DOCSLIB.ORG

The Road to Civil Justice Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Road to Civil Justice Reform TRANSFORMING OUR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY The Road to Civil Justice Reform In July 2016, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators adopted recommendations designed to secure the fair, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of civil cases in state courts. The Civil Justice Initiative (CJI) Recommendations present a comprehensive framework that features: 1) a pathway approach based on the concept of proportionality in which civil rules and court resources are matched to the unique needs of each case; 2) a radically different staffing model for civil case processing that delegates substantial responsibility for routine caseflow management to specially trained professional staff, supported by effective case automation, permitting judges to focus on tasks that require their unique training and expertise; and 3) a renewed focus on high-volume calendars that comprise the vast majority of contemporary civil caseloads, especially improved access for self-represented litigants, and greater attention to uncontested cases and greater security on claims to ensure procedural fairness for litigants. With support of a generous grant from the State Justice Institute, IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, and the National Center for State Courts have partnered on a three-year project to implement the CJI Recommendations. The CJI report, recommendations, and information about the CJI Implementation Plan are available at ncsc.org/civil and iaals.du.edu/cji. TRANSFORMING OUR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY The Road to Civil Justice Reform Brittany K.T. Kauffman Senior Director & Brooke H. Meyer Manager April 2020 For reprint permission, please contact IAALS. Copyright © 2020 IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. All rights reserved. IAALS—Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System John Moye Hall, 2060 South Gaylord Way, Denver, CO 80208 Phone: 303-871-6600 http://iaals.du.edu IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, is a national, independent research center at the University of Denver dedicated to facilitating continuous improvement and advancing excellence in the American legal system. We are a “think tank” that goes one step further—we are practical and solution-oriented. Our mission is to forge innovative and practical solutions to problems within the American legal system. By leveraging a unique blend of empirical and legal research, innovative solutions, broad- based collaboration, communications, and ongoing measurement in strategically selected, high-impact areas, IAALS is empowering others with the knowledge, models, and will to advance a more accessible, efficient, and accountable American legal system. Scott Bales Executive Director Brittany K.T. Kauffman Senior Director Brooke H. Meyer Manager Janet Drobinske Senior Legal Assistant Logan Cornett Senior Research Analyst James Swearingen Research Assistant Table of Contents Introduction ................................................... 1 The Implementation Roadmap ..................................... 3 The Road to Civil Justice Reform in Idaho ............................ 6 Coordination with Other Reforms ............................... 9 The Road to Civil Justice Reform in Texas ........................... 12 Collaboration across Branches ................................. 15 The Road to Civil Justice Reform in Maine ........................... 17 Knowing When to Shift Gears is Essential ....................... 19 The Road to Civil Justice Reform in Missouri ........................ 21 Timing is Everything ........................................ 24 Recommendations and Themes ................................... 26 Leadership ................................................ 26 Assessment ................................................ 27 Engaging Stakeholders ....................................... 27 Developing Recommendations ................................ 29 Taking Action ............................................. 30 Conclusion ................................................... 31 Acknowledgments Our gratitude to the following organizations and individuals for their important contributions: • State Justice Institute • Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators • Rebecca Love Kourlis • Mary McQueen • Paula Hannaford-Agor • Shelley Spacek-Miller • Tom Clarke • Chief Justice Thomas A. Balmer and the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Committee, for their leadership • Scott Bales, Don Bivens, and the Arizona Civil Justice Reform Committee, for being the first followers In compiling these case studies, we also are indebted to the judges, attorneys, court staff, and other stakeholders who met with us to speak about their states’ reform efforts and gave so generously of their time and expertise: IDAHO ID Chief Justice Roger S. Burdick Sara B. Thomas Idaho Supreme Court Administrative Director, Chief Justice Jim Jones (Ret.) Idaho Administrative Office of the Courts Idaho Supreme Court Renae Bieri Justice Gregory W. Moeller Data and Evaluation Manager, Idaho Supreme Court Idaho Administrative Office of the Courts Chief Judge Molly J. Huskey Terry Fourtner Idaho Court of Appeals Judicial Assistant, Idaho Court of Appeals Judge Stephen S. Dunn Richard C. Boardman Sixth Judicial District Court of Idaho Partner, Perkins Coie Judge Steven Hippler James Cook Fourth Judicial District Court of Idaho Executive Director, Idaho Legal Aid Services Magistrate Judge Robert J. Caldwell Gary Cooper Magistrates Division Kootenai County, Partner, Cooper & Larsen First Judicial District of Idaho Brian Wonderlich General Counsel, Office of the Governor ME MAINE Chief Justice Leigh Ingalls Saufley James T. Glessner Maine Supreme Judicial Court State Court Administrator, Associate Justice Thomas E. Humphrey Maine Administrative Office of the Courts Maine Supreme Judicial Court Elizabeth Maddaus Justice Roland A. Cole (Ret.) Director of Clerks of Court, Maine Superior Court Maine Administrative Office of the Courts Justice Andrew M. Horton Elaine Clark Maine Superior Court Former Family Division and Civil Process Manager, Maine Administrative Office of the Courts Judge Peter Darvin Maine District Court Julie W. Howard Manager of Operations, York County, Judge Michael A. Duddy Maine Judicial Branch Maine District Court Laura Pearlman Judge John B. Lucy Manager, Civil Process and FDP, Maine District Court Administrative Office of the Courts Judge Susan Oram Jennifer Archer Maine District Court Maine Office of the Attorney General Rose Everitt Frank D’Allesandro Lead Law Clerk to the Chief Justice, Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc. Maine Supreme Judicial Court Eric Wycoff Partner, Pierce Atwood LLP MO MISSOURI Judge Patricia Breckenridge Kathy S. Lloyd Supreme Court of Missouri State Courts Administrator, Judge Gary D. Witt Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District Betsy Aubuchon Judge Cynthia L. Martin Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of Missouri Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District Stephen H. Ringkamp Judge Gary W. Lynch Principal, Hullverson Law Firm Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Robert T. Adams Judge Mark H. Neill Co-Chair, General Liability Litigation Practice Group, Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial Circuit Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P Judge Daniel Pelikan Bria L. Davis Presiding Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit Associate, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P Judge Kelly Broniec Associate Circuit Court Judge, 12th Judicial Circuit TX TEXAS Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht David Slayton Supreme Court of Texas Administrative Director, Judge Les Hatch Office of Court Administration 237th District Court Judge Jeffrey Tsunekawa Nina Hess Hsu Director, Research & Court Services, General Counsel, Supreme Court of Texas Office of Court Administration Martha G. Newton Scott Griffith Staff Attorney to Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht Former Director, Research & Court Services, Office of Court Administration Jaclyn Daumerie Rules Attorney, Supreme Court of Texas Megan LaVoie Public Affairs Director, Senator Judith Zaffirini Office of Court Administration Senator, Texas State Legislature Meredith Musick-Higgins Representative Jeff Leach Executive Assistant, Member, Texas House of Representatives, Office of Court Administration Texas State Legislature Kenneth S. Saks Andrew Hendrickson Partner, Oliva, Saks, Garcia & Curiel, LLP Legislative Aide to Texas State Senator Judith Zaffirini Evan Young Partner, Baker Botts LLP Introduction In July 2016, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) endorsed 13 recommendations for improving the American civil justice system. The report and recommendations, titled Call to Action: Achieving Civil Justice for All1, were the result of more than two years of research and work by the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Committee, with support from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. The Committee’s charge was to develop guidelines and best practices to ensure the just, prompt, and cost- effective resolution of civil cases in state courts.2 The resulting report provides a comprehensive set of national recommendations for civil justice reform, from the easy-to-implement to the transformational, all with the ultimate goal of ensuring access to justice in the twenty-first century. As former Chief Justice Thomas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts
    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States ______GEORGE Q
    No. 19-66 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ GEORGE Q. RICKS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF IDAHO CONTRACTORS BOARD, ET AL., Respondents. __________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE IDAHO COURT OF APPEALS __________ REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER __________ ERIC S. BAXTER Counsel of Record ERIC C. RASSBACH DANIEL H. BLOMBERG JOSEPH C. DAVIS THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 1200 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-0095 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 2 I. The Court should revisit Smith. ..................... 2 A. Smith was wrong. ...................................... 2 B. Stare decisis poses no obstacle to revisiting Smith. ................................... 7 II. This is an ideal vehicle for revisiting Smith. .............................................................. 8 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 12 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) ............................................ 2 Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) ................................................ 1 Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) ................................................ 4 Burwell v.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction of the Proposed Nevada Court of Appeals
    JURISDICTION OF THE PROPOSED NEVADA COURT OF APPEALS Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program 2008-09 Phase III Project May 2009 Robin L. Sweet Deputy Director Supreme Court of Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts Carson City, Nevada ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The list of people who should receive my heartfelt thanks for their support, understanding, and encouragement throughout this process could drag on for pages. So, I will try to specifically note those who helped with the report while noting generally that many family, friends, and colleagues offered words of support, encouragement, and inquiry throughout the process and I am grateful to and for each and every one of you! Your questions about my progress and success helped me stay on target and on track! The Nevada Supreme Court Justices were supportive throughout the research, including answering my questions at the beginning of the research idea. Clerk of the Court Tracie Lindeman helped with data for the Nevada Supreme Court as well as regular checkup and encouragement throughout the process. Ted Xie also provided Supreme Court data. Additional support and assistance were provided by Kathleen Harrington, Ann Whitney, Mary Berger, and Paula Doty of the Nevada Supreme Court Law Library. The heads of our Central Staff criminal and civil divisions, Phaedra Kalicki and Sarah Moore, also provided insight when asked. My thanks to Ron Titus, State Court Administrator, for his support of my pursuing this certification. Fortunately for me, Dr. David Rottman of the National Center for State Courts agreed to be my advisor for this project. I am grateful, too, for his encouragement and reviews of this report and its components.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Supreme Court Roster of Civil Case Mediators (I.R.C.P
    Page 1 of 27 IDAHO SUPREME COURT ROSTER OF CIVIL CASE MEDIATORS (I.R.C.P. 16(k)) Updated August 7, 2012 Name and Address Professional Education Legal Training & Mediation Training & Fees & Counties Affiliations Experience Experience Expenses of Mediation Practice AXLINE, Scott E. Inns of Court; ISB; BA – Idaho State Law Clerk of Arnold T. 40 Hours – Family Court $185/hr plus All Idaho counties Post Office Box 100 ITLA; IACDL Univ; JD – Univ Beebe; general practice Services Child Custody expenses Blackfoot, ID 83221 of Idaho except debtor’s bankruptcy Mediation TEL: (208) 785-6274 and workmen’s FAX: (208) 785-6280 compensation. E-MAIL: [email protected] RECERT DUE: 12/31/13 BRISENO, Janet A. Idaho State Bar University of Active child custody, divorce 40 hr. completion of Basic $125/hr and a Boundary, Briseno Law Offices, PC Idaho, College of and property litigation since Family Mediation through reduced rate for Bonner, Benewah, 100 E. Neider Avenue, Suite 3 Law May 1999. I also do the NW Dispute Resolution low income Kootenai, Latah Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814 adoptions. I have Center held each summer at families. TEL: (208) 665-7080 participated in numerous the College of Law. I have FAX: (208) 665-7667 attorney-assisted mediations, attended seminars also E-MAIL: [email protected] as well as 4-way meetings. approved for mediators. RECERT DUE: 12/31/13 BROADBENT, Rebecca A. ISB Litigation B.A., Boise State Admitted Utah Bar, 1989; Representation of clients $150/hr. Ada, Canyon, Broadbent Law Office, PLCC Section, Council University 1985 – Admitted Idaho Bar, 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • A National Call to Action
    A National Call to Action Access to Justice for Limited English Proficient Litigants: Creating Solutions to Language Barriers in State Courts July 2013 For further information contact: Konstantina Vagenas, Director/Chief Counsel Language and Access to Justice Initiatives National Center for State Courts 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350 Arlington, VA 22201-3326 [email protected] Additional Resources can be found at: www.ncsc.org Copyright 2013 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 ISBN 978-0-89656-287-5 This document has been prepared with support from a State Justice Institute grant. The points of view and opinions offered in this call to action are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policies or position of the State Justice Institute or the National Center for State Courts. Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgments i Executive Summary ii Introduction iv Chapter 1: Pre-Summit Assessment 1 Chapter 2: The Summit 11 Plenary Sessions 12 Workshops 13 Team Exercises: Identifying Priorities and Developing Action Plans 16 Chapter 3: Action Steps: A Road Map to a Successful Language Access Program 17 Step 1: Identifying the Need for Language Assistance 19 Step 2: Establishing and Maintaining Oversight 22 Step 3: Implementing Monitoring Procedures 25 Step 4: Training and Educating Court Staff and Stakeholders 27 Step 5: Training and Certifying Interpreters 30 Step 6: Enhancing Collaboration and Information Sharing 33 Step 7: Utilizing Remote Interpreting Technology 35 Step 8: Ensuring Compliance with Legal Requirements 38 Step 9: Exploring Strategies to Obtain Funding 40 Appendix A: Summit Agenda 44 Appendix B: List of Summit Attendees/State Delegations 50 Preface and Acknowledgments Our American system of justice cannot function if it is not designed to adequately address the constitutional rights of a very large and ever-growing portion of its population, namely litigants with limited English proficiency (LEP).
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ GILBERTO GARZA JR., Petitioner, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. ________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Idaho ________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________ ERIC D. FREDERICKSEN AMIR H. ALI MAYA P. WALDRON Counsel of Record STATE APPELLATE RODERICK & SOLANGE PUBLIC DEFENDER MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 322 East Front Street, 718 7th Street NW Suite 570 Washington, DC 20001 Boise, ID 83702 (202) 869-3434 [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED Does the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), apply where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented .............................................................. i Table Of Authorities ........................................................... iv Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari ....................................... 1 Opinion And Order Below ................................................... 1 Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 1 Constitutional Provisions Involved ................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................... 2 Statement Of The Case ....................................................... 4 Reasons For Granting The Petition
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act – Enactments June 2019
    UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL ACT – ENACTMENTS JUNE 2019 STATE BILL NUMBER COVERED LEGAL MATERIALS FISCAL IMPACT ENACTED EFFECTIVE • Constitution of Arizona Arizona • Arizona session laws No fiscal impact SB 1414 5/17/2016 8/8/2016 • Arizona Revised Statutes $135,000 to $165,000 (General Fund) for set up, authentication, • California Constitution archiving, and onsite storage. California SB 1075 • California Statutes 9/13/2012 7/1/2015 • California Codes Annual ongoing costs in the range of $40,000 to $70,000. • Colorado Constitution • Session Laws of Colorado $198,912 4/26/2012 3/31/2014 Colorado HB 1209 • Colorado Revised Statutes • State agency rules with effect of law • Constitution of Connecticut • General Statutes of Connecticut Connecticut SB 235 • Regulations of Connecticut state agencies No fiscal impact 5/17/2013 10/1/2014 • Reported decisions of Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut Appellate Court, and Connecticut Superior Court • Constitution of Delaware • Delaware Laws of Delaware No fiscal impact HB 403 • Delaware Code 7/23/2014 10/21/2014 • Regulations published in the Delaware Administrative Code • Hawaii Constitution • Hawaii Session Laws • Hawaii Revised Statutes Hawaii • State agency rules with effect of law No fiscal impact SB 32 / HB 18 • Reported decisions of Supreme Court of 4/16/2013 7/1/2013 State of Hawaii and Intermediate Appellate Court of Hawaii • State court rules • Idaho Constitution • Idaho Session Laws • Idaho Code Idaho • Idaho Administrative Code and Administrative No fiscal impact S1356 Bulletin
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Practice Materials: a Selective Annotated Bihliograpby*
    Idaho Practice Materials: A Selective Annotated Bihliograpby* Leinaala R. Seeger** The author provides a selective listing of Idaho legal publications, includ­ ing primary sources, treatises, and current continuing legal education materials that are typically used in the practice of law in Idaho. Introduction This annotated bibliography is one in a series on state practice materials published in the Law Library Journal.! Both primary and secondary materials currently used in the practice of law in Idaho are included. This bibliography is arranged in five main parts. The first, "General Publications," encompasses commonly used primary source materials such as statutes, legislation, case reports, and administrative law materials. The sec­ ond, "Periodicals," includes legal and law-related journals and newspapers published in the state of Idaho. "CD-ROMs-Full Text" lists products that are comprised primarily of Idaho legal and law-related materials. The fourth part, "Electronic Services," contains such services that are primarily produced in Idaho and comprised of Idaho legal or law-related materials, either in full text or summary form, including those available through the Internet. The final part, - * © Leinaala R. Seeger. 1995. I would like to thank Professor Elizabeth Barker Brandt and Acting Dean John A. Miller for their encouragement and suggestions. ** Director of the Law Library and Associate Professor of Law. University of Idaho College of Law Library; Moscow, Idaho. 1. See Robert L. Brown, An Annotated Bibliography of Current New York State Practice Materials, . 73 LAW LIBR. J. 28 (1980); Bruce S. Johnson, Michigan Practice Materials: A Selective, Annotated Bibliography, 73 LAW LIBR. J.672 (1980); Karl T.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Supreme Court 2020 Elected Clerks and Judges Meeting
    Idaho Supreme Court 2020 Elected Clerks and Judges Conference February 3, 2020 Riverside Hotel Boise, Idaho 2020 Clerks and Judges Conference Agenda ~ Monday, February 3rd, 2020 ~ Riverside Hotel ~ North Star Conference Room Boise, Idaho 7:30 AM HOT BREAKFAST SERVED ~ NORTH STAR CONFERENCE ROOM – RIVERSIDE HOTEL 8:00 AM WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS ~ IDAHO SUPREME COURT-JUSTICE BRODY 8:10 AM Mandatory Forms – Christina Iverson Christina Iverson will provide historical highlights of mandatory forms and how the new process was instituted. Teresa Hammer will present the new process that will include a demonstration. 8:25 AM Communication and Collaboration . Idaho Supreme Court eNews, Education Update, Court Questions-Christina Iverson . Monthly Elected Clerks Conference Calls-Sharee Sprague . Clerk Advisory Group (CAG)-Pam Eckhardt/Doug Miller . Problem Solving Court Protocol-Andrea Patterson Flowchart for conflict resolution approved by the Court 9:15 AM Break 9:30 AM Court Agility – Kevin Iwersen and Christina Iverson Introduction of the Empowered Agility Approach, an approach the AOC has adopted to better address yearly objectives, provide clarity on initiatives, and strengthen working relationships. 10:15 AM Odyssey-Navigator Upgrade – Kevin Iwersen and Christina Iverson The upgrade to Navigator will include updates to court processes, training requirements, and timelines. A brief video presentation will include a demonstration of the new features that will highlight the navigation functions. 10:45 Break 11:00 AM Socrata – Christina Iverson, Kevin Iwersen, and Michelle Crist-Aguiar Participants will be provided an overview of the data platform, Socrata, which provides access to data as it relates to court information. The presentation will provide a walk- through of the available statistics and how to retrieve details.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of State Intermediate Appellate Courts
    The Role of State Intermediate Appellate Courts Principles for Adapting to Change November 2012 A White Paper produced by the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal This white paper has been prepared under an agreement between the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal and the National Center for State Courts. Financial support was provided by the State Justice Institute. The points of view and opinions offered in this white paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policies or position of the Council of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeal, the National Center for State Courts, or the State Justice Institute. The Council of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeal gratefully acknowledges the financial contribution of the State Justice Institute. Without their support this white paper would not have been possible. CCJSCA Review Committee Authors Honorable David V. Brewer John P. Doerner Former Chief Judge Project Director Oregon Court of Appeals National Center for State Court Honorable James Z. Davis Christine A. Markman Judge Staff Attorney Utah Court of Appeals Colorado Supreme Court Honorable Gary W. Lynch Judge Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Honorable William B. Murphy Chief Judge Michigan Court of Appeals Honorable Ann A. Scott Timmer Judge Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1 Honorable James T. Worthen Chief Justice Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals I. INTRODUCTION Although the role of the IACs has A. Objectives and Overview changed over time, the fact that they have mandatory jurisdiction and no ability to control the size of their workload has not.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexisnexis Appendix I
    LexisNexis Appendix I The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. All State Caselaw & Codes Legal News: Newsletters-1 Nevada Administrative Regulations Connecticut Administrative Code Table of State Net Capitol Journals Nevada Gaming Commission Contents Legal: Areas of Law-1 New Hampshire Code of Administration Delaware Administrative Code Table of Pennsylvania Insurance Regulations Rules Contents Legal: Codes-364 New Jersey Administrative Code Florida Administrative Code Table of States Administrative Code (#S#) New Mexico Administrative Code Contents Alabama Administrative Code New York Administrative Code Georgia Administrative Code Table of Alaska Administrative Code North Carolina Administrative Code Contents Arizona Administrative Code North Dakota Administrative Code Guam Administrative Code Table of Arkansas Administrative Code Ohio Administrative Code Contents California Code of Regulations Oklahoma Administrative Code Hawaii Administrative Code Table of Code of Hawaii Rules Oregon Administrative Code Contents Code of Maine Rules Pennsylvania Administrative Code Idaho Administrative Code Table of Code of Nebraska Rules Rhode Island Administrative Code Contents Colorado Administrative Code South Carolina Regulations Illinois Administrative Code Table of Connecticut Administrative Code South Dakota Administrative
    [Show full text]