DOCSLIB.ORG

2015 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2015 Annual Report The Judiciary State of Hawaii 2015 Annual Report www.courts.state.hi.us The Judiciary -- State of Hawaii 417 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 •(808) 539-4909 • www.courts.state.hi.us Produced by the Hawaii State JudiciaryJanuary Communications 1, 2016 and Community Relations Office 2 The Judiciary -- State of Hawaii am pleased to present our 2015 Annual Report. This report highlights some of the Judiciary’s accomplishments over the past year and provides detailed statistics on our The mission of the Judiciary, caseloads and budget. Our accomplishments Iare a testament to the hard work and commitment as an independent branch of all those who work in our court system. A spe- of government, is to cial mahalo to our dedicated Judiciary employees, administer justice in an volunteers, and community partners, who work their efforts have far-reaching impacts upon the accessible manner in livesdaily oftowards those who fulfilling depend our on mission, our courts knowing for resolv that - ing disputes and ensuring justice. accordanceimpartial, efficient with the and law. On behalf of the Judiciary, I would also like to ex- tend our sincere appreciation to the Legislature for its continued support of our budgetary needs and legislative initiatives. Our mission depends on our cooperation with all branches of government. We look forward to continuing that collaboration in the year to come. Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald Hawaii Supreme Court 3 The Judiciary -- State of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS Month-by-Month Highlights 5 Structure of the Court System 13 Office of the Administrative Director 14 of the Courts Courts of Appeal Supreme Court 15 Intermediate Court of Appeals 16 Circuit Court 18 Family Court 21 District Court 23 Per Diem Judges 25 Support Services 26 Financial Resources 27 The Judiciary is thankful for all of its community partners, stakeholders, and volunteers. Pictured at the top is Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald (left) and Administrative Director of the Courts Rodney Maile (right) thanking Millie Botelho (center) at the Volunteers In Public Service to the Courts (VIPS) Annual Recognition Ceremony. Botelho has been volunteering with the courts for more than 20 years, following her 30 year career with the Judiciary. •Pictured in the center are the Supreme Court Justices with students from Kanuikapono Public Charter School, posing for a picture at the Courts in the Community Out- reach Program held on Kauai in April 2015. •Pictured on the bottom is Governor David Ige (center) with Chief Justice Reck- tenwald (left) and Access to Justice Commission Chair Daniel Foley. They are at the 2015 Pro Bono Celebration congratulat- ing Oahu attorneys for volunteering to provide legal assistance to self-represented litigants. 4 The Judiciary -- State of Hawaii MONTH-BY-MONTH HIGHLIGHTS The Senate Chambers at the Hawaii State Capitol were full as Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald deliv- ered the biennial State of the Judiciary address. He thanked the legislature for the opportunity to share his report with the people of Hawaii. JANUARY He went on to discuss several new initiatives, including: the expansion of the Veterans Treatment Court to the Big Island; a HOPE Pretrial Pilot Project; the Girls Court Chief Justice Delivers State of the Judiciary Address court to be implemented as scheduled by July 1, 2015. program; and confirmed plans for an environmental On January 28, Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald (see photo above) delivered the biennial State of the Judicia- FEBRUARY ry address before a joint Senate-House legislative ses- Girls Court Expands to Kauai sion in the Senate Chamber at the Hawaii State Capitol. Girls Court expanded to Kauai in February thanks to the He provided updates on Access to Justice and the Judi- leadership of Judges Trudy Senda and Randal Valencia- ciary’s efforts to provide equal justice to all, the opening no. The purpose of Girls Court is to reach young wom- of self-help centers in courthouses across the state, and en who are at a crossroads in their lives, to help them reported on the Judiciary’s use of technology to expand break the cycle of destructive behavior. The goal of the its reach and accessibility. program is to prevent or reduce female juvenile delin- quency by encouraging healthy attitudes, behaviors, and Chief Justice Recktenwald highlighted the First Circuit lifestyles as well as promoting self-control and respon- Family Court’s Zero-to-Three Court, designed to meet sibility. the needs of infants and toddlers whose parents are sus- pected of abuse or neglect; the Permanency Court, that focuses on the needs of juveniles who are “aging out” of models in 2004 on Oahu. To date, over 116 girls and the foster care system; and the Courts in the Community 234Hawaii family launched members one haveof the participated nation‘s first in Girls the program. Court Outreach Program, that gives high school students the In a recent study, Girls Court participants have had opportunity to go beyond textbooks and experience an 88.1% fewer law violations, 98.2% fewer status offens- actual Supreme Court oral argument. es, and 57.8% fewer detention home admissions. 5 The Judiciary -- State of Hawaii Honolulu’s DWI Court Program Receives Drinking and Driving (MADD) Hawaii Chapter, and the National Award for Public Service University of Hawaii, John A. Burns School of Medicine (JABSOM). The Hawaii State Judiciary’s Driving While Impaired (DWI) Court was presented with the National Highway MARCH Service at the 2015 Lifesavers Conference in Chicago, Illinois.Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Award for Public Department of Justice Applauds the Hawaii State Judiciary for Continued Commitment The Honolulu DWI Court Program was founded in 2013 to address an increase in fatal vehicle crashes involv- in Expanding Language Assitance Services The Hawaii State Judiciary collaborated with the federal to other states, Hawaii has a high proportion of fatal Department of Justice (DOJ) to better meet the growing ing drivers under the influence of alcohol. Compared crashes that involve impaired driving. The Honolulu needs of those who require language assistance ser- DWI Court Program aims to provide offenders with a vices in court proceedings and operations. On March comprehensive program that will reduce individual 24, the Department of Justice issued a news release commending the Hawaii Judiciary for its proactive protect the community as a whole. efforts to provide all communities with equal access to recidivism rates, reduce societal financial burdens, and justice regardless of the language they speak. In the DWI Court Program, participants attain sobriety through a court-regulated treatment plan that provides The Hawaii State Judiciary provides interpreter services intervention support for non-violent offenders, while ensuring justice. types at no charge. The Judiciary’s language assistance servicesto persons include with limitedover-the-counter English proficiency and over-the-tele in all case- DWI Court provides participants with a gateway to phone encounters for all Judiciary-related business, resources for recovery, in turn reducing recidivism and increasing public safety. The program is supported year 2013, the Judiciary provided interpreter services by partner organizations including the Hawaii State inincluding more than services 8,000 at proceedings. the Self Help Centers. In fiscal Department of Transportation, Honolulu Police Depart- In 2015, the Judiciary trained staff to better assist ment, Office of the Public Defender, Mothers Against court interpreter assignment policy, upgraded informa- tioncustomers and languages with limited available English on proficiency,the Judiciary’s refined website, its used a DOJ grant to provide Interpreter Skills Building workshops, and implemented an awareness campaign to increase the public’s knowledge about accessing language services. Pictured left to right: Lisa Lum, DWI Court Administrator; Da- vid Lo, DWI Court and District Court Judge of the First Circuit; and Mark Rosekind, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the 2015 Lifesavers Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on March 16, 2015. 6 The Judiciary -- State of Hawaii First Veterans Treatment Court Graduation held on April 17, 2015 -- (left to right) Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Robert Lee, former Adjutants General, Hawaii National Guard; U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono; Ms. Melissa Fitzgerald, Senior Director, Justice for Vets; Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald; Veterans Treatment Court Graduate; Michael Peacock, Veterans Treatment Court Mentor; and Circuit Court Judge Edward H. Kubo, Jr. APRIL MAY First Veterans Treatment Court Graduation Kona Judiciary Complex Approved by the Held on Oahu Legislature The Hawaii Veterans Treatment Court celebrated its On May 5, the Legislature passed the Hawaii State Judi- ciary’s appropriations bill, which included $55 million gathered in the Supreme Court courtroom to congratu- to fund construction of the new Kona Judiciary Complex. latefirst thegraduating four U.S. class veterans on April who 17. completed More than the 175 intensive people two-year program. The graduation ceremony celebrat- Currently, court proceedings are held in three separate locations in Kona, in buildings not designed to serve as ed their success in achieving a clean and sober lifestyle courtrooms. The present use of those buildings as court- and a chance for a successful future with a job and other rooms has created security, logistical, and operational opportunities. problems. The Veterans Treatment Court was established to help The Legislature’s action will enable the Judiciary to those who have served our country in the military, and meet the growing needs of the West Hawaii community, thereafter suffered drug abuse and mental health issues, and provide the people of West Hawaii with a secure leading to their arrest and incarceration in Hawaii. Each courthouse where all court services are available in one veteran undergoes an extensive and intensive two-year convenient location. program of treatment and counseling, with urinalysis, - The Judiciary plans to break ground on the new complex es. Graduates are also assisted with personal issues in the fall of 2016.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Legislature Approves Language Access Bill by Serafin Colmenares Jr., Ph.D
    CANDID PERSPECTIVES IMMIGRATION GUIDE Did You Forget? It's 3 How Drinking and 7 Asian American Pacific Driving Could Result Islander Heritage Month in Deportation MAY 25, 2013 H a w a i i ’ s O n l y w e e k l y F i l i p i n O - a m e r i c a n n e w s p a p e r State LegiSLature approveS Language acceSS BiLL by Serafin Colmenares Jr., Ph.D. and Rebecca Gardner, JD filiPino aPPointed to high seat in canadian court by Camille Diola ANILA, Philippines - The Canadian M justice department recently elevated a Fil- ipino-Canadian to hold a seat in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, a major Canadian province. Justice Steve Anthony -the first time a Filipino Coroza, who came from occupied a high posi- the Ontario Court of Jus- tion in the country's ju- tice in the city of Saint diciary. Catharines, was ap- The Department of pointed to the provincial Foreign Affairs in a Justice Sabrina McKenna speaking at the Language Access Law Forum at the UH Law School in January 2013 superior court last month- (continued on page 5) he 2013 State Legislature unanimously passed House Bill 266, Relating to Language Access, on April 30, 2013. It now awaits Phl won’t confront T Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s signature. china shiPs by Jaime Laude The bill establishes Hawaii’s population speaks from essential government and provides appropria- a language other than Eng- and government-funded tions for a statewide lish at home and approxi- services.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Case Management Information Systems Manual
    National Center for State Courts COURT CASE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANUAL: with Model Data Elements, Reporting Forms, and Management Reports, by Mary Louise -Clifford and Lynn A. Jensen prepared by the State Judicial Information Systems Project and the National Court Statistics Project in cooperation with the Conference of State Court Administrators The material contained in this report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts' State Judicial Information Systems Project staff, with support from the staff of the National Court Statistics Project. These two projects were supported by Federal Grant No. 82-CJ-CX-KOOl, awarded to the National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the Systems Development Division, and Federal Grant No. 82-BJ-CX-K014, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. The State Judicial Information Systems Project has been directed by Lynn A. Jensen for the National Center for State Courts and monitored by Donald A. Manson for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The National Court Statistics Project has been directed by Victor E. Flango for the National Center and monitored by Carla Gaskins for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. 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 U.S. Department of Justice. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Clifford, Mary Louise. Court case management information systems manual. Bibliography: p. 1. Court adrninistration--United States.
    [Show full text]
  • In the District Court of Appeal First District of Florida
    Filing # 113063503 E-Filed 09/09/2020 11:34:29 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DELANEY REYNOLDS, et al. Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Case No. 1D20-2036 L.T. Case No. 18-CA-00819 THE STATE OF FLORIDA; RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et al. Defendants/Appellees. __________________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA __________________________________________________________________ INITIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS __________________________________________________________________ GUY M. BURNS, FBN 0160901 MITCHELL A. CHESTER, FBN 288136 Johnson Pope Boker Ruppel & Law Office of Mitchell A. Chester, P.A. Burns, LLP 150 S. Pine Island Road, Ste. 300 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 3100 Plantation, Florida 33324 RECEIVED, 09/09/2020 11:35:30 AM, Clerk, First District Court of Appeal Tampa, Florida 33602 Ph: (954) 759-9960 Ph: (813) 225-2500 Fx: (954) 759-9930 Fx: (813) 223-7118 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Appellants ERIN L. DEADY, FBN 0367310 F. WALLACE POPE, JR., FBN 124449 Erin L. Deady, P.A. Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & 54 ½ SE 6th Avenue Burns, LLP Delray Beach, FL 33483 911 Chestnut Street Ph: (954) 593-5102 Clearwater, Florida 33756 [email protected] Ph: (727) 461-1818 Fx: (727) 441-8167 [email protected] DEB SWIM, FBN 336025 JANE WEST, FBN 159417 Deb Swim, PLLC Jane West Law, P.L. 1323 Diamond Street 24 Cathedral Place, Ste. 504 Tallahassee, FL 32301 St. Augustine, FL 32084 Ph: (850) 656-0448 Ph: (904) 471-0505 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] MATTHEW D.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Respondent's Brief NO
    Best Respondent's Brief NO. 03-0052 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourteenth Circuit Spring Term 2003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, V. ELIZABETH MONROE, APPELLANT. On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Glidden BRIEF FOR APPELLEE Team #6 Charlotte LeClercq Kory A. Atkinson Northern Illinois University College of Law Swen Parson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 376 NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment right of the appellant to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures when agents, pursuant to a valid premises search warrant, searched a purse defendant had voluntarily placed on a chair while she was a guest on the premises? 2. Whether appellant is subject to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense when she traded twenty kilograms of cocaine for five AK-47 assault rifles in furtherance of a drug distribution conspiracy? 2003] BEST RESPONDENT'S BRIEF OPINIONS BELOW The order and judgment of the District Court for the District of Glidden are unreported and are contained in the Transcript of the Record (R. at 20-22; R. at 33) and in the Appendix (C-I; E-1).* STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION A formal statement of jurisdiction has been omitted in accordance with the rule of the Northern Illinois University College of Law Second Year Moot Court Competition. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States District Court for the District of Glidden convicted the defendant, Elizabeth Monroe, of violating 18 U.S.C.
    [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]
  • U.S. House Report 32 for H.R. 4221 (Feb 1959)
    86TH CONoRESS L HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT 1st Session No. 32 HAWAII STATEHOOD FEBRUARY 11, 1959.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. AsPINALL, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 4221] The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 4221) to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of H.R. 4221, introduced by Representative O'Brien of New York, is to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union. This bill and its two companions-H.R. 4183 by Delegate Burns and H.R. 4228 by Representative Saylor-were introduced following the committee's consideration of 20 earlier 86th Congress bills and include all amendments adopted in connection therewith. These 20 bills are as follows: H.R. 50, introduced by Delegate Burns; H.R. 324, introduced by Representative Barrett; H.R. 801, introduced by Representative Holland; H.R. 888, introduced by Representative O'Brien of New York; H.R. 954, introduced by Representative Saylor; H.R. 959, introduced by Representative Sisk; H.R. 1106, introduced by Representative Berry; H.R. 1800, introduced by Repre- sentative Dent; H.R. 1833, introduced by Representative Libonati; H.R. 1917, introduced by Representative Green of Oregon; H.R. 1918, introduced by Representative Holt; H.R. 2004, introduced by Representative Younger; .H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials
    Michigan Law Review Volume 84 Issue 3 1985 Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials Nancy T. Gardner University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Nancy T. Gardner, Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials, 84 MICH. L. REV. 475 (1985). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol84/iss3/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials In 1965, only two states permitted photographic and electronic media coverage1 of courtroom proceedings.2 Today, forty-three states permit television coverage of their appellate and/or trial proceedings on an experimental or permanent basis. 3 This development has not come about in a systematic or uniform fashion. Lacking guidance from the federal courts, the states have independently conducted ex­ periments and adopted their own guidelines in an attempt to accom­ modate the conflicting constitutional4 and policy interests5 involved. The development of state guidelines6 has stemmed largely from the belief that media self-discipline is insufficient to ensure fair treatment 1. The phrase "photographic and electronic media coverage," referred to herein as "televis­ ing" or "broadcasting," includes both the acquisition of information (through devices such as still news photography, audio taping, motion picture filming and videotaping), and the public dissemination and broadcast of that information.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of the Court System 18
    The Judiciary State of Hawaii 2013 Annual Report Hawaii State Judiciary Website 1 The mission of the Judiciary, as an independent branch of government, is to administer justice in an impartial, efficient and accessible manner in accordance with the law. I am pleased to present our 2013 Annual Report. This report details the work of the Judiciary during the past year. As an independent branch of government, the Judiciary’s role is to administer justice in an impartial manner, free from outside influences. This report reflects the dedication of the men and women who work in the court system. Each day, these employees work toward fulfilling our mission, knowing that what they do may have far-reaching impacts upon people’s lives. I am proud of our employees’ work and extend to them my heartfelt thanks and appreciation. I also thank another valuable part of our Judiciary family—the many volunteers who unselfishly give their time and talent to serve the people of Hawaii. In behalf of the Judiciary, I also extend our sincere appreciation to the Legislature for its continued support of our budgetary needs and legislative initiatives. We pledge our continued commitment to working with the Legislature and the Executive Branch to build a dynamic and progressive judicial system. Our mutual quest for excellence depends on our cooperative and collaborative efforts. Mark E. Recktenwald Chief Justice Hawaii Supreme Court Produced by the Hawaii State Judiciary Communications and Community Relations Office 417 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813,
    [Show full text]
  • Hawai'i Access to Justice Commission (“Commission”) Hosted the Seventh Annual Pro Bono Celebration11 on Thursday, October 24, 2019 at the Hawai'i Supreme Court
    Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCMF-11-0000432 09-OCT-2020 09:43 AM HAWAI‘I ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. HAWAI‘I ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION 3 A. Genesis of the Commission 5 B. Multi-faceted Approach 5 C. Commissioners 6 D. Purpose 8 E. Committees 9 Administration Committee 10 Annual Report Committee 12 Committee on Education, Communications, and Conference Planning 12 Committee on Funding of Civil Legal Services 13 Committee on Increasing Pro Bono Legal Services 14 Committee on Initiatives to Enhance Civil Justice 15 Law School Liaison Committee 16 Committee on Overcoming Barriers to Access to Justice 17 Committee on the Right to Counsel in Certain Civil Proceedings 18 Committee on Self-Representation and Unbundling 18 F. Task Forces 19 Pro Bono Initiatives Task Force 19 Task Force on Paralegals and Other Non-Lawyers 20 II. JUSTICE FOR ALL PROJECT 23 III. 2019 HAWAI‘I ACCESS TO JUSTICE CONFERENCE 27 A. Afternoon Workshops 29 Justice for All Projects to Enhance Access to Civil Justice 29 Access to Justice for Immigrants 29 Confronting Gender and Language Barriers to Civil Access to Justice 30 Mediation for the Income Gap Group in Divorce Actions 30 Legal Planning for the Worst--It May Not Be Enough 30 Expanding Civil Access to Justice in Prisons and Jails 31 Closing Panel Discussion 31 B. Scenes from the 2019 Hawai‘i Access to Justice Conference 32 IV. PRO BONO CELEBRATIONS 33 A. First Circuit 33 B. Second Circuit 38 V. OTHER INITIATIVES TO INCREASE ACCESS TO JUSTICE 41 A.
    [Show full text]
  • OIP Op. Ltr. No. 04-02 February 3
    February 3, 2004 Mr. Ian Lind Mr. Gregory Barnett Re: Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Disciplinary Board Dear Mr. Lind and Mr. Barnett: This is in response to your requests to the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) for an opinion on whether the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) and the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Hawaii (“Board”) are subject to the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) (“UIPA”). ISSUES PRESENTED I. Whether the ODC and the Board are “agencies” under the UIPA. II. If the ODC and the Board are “agencies” subject to the UIPA, whether their records are public. BRIEF ANSWERS I. Yes. Based upon the totality of the circumstances and excluding certain nonadministrative functions discussed herein, the ODC and the Board fall within the UIPA’s definition of “agency.” The ODC and the Board OIP Op. Ltr. No. 04-02 Mr. Ian Lind Mr. Gregory Barnett February 3, 2004 Page 2 are created and, to a significant extent, controlled by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. Moreover, the majority, if not all, of the ODC’s and the Board’s activities relating to attorney disciplinary matters are powers inherently belonging to the Supreme Court that have been delegated to them. II. The UIPA’s definition of “agency” excludes the nonadministrative functions of the courts of this State. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-3 (1993). Thus, records relating to the nonadministrative functions of the courts are not subject to the UIPA. The discipline of attorneys is a nonadministrative function of the Supreme Court, which has been delegated, in part, to the ODC and the Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Court Consolidation in Hawaii: the Road Already Taken?
    Trial Court Consolidation in Hawaii: The Road Already Taken? Susan Ekimoto Jaworowski Researcher Report No. 4. 1991 Legislative Reference Bureau State Capitol Honoiulu, Hawaii 96813 FOREWORD This study was prepared in response to House Resolution No. 68, adopted during the Regular Session of 1991. The Resolution requested an examination of the feasibility of consolidating Hawaii's two tier trial court system into one tier. The Resolution also requested information concerning the history and rationale behind establishing the two tier system, an evaluation of the currert trial court system and judicial administration, the rationale behind the differing job requirements and qualifications for judges in the two tiers, and the feasibility of establishing the same requirements for all trial level judges. The assistance of Bureau researcher Charlotte Carter-Yamauchi was a significant factor in the timely completion of this study. Ms. Carter-Yamauchi interviewed many of the circuit court judges and provided invaluable input into several areas, including the structure of the district court questionnaire. The Bureau extends its appreciation to ail who cooperated with and participated in this study, particularly Chief Justice Herman Lum; Dr. Irwin Tanaka, Administrative Director of the Courts; and C. Michael Hare, Chairman of the Judicial Selection Commission. It is hoped that the issues raised by the study will assist the Legislature and the Judiciary in making further incruiries and decisions on this matter. Samuel €3. K. Chang Director November 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 1. INTRODUCTION .... ........................................... 1 Nature and Scope of Study ............................................................................. 1 Endnotes ....................................................................................................... 2 2. HISTORY OF THE TRIAL COURT SYSTEM IN HAWAII ........................................... 3 Pre-1840 Judicial System ...............
    [Show full text]
  • 1969 Journal
    : II STATISTICS Miscella- Original Appellate neous Total Vumber of cases on dockets. _ __ — 15 1, 758 2, 429 4, 202 ?ases disposed of_ _ 5 1, 433 1, 971 3, 409 Remaining on dockets. __ 10 325 458 793 Cases disposed of—Appellate Docket: By written opinions 105 By per curiam opinions or orders , 206 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation (merit cases) 1 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1,121 Cases disposed of—Miscellaneous Docket By written opinions , 0 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1,759 By denial or withdrawal of other applications 121 By granting of other applications , 3 By per curiam dismissal of appeals 36 By other per curiam opinions or orders 22 By transfer to Appellate Docket 30 dumber of written opinions 88 Number of printed per curiam opinions 21 Number of petitions for certiorari granted ( Appellate ) 73 Number of appeals in which jurisdiction was noted or post- poned (Appellate) 46 Number of admissions to bar 3,965 GENERAL: Page Court convened October 6, 1969, and adjourned June 29, 1970 1 and 510 Court recessed to attend President's State of Union Message 211 Justice Hugo L. Black's Birthday, noted. Comments by the Chief Justice 252 Reed, J., Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Claims. 295 : : ; in GENERAL—Continued Page Clark, J. Designated and assigned to USCA-7 424 Designated and assigned to USCA-2 424 Designated and assigned to USCA-9 , 485 Designated and assigned to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 485 Retirement of John F.
    [Show full text]