DOCSLIB.ORG

The Massachusetts Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Massachusetts Courts The Massachusetts Courts 1975 -1976 State Li a J Q l cr h ig h l ig h t s o f th e t w e n t ie t h a n n u a l r e p o r t As of June 30, 1976 The Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners passed a total of 1,346 applicants in Fiscal 1976, a 46 % increase over the 919 applicants passed ten years ago in Fiscal 1966. (page 40 ). In the Supreme Judicial Court the average number of days from entry to decision decreased 2 % trom 235 to 230 days. The caseload increased 11 % from 268 opinions to 297 and 7 % from 327 cases entered or transferred from the Appeals Court to 351. (page 42 ) In the Appeals Court total entries declined slightly from 875 to 819, although total opinions increased 13'^ from 256 to 289 and the average number of days between entry and consideration increased 42% from 251 days in 1975 to 356 in 1976. (page 42) The Superior Court made progress in developing the Court Case Management System and in improving its jury management. Analysis of progress in reducing pending cases compared to judge days available suggests a greater correlation between judge days and caseload reduction on the criminal side than it does on the civil side (pages 44 and 45 . Ten year comparisons of caseload and entries have also been made for each county ( page 78 ). Passage of legislation allowing District Court justices to be certified to sit in the Superior Court will be of great value in reducing pending cases in that court, (page 36 ) The Probate Courts made progress in uniform forms throughout the state in adopting monthly reports of cases including delay figures and in collecting support payments. Pre trial case marking procedures also promise to expedite judicial business in this court, (page 46) The death of Chief Justice Flaschner was a great loss for the District Courts and all our courts. The merit of his programs was proved by the commitment with which they were continued by many judges, clerks, probation officers and administrators throughout the District Court system, (page 48) Case scheduling in the Boston Municipal Court is a model for other courts, (page 49) The activities, organization and management by objectives process of the Office of the Executive Secretary are described at pp. 1 -7 ). A comparative analysis of many court reorganization proposals, including that advocated recently by the Select Committee on Judicial Needs, appears at pages 13 - 17. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT to the JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT as of JUNE 30, 1976 John A. Fiske Executive Secretary H o! M3 A ^ IS JIM C-O-s Supreme J udicial Court for the Commonwealth 300 N ew C o u r t H o u s e B o s t o n . M assachusetts 0210s JOHN A. F iske executive secretary 617 227-2641 J o h n F. B u r k e February, 1978 OR Ro b e r t S. B lo om 617 742-9230 EXT. TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT There follows the Twentieth Annual Report of the Executive Secretary to the Justices, as of June 30, 1976. Written pursuant to G.L.c. 211, section 3F, the report describes the activities of this office and the progress and problems of the various Massachusetts courts and related agencies during Fiscal 1976. On the inside front cover appears the highlights. Unique features of this report include a comparison of five recent studies and recommendations to improve the financing, organization and administration of our courts (p. 17), a detailed analysis of county court expenses (p. 58), and five and ten year comparisons of work at the appellate and Superior Court levels (pp. 66 and 78). At the time of this writing there appears substantial reason to hope for legislation improving the financing and organization of courts. I hope the long overdue legislation will take advantage of the administrative progress made in our courts in Fiscal 1976 ana indicated in this also over­ due report. Executive Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS Page HIGHLIGHTS......................................................................................................... Inside Front Cover ACTIVITIES OF THE O FFIC E.......................................................................................................... 1 COURT MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................................................8 FINANCING THE COURTS.............................................................................................................. 10 COURT UNIFICATION.....................................................................................................................13 COURT FACILITIES......................................................................................................................... 19 COURTHOUSE SECURITY.............................................................................................................. 29 THE MASSACHUSETTS JUDICIARY.............................................................................................30 MASSACHUSETTS JUDICIAL CONFERENCE..............................................................................33 COURT RULES................................................................................................................................. 35 MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL ADVISORS........................................................................................ 37 MASSACHUSETTS DEFENDERS COMMITTEE............................................................................38 BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS....................................................................................................... 40 BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS........................................................................................................40 THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX II: Statistics on Work Accomplished by the Courts in the Commonwealth........ 63 ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE Established by 1956 statute to serve as “the eyes and ears’’ of the Supreme Judicial Court in administrative matters, the Office of the Executive Secretary to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court functioned until 1970 primarily as a data gathering and reporting agency. Indeed, the statutes creating the office and setting forth its duties, G.L.c. 211, § § 3A-F, are stated in terms of inquiry, investigation, reporting and recommending. On this statutory basis and because of severe staff limitations, the office initially limited its activities to gathering statistics on court operations and finances formerly gathered by the Judic­ ial Council, to investigating complaints, to responding to inquiries with respect to the impact of proposed legislation on the courts and to the publication of an Annual Report including recommendations for the improved management of the Massachusetts courts. In 1970 and 1971, this situation began to change discernably. The statutory staff limit was increased by one position in 1970 and, in 1971, the office received the first of a series of fed­ eral grants permitting it by delegation from the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court to under­ take a broad range of activities in court management. At the same time, the trial courts began to develop and expand administrative offices of their own. As the activities and personnel of the office gradually expanded in response to a greater appre­ ciation of the need for an effective state court administrative office, a corresponding need arose to plan the development of the office and to take systematic steps to organize the office in pre­ paration for foreseeable additional activities. Chief Justice G. Joseph Tauro laid the basis for this task in his comprehensive Report of the Chief Justice on the Office o f the Executive Secretary to the Justices o f the Supreme Judicial Court, published in the spring of 1975. Pursuing the Chief Justice’s work, the Executive Secre­ tary engaged the consulting firm of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell in the winter of 1976 to assist in the development of a systematic process for organizing the office’s limited resources to meet the various current and likely demands upon it. The initial phase of this ambitious but necessary undertaking consumed a substantial amount of staff time during early 1976. The result was the adoption of mission, goals and result-oriented objective statements defining in order of importance the priorities of the office for 1977 and beyond. This management plan has been presented to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court under whose supervision the office operates. In the context of flexible and growing demands upon the office as a state court administrative office, the Management by Objectives process is valid and particularly appropriate. It provides a method by which priorities may be weighed, tasks assigned, deadlines set, and accomplish­ ments measured. Most importantly, it provides personnel with supervisory and operational responsibilities a means of allocating resources in an intelligent fashion. The Management by Objectives process prevents an overextension of limited resources in response to an uncontrolled accretion of tasks and responsibilities, and provides the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court with an efficient system for informed supervision of the office. One thing is clear as a result of this process. In assuming responsibility for any new task, the office must carefully weigh its implications in terms of time and personnel and recognize that the acceptance of responsibility for any given task may well require
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rediscovering Williston
    St. John's University School of Law St. John's Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 2005 Rediscovering Williston Mark L. Movsesian St. John's University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Contracts Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal History Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rediscovering Williston Mark L. Movsesian* Abstract This Article is an intellectualhistory of classicalcontracts scholar Samuel Williston. Professor Movsesian argues that the conventional account of Williston's jurisprudencepresents an incomplete and distortedpicture. While much of Williston 's work can strike a contemporary readeras arid and conceptual, there are strong elements ofpragmatismas well. Williston insists that doctrine be justified in terms of real-world consequences, maintains that rules can have only presumptive force, and offers institutionalexplanations forjudicial restraint. As a result, his scholarship shares more in common with today's new formalism than commonly supposed. Even the undertheorizedquality of Williston 's scholarship-to contemporary readers, the least appealing aspect of his work-makes a certain amount of sense, given his goals and intended audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Faculty Bibliography Through 2009 Fordham Law School Library
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Bibliography Law Library September 2018 Cumulative Faculty Bibliography Through 2009 Fordham Law School Library Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/fac_bib Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fordham Law School Library, "Cumulative Faculty Bibliography Through 2009" (2018). Faculty Bibliography. 13. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/fac_bib/13 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Library at FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Bibliography by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fordham Law School Cumulative Faculty Bibliography Through 2009 ABRAHAM ABRAMOVSKY Books (Editor) Criminal Law and the Corporate Counsel. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981. Journal Articles “Prosecuting Judges for Ethical Violations: Are Criminal Sanctions Constitutional and Prudent, or Do They Constitute a Threat to Judicial Independence?” 33 Fordham Urban Law Journal 727-773 (2006) [with Jonathan I. Edelstein] “Criminal Law Current Comment: People V. Suarez and Depraved Indifference Murder: The Court of Appeals' Incomplete Revolution.” 56 Syracuse Law Review 707-734 (2006) [with Jonathan I. Edelstein] ADepraved Indifference Murder Prosecutions in New York: Time for Substantive and Procedural Clarification.@ 55 Syracuse Law Review 455-494 (2005) (with Jonathan I. Edelstein). "The Drug War and the American Jewish Community: 1880 to 2002 and Beyond." 6 The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice 1-38 (2002 ) (with Jonathan I.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. 2:15-CR-101 ) THOMAS LEE NEWMAN, SR., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The defendant, Thomas Lee Newman, Sr., was convicted of four drug trafficking offenses after a bench trial before the undersigned. After the Court rendered its verdict, a sentencing hearing was scheduled and a presentence investigation report (“PSR”) was ordered. The PSR, disclosed to the parties on October 27, 2016, has been objected to by the defendant. The Court received evidence and heard argument on the objections on February 1, 2017. The government has filed a supplemental brief, [Doc. 103].1 This memorandum opinion and order will address defendant’s objections to the PSR. On September 9, 2015, a federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging the defendant, Thomas Lee Newman, Sr., a/k/a “Tree” in Count One with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A) (Count One), possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Counts Two and Four), and distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count Three). On September 15, 2015, the United States filed an information to establish a prior conviction 1 The parties were given a deadline of February 13, 2017, to file a supplemental memorandum.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IX the STATE PAGES
    Section IX THE STATE PAGES THE FOLLOWING section presents information on all the states of the United States and the District of Columbia; the commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands; the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands; and the United Na­ tions trusteeships of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Belau.* Included are listings of various executive officials, the justices of the supreme courts and officers of the legislatures. Lists of all officials are as of late 1981 or early 1982. Comprehensive listings of state legislators and other state officials appear in other publications of The Council of State Governments. Concluding each state listing are population figures and other statistics provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, based on the 1980 enumerafion. Preceding the state pages are three tables. The first lists the official names of states, the state capitols with zip codes and the telephone numbers of state central switchboards. The second table presents historical data on all the states, commonwealths and territories. The third presents a compilation of selected state statistics from the state pages. *The Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Belau (formerly Palau) have been administered by the United Slates since July 18, 1947, as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPl), a trusteeship of the United Nations. The Northern Mariana Islands separated themselves from TTPI in March 1976 and now operate under a constitutional govern­ ment instituted January 9, 1978.
    [Show full text]
  • TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts
    Public Document TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts FOR TABLES OF CONTENTS OF REPORTS 1 to 15, 1924 TO 1939 AND A LIST OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER MATERIAL RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SINCE 1780, SEE 15th. REPORT (1939) 93-108. FOR THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESULTS OF ITS WORK, SEE 14th. REPORT (1938) 43-73. CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT page Index to Statistical T a b l e s ............................................................................................... 2 T he Act C reating the C ouncil — M em bers of C o u n c il .................................... 4 I ntroductory R emarks and C hapter 27 of R esolves of 1925 . 5 R ecommendations Adopted in 1943 ................................................................................. 6 E mergency J urors and W aiver of F ull J ury in C riminal C ases — D raft A c t ............................................................................................................................... 7 Consolidation of C ases for T rial under St. 1943 c. 369 D raft Act . 14 Procedure for D eclaratory J udgments in C iv il C ases — D raft A ct . 15 A P lan for an O ptional Alternative P rocedure w ithin the Superior C ourt for R ehearing w ithout P rinting M atters of L aw in C ivil Cases — D raft A c t ............................................................................................................. 21 N ew T rials W hen D amages Awarded Are I nadequate — D raft A ct . 25 D istrict C ourts and F ull-tim e J udicial Service — D raft Acts . 28 P robate C ourts — P ractice as to A uthority to C arry on B usiness of a D eceased P erson — D raft Ac t .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Massachusetts Constitution—The Last Thirty Years
    WILKINS_LEAD_MACRO 6/6/2011 9:16 PM The Massachusetts Constitution—The Last Thirty Years Herbert P. Wilkins1 The Constitution of the Commonwealth has never been more significant for the rights of individuals than in the past thirty years. Although the greater impact has been on the rights of criminal defendants, the Constitution’s influence on civil relationships has been substantial, as indicated most particularly by Goodridge v. Department of Public Health2 on the right to same-sex marriage. In 1980, this law review published my article comparing the treatment of similar provisions of the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution.3 My current effort is, in a sense, an updating of the 1980 article. Before 1980, there were only a handful of cases that foretold the impending impact of the Supreme Judicial Court’s independent treatment of provisions in the State Constitution that had parallels in the Federal Constitution. For example, Commonwealth v. Soares4 barred racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors well before the Supreme Court did so in Batson v. Kentucky.5 As will be seen, many Massachusetts cases rejected positions then taken by the Supreme Court, and others reached results unlikely to be acceptable to it. Thus, this article, unlike the 1980 article, identifies many instances in which the Constitution of the Commonwealth, particularly its Declaration of Rights, dictated positions not established under the Federal Constitution. The most that I could say in the 1980 article was that In recent years, the Supreme Judicial Court has exercised the option to impose higher state constitutional standards in some instances and, in many other 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 1.3 MB, for Report of the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts
    The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts Report to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall J. Donald Monan, S.J., Chair, Patricia McGovern, Vice-Chair, William C. Van Faasen, Vice-Chair Charles D. Baker, Wesley W. Marple, Jr., Ralph C. Martin, II, Honorable A. David Mazzone, Dorothy Terrell March 2003 The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts March 4, 2003 To the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: Six short months ago, in August, 2002, you appointed us as a Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts, to provide an independent perspective on the state of management in the Judiciary and to make recommendations for its improvement. Our work brought a new understanding of the immense managerial challenge that the size and complexity of the Courts pose. The pride in the Judiciary and the dedication to its high purpose that you expressed in establishing the Committee, we found reflected in the hundreds of court personnel with whom we spoke in the course of our study. Throughout the Commonwealth, we found islands of managerial excellence. Other parts of the Court system do not share that advantage. But it is among the links that are needed to forge all the Courts into a unified system that we found the most significant managerial gaps. These gaps will not ultimately be bridged by personal talents of individual personnel, but by assuring that the best organizational structures and management practices are at work in molding the Courts into a true “system,” as opposed to a loose collection of parts. It is for this reason that neither our recommendations nor your acceptance of them can, of themselves, create a well-managed Court system.
    [Show full text]
  • An Informal History of How Law Schools Evaluate Students, with a Predictable Emphasis on Law School Exams
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 1997 An Informal History of How Law Schools Evaluate Students, with a Predictable Emphasis on Law School Exams Stephen M. Sheppard St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen M. Sheppard, An Informal History of How Law Schools Evaluate Students, with a Predictable Emphasis on Law School Exams, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 657 (1997). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN INFORMAL HISTORY OF HOW LAW SCHOOLS EVALUATE STUDENTS, WITH A PREDICTABLE EMPHASIS ON LAW SCHOOL FINAL EXAMS Steve Sheppard* Finalexams play on a law student 's world like some weirdly orbitingmoon. They are always in sight; but while they're at a distance, they serve merely to create the tensions which swell daily like tides - to read to keep pace, to understand As exams draw close, however,... theirgravitational force startsto shake the whole place to pieces.' American law schools currently employ one essential, formal method of student evaluation - course-end examinations.2 While informal evaluation, particularly observation of student oral class performances, does occur, the exams are usually the exclusive method by which a record of student performance is created.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File, Please Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. ------------~ .-------------~,' .. \. JUN 221978 . ACQUiS1TIOi\lS, "-. MISDEMEANOR COURT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM PART I A Joint Project of: The American Judicature Society and The Institute for Court Management This project was supported by Grant Number 76-NI-99-0114 awarded by the Law Enforcement Assist­ ance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice under Title Iof the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub­ Law 93-83. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reIJresent the official positior/or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. June 1978 PROJECT STAFF Co-Project Directors: Harvey Solomon Allan Ashman Training and Workshop Coordinator: H. Ted Rubin Research Coordinator: James J. Alfini Research Attorneys: Charles Grau Karen Knab Training and Workshop Associate: Tom Cameron Research Associates= Rachel Doan John Ryan Special Consultant: Maureen Solomon Administrative Assistant: Susan Mauer Secretary: Patricia Bradley Research Assistants: Bren t Lindberg Jane Lynk Joseph Markowitz Mark Oldenburg Susan Thomson ADVI~.;ORY COMMITTEE Jerome S. Berg Director Administrative Office of the Massachusetts District Courts Honorable Dorothy Binder Judge Adams County Court Brighton, Colorado Honorable T. Patrick Corbett Judge King County Superior Court Seattle, Washington Professor Elmer K. Nelson School of Public Administration University of Southern California Sacramento, California Honorable Robert Wenke Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Los Angeless California Charles R. Work, Esquire Peabody, RivEn, Lambert & Meyers Washington, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface •. viii Introduction ix CHAPTER I: The Misdemeanor Courts A. Introduction....... 1 B.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA LAW Text R5
    Table of Contents 2 MESSAGE FROM THE DEAN 4 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT U C L A 6 BUSINESS LAW PROGRAM Business Law Program Lets Students Focus Legal Education on Business Practice LAW MAGAZINE Connected Contracts - G. Mitu Gulati, William Klein and Eric Zolt The Magazine of the UCLA School of Law Textualism’s Failures in Statutory Interpretation- Daniel J. Bussel Vol. 23 L No. 2 L Spring.Summer.2000 Mandatory Disclosure: A Behavioral Analysis - Stephen Bainbridge Transactional Class Turns Recruits Into Negotiators- Kenneth Klee Environmental Law - Timothy Malloy UCLA Law Magazine Copyright 2000 UC Regents Islamic Law at the UCLA School of Law - Khaled Abou El Fadl Seek Truth from Facts: Empirical Legal Research in the PRC - Randall Peerenboom UCLA School of Law Suite 951476 Latin America Infrastructure Development - Patrick Del Duca Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 Jonathan D. Varat, Dean 25 FACULTY SCHOLARSHIP Regina McConahay, Director, The Justices are Listening - Stephen Gardbaum and Eugene Volokh Communications Center UCLA Helps ACLU Help Kids - Gary Blasi Editor and Publisher, UCLA Law Magazine Karen Stigler, Editor Intellectual Property Rights Involved in Sequencing the Human Gene - Stephen Munzer Stuart D. Grow, Editorial Assistant Lawyers in the Movies - Michael Asimow Barbara Kelly, Designer Frank Lopez, Art Coordinator Light up the Law School - Daniel Lowenstein Ellis Green, Masthead Design Typecraft, Inc., Printer Photographers: Todd Cheney, Rick Flynn, 34 HONORS Mark Harmel, Regina McConahay, Susan Prager ’71, Edward A. Dickson Alumnus of the Year Mary Ann Stuehrmann David Sklansky and Tom Holm Win Distinguished Teacher Awards UCLA School of Law Board of Advisors Frank Menetrez ’00, Outstanding Graduate Student Grant Nelson, The Rutter Award William M.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Chain: How State Legislatures Can Learn from the Mistakes of Maryland’S Fair Share Act and Stop Benefit Dumping
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Insurance Law Journal School of Law 2007 Breaking the Chain: How State Legislatures Can Learn From the Mistakes of Maryland’s Fair Share Act and Stop Benefit Dumping Fallon DePina Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cilj Recommended Citation DePina, Fallon, "Breaking the Chain: How State Legislatures Can Learn From the Mistakes of Maryland’s Fair Share Act and Stop Benefit Dumping" (2007). Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. 27. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cilj/27 CONNECTICUT INSURANCE LAW JOURNAL Volume 14, Number 1 Fall 2007 University of Connecticut School of Law Hartford, Connecticut Connecticut Insurance Law Journal (ISSN 1081-9436) is published at least twice a year by the Connecticut Insurance Law Journal Association at the University of Connecticut School of Law. Periodicals postage paid at Hartford, Connecticut. Known office of publication: 55 Elizabeth Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06105-2209. Printing location: Western Newspaper Publishing Company, 537 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Please visit our website at http://www.insurancejournal.org or see the final page of this issue for subscription and back issue ordering information. Postmaster: Send address changes to Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 55 Elizabeth Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06105-2209. The Journal welcomes the submission of articles and book reviews. Both text and notes should be double or triple-spaced. Submissions in electronic form are encouraged, and
    [Show full text]
  • Ro BROOKS & DERENSIS
    260 Franklin Street BROOKS & DERENSIS Suite 700 ro Boston, MA 02110 (857) 259-5200 (857) 259-5212 fax Paul R. DeRensis, Esq. pdet·ensis@ bd boston.com March 21, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL to [email protected] Select Board Town of Cohasset 41 Highland Ave Cohasset MA 02025 RE: Response to RFQ for Legal Services Town of Cohasset Dear Members of the Select Board: We submit this application to continue to provide legal services for the Town of Cohasset. Our response to this RFQ includes a unified encompassing proposal to provide comprehensive legal services as we have in the past, so that we propose to provide legal service areas combined with other legal service areas labelled in the RFQ as "A" through "E", (Town Counsel, Labor & Employment, Environmental and Land Use, and Litigation and Special Counsel) or some combination of areas, or each of these areas separately. I, Paul DeRensis, have been Town Counsel for the Town of Cohasset for twenty-five years, with responsibility (except in the last few years), for comprehensively all legal services needed by the Town. As was required by the Agreement between the Town and Town Counsel, and by the General Bylaws of the Town regarding Town Counsel, whatever area of legal practice has been needed by the Town, I made sure was supplied to the Town. You know our accomplishments including successfully extracting the Town from some precarious situations, and you know that the Town of Cohasset has been safe from harm for that entire period. The Agreement for Legal Services currently in place with the Town of Cohasset has been with me personally, and names me as a primary obligor but allows me to draw upon others that I am working with for additional legal support.
    [Show full text]