DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Sincerely, Abby Armstrong Director, Career Services Vermont Law School South Royalton, VT Copyright © 2021 by Vermont Law School. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, published, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Vermont Law School, with the exception that the purchaser is permitted to grant employees and students access to the username and password. 2 State Judicial Clerkship Application Deadline Quick Reference Chart 2021-2022 State Supreme Appellate Trial Alabama – Page 5 – 6 Varies – Spring 1L Varies – Spring 1L Varies – Spring 2L Alaska – Page 7 -11 September 27, 2021 September 27, 2021 November 1, 2021 Arizona – Page 12-14 June 14, 2021 May 1 - June 16, 2021 – N/A Review starts June 4 Arkansas – Page 15-16 Varies – Spring 2L Varies – Spring 2L Based on openings California – Page 17-19 Based on openings Based on openings Varies by court Colorado – Page 20-21 Summer after 2L Summer after 2L Based on openings Connecticut – Page 22-24 April 26 - May 28, 2021 April 26 - May 28, 2021 Sept. 1 – Oct. 31, 2021 Delaware – Page 25-28 Fall of 2L N/A Varies by court – most are Fall 2021 Dist. Columbia – Page 29-30 Fall of 3L N/A Fall of 3L Federated States of Based on openings Based on openings Based on openings – 2L Micronesia – Page 31-34 spring Florida – Page 35-38 Varies – Spring 2L Varies by court Based on openings Georgia – Page 39-42 Based on openings Based on openings Varies – Spring of 2L Guam – Page 43-44 Spring of 2L N/A Spring of 2L Hawaii – Page 45-47 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Varies – May 1, 2021 Idaho – Page 48-50 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Illinois – Page 51-52 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Indiana – Page 53-54 Varies by Judge Varies – Sept. 2021 Varies – Summer after 2L Iowa – Page 55-58 Varies – Spring 2L Varies by Judge Varies by court Kansas – Page 59-60 Summer after 2L Summer after 2L Varies by court Kentucky – Page 61-62 Spring of 2L Based on openings Based on openings Louisiana – Page 63-66 Spring of 2L Spring of 2L Spring of 2L Maine – Page 67-69 4pm August 6, 2021 4pm August 6, 2021 4pm August 6, 2021 Maryland – Page 70-73 Spring of 2L Spring of 2L Varies – Spring of 2L Massachusetts – Page 74-78 June 8 – Sept. 24, 2021 Aug. 1 – Aug. 31, 2021 Based on openings (rolling basis) Michigan – Page 79-81 Rolling- Based on Aug. – Sept. 2021 Varies openings Minnesota – Page 82-83 April 11, 2021 July 25, 2021 11:59pm Based on openings CST Mississippi – Page 84-86 Fall of 3L Fall of 3L Varies Missouri – Page 87-89 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge N/A Montana – Page 90-91 Varies by Judge – One N/A Based on openings Year prior to opening Nebraska – Page 92-93 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge N/A Nevada – Page 94-95 April 1 – Oct. 31, 2021 April 1 – Oct. 31, 2021 Spring of 2L New Hampshire – Page 96-97 April 1 – June 14 2021 N/A April 1- July 24, 2021 New Jersey – Page 98-100 Rolling – Opens June Rolling – Opens June Rolling – Opens June 2021 2021 2021 New Mexico – Page 101-103 Last Friday in June Varies Varies New York – Page 104-109 July 1 – Sept 15, 2021 Fall of 3L Varies by court North Carolina – Page 110-111 Spring of 2L Varies by Judge N/A 3 State Supreme Appellate Trial North Dakota – Page 112-113 July 12, 2021 N/A Based on Openings Northern Mariana Islands – Based on openings N/A Based on Openings Page 114 Ohio – Page 115-116 Spring of 2L Varies by court Varies by court Oklahoma – Page 117-118 Based on openings Based on openings N/A Oregon – Page 119- 120 Jan. 4 – Sept. 7th 2021 Jan. 4 – Sept. 7th 2021 Varies Pennsylvania – Page 121-123 Spring of 2L Spring of 2L Based on openings Puerto Rico – Page 124-126 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Varies by Judge Rhode Island – Page 127-128 2L summer (mid Aug.) N/A October of 3L South Carolina – Page 129-131 Fall of 3L Fall of 3L Varies by court South Dakota – Page 132-133 July 9, 2021 N/A July 9, 2021 Tennessee – Page 134-135 Summer after 2L Summer after 2L Fall of 3L Texas – Page 136-138 2L Spring 2L Spring/Fall of 3L Varies by court Utah – Page 139-140 Summer after 2L Summer after 2L Based on openings Vermont – Page 141-143 April 2021 N/A March 1 – May 15, 2021 Virgin Islands – Page 144-145 Based on openings – 2L Varies by Judge – 2L N/A spring spring Virginia – Page 146-147 Spring of 2L Spring of 2L Varies by court Washington – Page 148-151 Varies by Judge Varies by Judge/court Varies by court West Virginia – Page 152-154 Varies by court N/A Based on openings Wisconsin – Page 155-157 Varies – 2L Spring Varies by court Spring 2L Wyoming – Page 158 N/A – Based on N/A Varies by Judge openings 4 State Court Judicial Clerkship Information STATE: Alabama HIGHEST COURT: Alabama Supreme Court INFO • The Justices no longer offer clerkships, but employ Staff Attorneys • Unpaid internships or externships are offered in the Clerks’ Office at the Alabama Supreme Court and similar positions may be available by applying directly to individual justices. • Website: http://judicial.alabama.gov/appellate/supremecourt • Externships may be available for law school credit depending on pre-approval by the student’s law school curriculum. APPLY • WHO: Contact individual justice(s) to see if hiring. See website for list and bios. • WHAT: Verify requirements with each chamber. Generally: o Cover letter o Résumé o Two letters of recommendation o Unofficial law school transcript o Writing sample • WHEN: The Clerk’s Office will begin accepting applications in the spring of 1L for Externships. Applicants should contact the Clerk’s Office for specific deadlines. • WHERE: Send application materials to: Clerk of Court Alabama Supreme Court 300 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 *** As a courtesy, send a copy of any application to the Honorable Lyn Stuart, Chief Justice, at the above address. *** MID-LEVEL APPELLATE COURT: Court of Civil Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals INFO • Two separate courts, one civil and one criminal. • Court of Civil Appeals - may hire clerks each year; check their website at http://judicial.alabama.gov/Appellate/CivilAppeals Court of Criminal Appeals - Generally judges employ staff attorneys instead of offering clerkships; interested candidates should contact individual judges for availability; for list 5 ALABAMA – cont. of judges go to: http://judicial.alabama.gov/Appellate/CriminalAppeals APPLY • WHO: Apply directly to individual judge(s). • WHAT: Same as that listed for Supreme Court. • WHEN: Same as that listed for Supreme Court. • WHERE: Rebecca Oates, Clerk Scott Mitchell, Clerk Court of Civil Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals 300 Dexter Avenue 300 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 229-0733 (334) 229-0751 TRIAL COURTS INFO • Some metropolitan circuit courts hire law clerks. • 1-year term starts fall after graduation. • http://www.alacourt.gov/ APPLY • WHO: Apply directly to judges in Jefferson, Mobile, and Montgomery counties. • WHAT: Verify with each judge. Generally: o Cover letter o Résumé o Two letters of recommendation o Unofficial law school transcript o Writing sample • WHEN: Varies; generally early spring of 2L. For more information, contact: Vonda C. Sanders UJS Human Resources Director 300 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 -Or- Administrative Office of Courts Judicial Building 300 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104-3741 Toll Free: (866) 954-9411 / Local: (334) 954-5000 http://www.alacourt.gov/ 6 State Court Judicial Clerkship Information STATE: Alaska Information about the Law Clerk Program is available at: Https://tinyurl.com/y64tkev9 HIGHEST COURT: Alaska Supreme Court INFO • Five Supreme Court justices: three in Anchorage and two in Fairbanks.
Recommended publications
  • Arkansas Supreme Court

    Arkansas Supreme Court

    ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT State Contracts Over $50,000 Awarded To Minority Owned Businesses Fiscal Year 2020 None Employment Summary Male Female Total % White Employees 13 29 42 89 % Black Employees 2 1 3 6 % Other Racial Minorities 1 1 2 5 % Total Minorities 5 11 % Total Employees 47 100 % Publications A.C.A. 25-1-201 et seq. Required for Unbound Black & Cost of Unbound Statutory # of Reason(s) for Continued White Copies Copies Produced Name General Authorization Governor Copies Publication and Distribution Produced During During the Last Assembly the Last Two Years Two Years Arkansas Reports/ AR Appellate ACA 16-11-201; AR Supreme N N 0 Publication of the Supreme Court opinions 0 0.00 Reports Court Rule 5-2 ceased with volume 375 Ark/104 Ark. App. These opinions are now published online. IN RE: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 5-2 (May 28, 2009) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT - 0032 Page 1 Honorable John Dan Kemp, Chief Justice ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT - 0032 Honorable John Dan Kemp, Chief Justice Department Appropriation Summary Historical Data Agency Request and Executive Recommendation 2019-2020 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 Appropriation Actual Pos Budget Pos Authorized Pos Agency Pos Executive Pos Agency Pos Executive Pos 008 Supreme Court - Operations 5,155,467 48 6,013,886 48 5,329,935 48 5,958,765 48 0 0 5,959,010 48 0 0 C66 SC Bar of Arkansas-Cash 3,753,854 25 5,075,000 25 5,075,000 25 5,279,200 25 0 0 5,279,200 25 0 0 Total 8,909,321 73 11,088,886 73 10,404,935 73 11,237,965 73 0 0 11,238,210 73 0 0 Funding Sources % % % % % % State Central Services 4000035 5,155,467 57.9 6,013,886 54.2 5,958,765 53.0 0 0.0 5,959,010 53.0 0 0.0 Cash Fund 4000045 3,753,854 42.1 5,075,000 45.8 5,279,200 47.0 0 0.0 5,279,200 47.0 0 0.0 Total Funds 8,909,321 100.0 11,088,886 100.0 11,237,965 100.0 0 0.0 11,238,210 100.0 0 0.0 Excess Appropriation/(Funding) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 8,909,321 11,088,886 11,237,965 0 11,238,210 0 FY21 Budget amount in 008 exceeds the authorized amount due to salary and matching rate adjustments during the 2019-2021 Biennium.
  • Unfunded Mandates: a Unifying Principle of All Counties Ecounty Lines | November 2020

    Unfunded Mandates: a Unifying Principle of All Counties Ecounty Lines | November 2020

    Protection from Unfunded Mandates: A Unifying Principle of All Counties eCounty Lines | November 2020 There are various protections in place for local governments from unfunded mandates, both in state statute, as well as the execution of laws by the Governor and his departments. However, there is no absolute protection. Collectively, commissioners—assisted by Colorado Counties Inc.—are the strongest defense against unfunded mandates. A statute enacted in 1991 prohibits unfunded mandates, with some exceptions. “No new state mandate or an increase in the level of service…shall be mandated by the general assembly or any state agency on any local government unless the state provides additional moneys to reimburse such local government for the costs …such mandate or increased level of service for an existing state mandate shall be optional on the part of the local government” (CRS 29-1-304.5). The Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) took this statute a step further by allowing local governments to end their participation in a program, if funding was inadequate. “Except for public education through grade 12 or as required of a local district by federal law, a local district may reduce or end its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the general assembly for administration” (Article X, Section 20(9)). Unfortunately, in 1995 these two provisions were defeated twice via State Supreme Court decisions. In the first case, Weld County attempted to withhold their portion of payments towards a public assistance program administered through the county. However, the court did not find this payment to be a subsidy (as referenced in TABOR) and declared that as an arm of the state, counties were essentially part of the state and therefore could not subsidize themselves, so the exemption was not allowed [Romer v.
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)

    50 State Survey(Longdoc)

    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
  • Emergency Order Regarding Court Services

    Emergency Order Regarding Court Services

    In the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho RE: EMERGENCY ORDER ) ORDER REGARDING COURT ) June24,202l SERVICES ) Over the last l5 months, this Court has issued a series of emergency orders intended to address the substantial health and safety risks faced by the public accessing the courts, court personnel, and participants in court proceedings caused by the community spread of the coronavirus. Since the issuance of those orders, vaccines reducing the risks of COVID-19 have become available throughout the state of Idaho. The incidence rate of COVID-19 infection throughout the state has also reduced. The Court continues to monitor the data and information related to the coronavirus, COVID-19, and its variants, and will adjust court operations orders as becomes prudent with the changing circumstances. In light of the improving circumstances, we have concluded that further modification of our emergency orders is now warranted. In order to continue to foster public safety and reduce the risk of the spread of coronavirus and the incidence of COVID-l9 and its variants, court operations shall be governed by the following rules until further order of the Court: 1. Weeklv Publication of COVID-l9 Incidence Rates: The Data and Evaluation Unit of the Administrative Office of Courts shall utilize data obtained from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's COVID-I9 Data Dashboard, and shall determine the weekly COVID-]! incidence rates for each county every Thursday evening after 5:00 p.m. Mounrain Time. The weekly COVID-l9 incidence rates shall be published to the Administrative District Judges and Trial Court Administrators on Friday mornings of each week.
  • Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996

    Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996

    YEAR IN REVIEW Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................. 167 II. A dm inistrative Law ................................................................. 167 A . Public Contracting .................. ..... ............. 167 B. Land Use and Resource Management ........................... 171 C. A dm inistrative Procedure ............................................... 175 III. Business Law ............................................................................ 176 IV . Civil Procedure ........................................................................ 178 A. Timeliness of Prosecution and Appeal .......................... 179 B . M odification of Judgm ent ............................................... 181 C. M iscellaneous .................................................................... 183 V . Constitutional Law .................................................................. 188 A . D ue Process ....................................................................... 188 B . D ouble Jeopardy .............................................................. 191 C. Right to Jury Trial ............................................................ 192 D . M iscellaneous .................................................................... 193 V I. Crim inal Law ............................................................................ 197 A . Constitutional Protections ..............................................
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts

    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.
  • STATE V. JENKINS--FIRST DISSENT

    STATE V. JENKINS--FIRST DISSENT

    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE v. JENKINSÐFIRST DISSENT KATZ, J., dissenting. Both the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, it is undisputed that the initial stop of the defendant, Chris- topher Jenkins, for improperly changing lanes was rea- sonable and, therefore, valid under both of these provisions.
  • HUGHES, JR., Derivatively ) on Behalf of Nominal Defendant KANDI ) TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V

    HUGHES, JR., Derivatively ) on Behalf of Nominal Defendant KANDI ) TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V

    EFiled: Apr 27 2020 09:00AM EDT Transaction ID 65600595 Case No. 2019-0112-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM HUGHES, JR., Derivatively ) on Behalf of Nominal Defendant KANDI ) TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0112-JTL ) XIAOMING HU, XIAOYING ZHU, ) CHENG WANG, BING MEI, JERRY ) LEWIN, HENRY YU, LIMING CHEN, ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, ) INC., ) ) Nominal Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: February 6, 2020 Date Decided: April 27, 2020 Michael Van Gorder, FARUQI & FARUQI LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Demet Basar, Veronica Bosco, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, New York, New York; Daniel B. Rehns, Kathryn A. Hettler, HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA CHEVERIE LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Plaintiff. Stamatios Stamoulis, STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Richard J.L. Lomuscio, RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendants Xioaming Hu, Xiaoying Zhu, Cheng Wang, Bing Mei, Jerry Lewin, Henry Yu, and Liming Chen. LASTER, V.C. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (the “Company”) is a publicly traded Delaware corporation based in China. The Company has struggled persistently with its financial reporting and internal controls, encountering particular difficulties with related-party transactions. The complaint describes problems dating back to 2010. In March 2014, the Company publicly announced the existence of material weaknesses in its financial reporting and oversight system, including a lack of oversight by the Audit Committee and a lack of internal controls for related-party transactions. The Company pledged to remediate these problems. Instead, in March 2017, the Company disclosed that its preceding three years of financial statements needed to be restated.
  • A Streamlined Model of Tribal Appellate Court Rules for Lay Advocates and Pro Se Litigants

    A Streamlined Model of Tribal Appellate Court Rules for Lay Advocates and Pro Se Litigants

    American Indian Law Journal Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 4 12-15-2015 A Streamlined Model of Tribal Appellate Court Rules for Lay Advocates and Pro Se Litigants Gregory D. Smith J.D. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj Part of the Courts Commons, and the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Gregory D. J.D. (2015) "A Streamlined Model of Tribal Appellate Court Rules for Lay Advocates and Pro Se Litigants," American Indian Law Journal: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol4/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian Law Journal by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. A Streamlined Model of Tribal Appellate Court Rules for Lay Advocates and Pro Se Litigants Cover Page Footnote Gregory D. Smith, [J.D., Cumberland School of Law, 1988; B.S., Middle Tennessee State University, 1985; Special Courts Certification, National Judicial College, 2014], is a Justice on the Pawnee Nation Supreme Court in Oklahoma and the Alternate Judge on the Gila River Indian Community Court of Appeals in Arizona. Each court is the highest appellate court in their respective tribal nations. Both positions are part-time judgeships. Mr. Smith also has a law practice in Clarksville, Tennessee and is the part-time municipal judge for Pleasant View, Tennessee. Judge Smith has presented between 650–700 appeals for courts all over the United States.
  • Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware Part I

    Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware Part I

    RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PART I. THE COURT Rule 1. Term of Court. There shall be 1 term of the Court which shall coincide with the calendar year. Oral arguments will be scheduled as provided in Rule 16(c) or as otherwise ordered by the Court. Rule 2. Quorum; seniority. (a) Quorum. —A quorum of the Court en Banc shall be 5 and a quorum of the Court sitting as a panel shall be 3. A former Justice of the Supreme Court or an active constitutional judge may be assigned to complete a quorum as provided in Article IV, § 12 and § 38 of the Constitution. (b) Seniority. —Seniority of active Justices of the Court shall be determined under the provisions of Article IV, § 2 of the Constitution. Active Justices shall be senior in rank to former Justices, or judges of the constitutional courts designated to serve under Article IV, §§ 12 and 38 of the Constitution. Rule 3. Powers of individual Justices. (a) Decisions or orders of the Court. —Except for decisions or orders entered pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Rule, a decision or order of the Court which will determine or terminate the case shall not be made or entered unless concurred in by a majority of the Court. (b) Decisions or orders of the Court by a single Justice. —A decision or order of the Court may be made by 1 Justice when: (1) The decision or order does not terminate the case; or (2) All parties consent to the termination of the case.
  • Arizona Courts

    Arizona Courts

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. THE FUTURE OF '-. ARIZONA COURTS Report of ,..................................................... : .... THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS : .... ; '. · \ REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1989 120983 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by A r j z on a Snp..r.e.rne-c.uur.:./-'-___ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. Arizona Supreme Court COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1314 North 3rd Street, Suite 330, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, (602) 255-2136 The Honorable Frank: X. Gordon, Jr. Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court 201 West Wing, State Capitol Phoenix,Arizona85007 Dear Chief Justice Gordon: I am privileged to present to you the report of the Arizona Supreme Court's Commission on the Courts. This report reflects the action-oriented vision shared by the Executive Committee and the various Task Forces for shaping the direction of Arizona's courts into the next decade and beyond. We believe the evaluations and suggestions of the report reflect the need for a balance between continuity and adaptability in the judiciary; between the need for stability and a realistic appraisal of the changes necessary as we face a new century.
  • The Appellate Court of Illinois

    The Appellate Court of Illinois

    DePaul Law Review Volume 28 Issue 3 Spring 1979 Article 3 Stare Decisis among [Sic] the Appellate Court of Illinois Taylor Mattis Kenneth G. Yalowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Taylor Mattis & Kenneth G. Yalowitz, Stare Decisis among [Sic] the Appellate Court of Illinois , 28 DePaul L. Rev. 571 (1979) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol28/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARE DECISIS AMONG [SIC] THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS *Taylor Mattis **Kenneth G. Yalowitz What precedential impact should be accorded to decisions of the Appel- late Court of Illinois? Authors Mattis and Yalowitz examine the Illinois history of the stare decisis doctrine as it relates to Illinois appellate deci- sions. They demonstrate the inadequacy of the present Illinois approach, which requires trial courts to follow appellate court decisions of any divi- sion while those divisions remain free to adopt conflicting positions. Alter- native approaches to this question are then analyzed in detail. The authors conclude by recommending a two-pronged approach. First, all appellate court divisions should recognize decisions of coordinate divisions as bind- ing unless clearly erroneous. Second, if an appellate division decides that a decision of a coordinate division was erroneous, its contrary opinion should be regarded as having overruled the prior decision.