appropriation.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Alaska 222 W. 7Th Avenue, Box 4, Rm 229 Anchorage, Alaska 99513
    United States District Court District of Alaska 222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 4, Rm 229 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 www.akd.uscourts.gov Position: Case Administrator II, Job# USDC 20-02 (Permanent, Part-time) (20 hours per week) Opening Date: August 26, 2020 Closing Date: September 9, 2020, or open until filled Starting Salary: $23,654 - $38,475 (CL 25, Step 1-61)* *Depending on qualifications and experience Location: Fairbanks, Alaska The United States District Court for the District of Alaska is seeking qualified applicants for the position of Case Administrator in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Case Administrator monitors the progression of civil and criminal cases and related proceedings. They receive and review incoming court documents with conformity with federal and local rules, and perform customer service and cashier duties for the purpose of providing procedural information and collection court fees. REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES: • Open and process new appeals and appeal related documents. Process opinions and close appeals. Make summary entries on all documents and proceedings. • Check for prior or prohibited filing. Verify attorney’s authority to practice. • Inform customers of required fees, receive payments and issue receipts. Process credit card payments for filed documents. • Create and process new case files. Docket initial events. Retrieve files and make copies of records for court personnel, attorneys or others. Certify court documents and ensure data quality. • Prepare, ship, and retrieve records from the appropriate Federal Records Center. Scan, copy, file and pick-up, and sort mail. Process e-mail received by electronic filers. Maintain court files. • Assist the public with electronic filing. Answer calls assisting attorneys and pro se litigants with filing questions and case status.
    [Show full text]