DOCSLIB.ORG

National Center for State Courts Profiles Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Center for State Courts Profiles Of NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS PROFILES OF SELECTED APPELLATE COURTS WITH CIVIL JURISDICTION Arizona: Maricopa and Pima Counties Site Profile (2001-2002) Court Information Name: Arizona Court of Appeals Location: Division 1—Phoenix Division 2—Tucson Number of appellate judges: Division 1—16 Division 2—6 Jurisdiction over general civil appeals: Mandatory jurisdiction Caseload composition for: 2001 Filings: Division 1—632 Division 2—220 Opinions issued: Division 1—52 Division 2—23 Appellate Procedures When and where is the notice of appeal filed? The notice of appeal must be filed in writing with the trial court within 30 days after judgment. Time frame for Preparation of the record: The record must be prepared within 40 days; extensions are possible. Transcript: Transcripts are to be filed in the Court of Appeals upon the docketing of the appeal (40 days after the filing of the notice of appeal). Briefs: After the docketing of the appeal, the clerk prepares the record and gives the appellant notice to pay the docketing fee. The appellant’s brief is due 40 days after the date of this notice. The appellee’s brief is due 40 days later. The appellant has 20 days to file a reply brief if the appellant chooses. Docketing practices/calendar assignments: Division 1—An appeal is not calendared until the record is filed. The Court hears arguments in a continuous term. An appeal is considered at issue when the reply brief is in, or the reply period has expired. An at-issue list is prepared at the first of each month; appeals coming at issue are added to the list at this time. The Court schedules argument at the request of counsel. Division 2—Docketing statements are not used. Cases that have been fully briefed are deemed at issue and assigned by the chief staff attorney to the case lists of individual judges or to a list of cases to be processed by the court’s staff attorneys. The court hears arguments in a continuous term, with most cases decided without oral argument. Granting oral argument is within the discretion of the court and is not common. Division 2 prepares draft opinions in cases where oral argument is granted, and distributes these to counsel prior to argument to enable counsel to focus on issues of particular concern to the panel. Screening for settlement conferences/mediation programs: All general civil appeals are eligible for the Arizona Appellate Settlement Conference Program. In Division 1, the Court selects those cases for assignment to the Program that the Court, following a review of the appellate record, deems most likely to benefit from alternative dispute resolution. Within three days after either payment of the appellant's filing fee or order waiving, deferring or acknowledging that the appellant is exempt from paying a filing fee, the Court enters an order notifying the parties that the case has been assigned to the Program. The order instructs the parties to submit their settlement statements to the appellate mediator in care of the settlement conference attorney at the Court. The order stays the normal appellate briefing schedule pending completion of the settlement process. The order does not stay payment of the fees, posting bonds, or filing notices of cross- appeals or civil appeals docketing statements. In Division 2, the decision to place the case into mediation is made by the mediation program staff attorney. The staff attorney speaks to counsel for both parties after the trial court informs the staff attorney of the notice of appeal. No record is prepared in this situation until the staff attorney determines whether the appeal should be sent to mediation. Placement in mediation operates as a stay on the filing of the record, cross-appeals, and briefs. In either division, a party may object in writing to assignment to mediation within five days of assignment. The objection may remain confidential. The court, at its discretion, may terminate mediation, continue, or deny the objection. A party may also request inclusion in the program, which may be granted or denied at the court’s discretion. A party will have ten days from the notice of assignment to file a settlement statement. The first settlement conference will be held 15 days after the due date of the settlement statement. Participation in the settlement program is mandatory, unless an objection to the program is granted. The settlement program mediator is assigned on a rotating basis. Time standards: Division 1—Internal policy states that opinions are to be out within 150 days after assignment. A list of cases still pending after 150 days is circulated. Division 2—The court has no formal time standards, but operates within ABA standards. Opinions (published, unpublished, per curiam/memorandum): The Arizona constitution requires all Court of Appeals opinions to be “in writing and the grounds stated.” Per curiam opinions may be used in Division 1, but are not used in Division 2. In Division 2, the court designates approximately 10 percent of its decisions to be published opinions. Non-published and memorandum decisions make up the vast majority of court output. California: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Orange, Fresno, Santa Clara, and San Francisco Counties Site Profile (2001-2002) Court Information Name: California Courts of Appeal California Supreme Court Location: Courts of Appeal First District—San Francisco Second District—Los Angeles and Ventura Fourth District Division 2—Riverside Division 3—Santa Ana (Orange County) Fifth District—Fresno Sixth District—San Jose Supreme Court—San Francisco Number of appellate judges: Courts of Appeal First District—20 Second District—31 Fourth District—25 total Division 2—7 Division 3—8 Fifth District—10 Sixth District—7 Supreme Court—7 Jurisdiction over general civil appeals: Courts of Appeal—Mandatory jurisdiction Supreme Court—Discretionary jurisdiction Caseload composition for: All civil appeals, fiscal year 2001-2002 Filings: Courts of Appeal (notices of appeal) First District—1,216 Second District—2,707 Fourth District—1,712 total Division 2—559 Division 3—542 Fifth District—303 Sixth District—347 Supreme Court—1,263 petitions for review Opinions issued: Courts of Appeal First District—704 Second District—1,501 Fourth District—1,146 total Division 2—288 Division 3—476 Fifth District—211 Sixth District—204 Appellate Procedures When and where is the notice of appeal filed? Courts of Appeal—Appeals to the Courts of Appeal must be filed in the trial court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. Supreme Court—A petition to the Supreme Court must be filed within ten days of final action in the Courts of Appeal. Any answer to the petition must be served filed within 20 days after the petition is filed; any reply to the answer must be served and filed within ten days after the answer is filed. Time frame for Preparation of the record: Courts of Appeal—The record is prepared by the court reporter within 30 days of the payment of costs. Supreme Court—On receiving a copy of a petition for review or on request of the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier, the Court of Appeal clerk must promptly send the record to the Supreme Court. If the petition is denied, the Supreme Court clerk must promptly return the record to the Court of Appeal. Transcript: Within ten days after filing the notice of appeal, an appellant must serve and file in superior court either a notice designating a reporter's transcript or a notice of intent to proceed without a reporter's transcript, unless the appellant proceeds by agreed or settled statement. If the appellant serves and files a notice designating a reporter's transcript, the respondent may, within ten days after such service, serve and file a notice in superior court designating any additional proceedings the respondent wants included in the transcript. If the appellant elects to proceed without a reporter's transcript, the respondent cannot require that a reporter's transcript be prepared. The reviewing court, on its own or the respondent's motion, may order the record augmented to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Within 30 days after notice is received or mailed, the reporter must prepare and certify an original of the transcript and file it in superior court. Only the reviewing court can extend the time to prepare the reporter's transcript. Within ten days after filing the notice of appeal, an appellant must serve and file a notice in superior court designating the documents to be included in the clerk's transcript, unless the appeal proceeds by appendix, by stipulation, or by agreed or settled statement instead of a clerk's transcript. Within ten days after the appellant serves its notice designating a clerk's transcript, the respondent may serve and file a notice in superior court designating any additional documents the respondent wants included in the transcript. Within 30 days after the appellant deposits the estimated cost of the transcript or the court files an order waiving that cost, the clerk must prepare and certify the transcript. Within ten days after the notice of appeal is filed, any party electing to proceed by an appendix instead of by clerk's transcript must serve and file a notice of election in superior court. Briefs: In the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal, the appellant must file a brief within 30 days after the filing of record on appeal. The respondent must file a brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. An optional closing brief may be filed within 20 days after the filing of the respondent’s brief. In a case which goes on to the Supreme Court, the rules of court allow the parties discretion whether to draft additional briefs to the Supreme Court, or to refile the Court of Appeal briefs to the Supreme Court.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The
    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2176 ELDERBERRY OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIVING CENTERS – SOUTHEAST, INCORPORATED, a North Carolina corporation; FMSC WEBER CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CONTINIUMCARE OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-00052-NKM-RSB) Argued: January 28, 2015 Decided: July 21, 2015 Amended: August 10, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Wynn joined. ARGUED: James F. Segroves, HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. James Strother Crockett, Jr., SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lori D. Thompson, LECLAIRRYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. Travis A. Knobbe, M. Mallory Mantiply, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellee Elderberry of Weber City, LLC (“Elderberry”) filed this civil action in the Western District of Virginia alleging breach of a lease for a skilled nursing facility against defendants-appellants Living Centers – Southeast, Inc. (“Living Centers”), FMSC Weber City Operating Company, LLC (“FMSC”), and ContiniumCare of Weber City (“Continium”), and breach of a guaranty contract against defendant-appellant Mariner Health Care, Inc. (“Mariner”). Separately, in the Northern District of Georgia, Mariner filed a declaratory judgment action against Elderberry, seeking a declaration that it had no obligations under the guaranty.
    [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]
  • Electronic Filing Resources Law Library
    ELECTRONIC FILING RESOURCES LAW LIBRARY SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, MARICOPA COUNTY October 2005 ELECTRONIC FILING RESOURCES 2 CONTENTS ELECTRONIC FILING IN STATE COURTS................................................................................ 4 ELECTRONIC FILING IN STATE COURTS: MANUALS & USER GUIDES............................................... 5 ELECTRONIC FILING IN STATE COURTS: REPORTS & STUDIES ..................................................... 5 ELECTRONIC FILING IN STATE COURTS: ARTICLES .................................................................. 6 ELECTRONIC FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS: BANKRUPTCY COURTS ............................................... 10 ELECTRONIC FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS: DISTRICT COURTS ................................................... 15 ELECTRONIC FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS: MANUALS & USER GUIDES.......................................... 20 ELECTRONIC FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS: REPORTS AND STUDIES ............................................. 20 ELECTRONIC FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS: ARTICLES ............................................................. 21 ELECTRONIC FILING: INTERNATIONAL ............................................................................... 23 ELECTRONIC FILING: GENERAL ....................................................................................... 23 MANAGING ELECTRONIC INFORMATION & PROCESS ............................................................... 28 ARIZONA STATUTES...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MANUAL on PRO BONO APPEALS PROGRAMS for State Court Appeals Second Edition ~ November 2017
    MANUAL ON PRO BONO APPEALS PROGRAMS For State Court Appeals Second Edition ~ November 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 Basic Considerations In Creating A Program .......................................................................... 5 Arizona .......................................................................................................................................... 9 California: Los Angeles County ............................................................................................... 14 Colorado ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Florida .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Hawaii.......................................................................................................................................... 21 Indiana ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Massachusetts ............................................................................................................................. 25 Minnesota ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures Can Work to Reduce Delay?
    MANAGING CASEFLOW IN STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS: WHAT MECHANISMS, PRACTICES, AND PROCEDURES CAN WORK TO REDUCE DELAY? RICHARD B. HOFFMAN* BARRY MAHONEY** * B.S., 1967, Cornell University; J.D., 1970, Harvard Law School. Member, District of Columbia Bar; Director, Washington Office, The Justice Management Institute, 1997-2001; Senior Counsel, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1992-1997; Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals, 1987- 1992. ** President Emeritus, The Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado. A.B., 1959, Dartmouth College; LL.B., 1962, Harvard Law School; Ph.D., 1976, Columbia University. This Article presents findings from a study by the Justice Management Institute (JMI) of case processing in state intermediate appellate courts. The Article is based on research conducted by the authors pursuant to a grant from the State Justice Institute to JMI (Grant No. SJI-98-N-032), and is adapted from a project report of the same title that was prepared as a JMI work product in October 2001. Points of view expressed in the Article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. Appreciation is owed and warmly rendered to many who have been instrumental in conducting this study, providing information and insight to the authors and making constructive suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. First, we owe thanks to those in the courts we studied who allowed us access to their data and their knowledge and helped us resolve multiple issues of coordination, interpretation, and analysis arising from the work. These key people included: Maryland: Chief Judge Joseph F.
    [Show full text]
  • Free and Fee-Based Appellate Court Briefs Online
    Supplemental Content to the article Free and Fee-Based “Nontraditional Legal Research: Appellate Briefs,” appearing in the November/ Appellate Court December 2013 issue of Online Searcher Briefs Online (Vol. 37, No. 6), pp. 38–42. SEARCHER’S VOICE by Michael Whiteman Associate Dean for Law Library Services and Information Technology Professor of Law Northern Kentucky University his updated and expanded guide (originally pub- UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT lished as Appendix B, “Appellate Court Briefs on the American Bar Association T Web: Electronic Dynamos or Legal Quagmire?,” Law www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home.html Library Journal, Summer 2005, Vol. 97, No. 3, p. 467) pro- The American Bar Association now offers access to briefs vides researchers with the ability to quickly find appellate from America’s highest court. The site archives briefs court briefs online. Parts one and two list sites where free dating back to the 2003–2004 term, and you can find them copies can be obtained of federal and state appellate court by case name or date argued. All briefs are in PDF. briefs; part three lists sites where briefs can be obtained for a fee. If you need to find briefs that are not available online FindLaw or are too old to be online, refer to the following publication http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/ for a listing of archives and libraries that have holdings of index.html appellate court briefs. A Union List of Appellate Court Re- Contains briefs from decided cases and those cases await- cords and Briefs: Federal and State, Peter Scott Campbell & ing oral argument.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting Cleveland, Ohio Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Abrahamson, Shirley S. Wisconsin Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Amestoy, Jeffrey L. Vermont Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Becker, Daniel Utah Andreu-Garda, Jose A. Puerto Rico Benedict, Jerry L. Texas Arnold, W. H. (Dub) Arkansas Berson, Steven V. Colorado Bell, Robert M. Maryland Broderick, Michael F. Hawaii Benham, Robert Georgia Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benton, Duane Missouri Byers, David K. Arizona Brock, David A. New Hampshire Cameron, Dallas A., Jr. North Carolina Callahan, Robert J. Connecticut Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Ciancia, James J. New Jersey Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Cole, Stephanie J. Alaska Chapel, Charles S. Oklahoma Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Durham, Barbara Washington Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota F1aherj:y, John P. Pennsylvania Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Franchini, Gene E. New Mexico Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Freeman, Charles E. Illinois Ferry, John D., Jr. Michigan George, Ronald M. California Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Glessner, James T. Maine Hooper, Perry 0., Sr. Alabama Goodnow, Donald D. New Hampshire Kauger, Yvonne Oklahoma Greacen, John M. New Mexico Kaye, Judith S. New York Gregory, Frank W. Alabama Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Kogan, Gerald Florida Guerrero, Edward C. D. Northern Mariana Islands Kruse, E Michael American Samoa Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Lee, Dan M.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Perspective on the Timeliness of State Supreme Courts
    JURISDICTION, CASELOAD, AND TIMELINESS OF STATE SUPREME COURTS A Report Prepared by Dr. Roger A. Hanson Consultant June 2001 This document was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant from the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-98-N-038). The points of view expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is on the timeliness of state supreme courts. According to the Appellate Court Performance Standards, expedition is one of the three primary goals state appellate courts should strive to achieve. The other values are fairness and consistency. What is the actual time taken to resolve cases? How do state supreme courts stand in relation to the numerical time frames proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA)? What are the problems of and prospects for comparing state supreme courts with one another? These are the organizing questions addressed in this report. Five courts are the objects of study. They include the Supreme Courts of Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio and Virginia. All of these courts are seven member bodies. What emerges from an inquiry of cases resolved by these courts in 1996 and 1997 is an interesting tale. There are three key propositions based on analysis of the jurisdiction, caseload mixture, and timeliness of the five courts. They include the following: First, contrary to both popular and established scholarly views of state supreme courts in two-tiered appellate systems, state supreme courts have substantial numbers of several kinds of cases to resolve.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS *:* *:* 1995 *:* 1995 Annual Meeting Monterey, California Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Allen, Frederic W. Vermont Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Andr&Garcia, Jose A. Puerto Rico Berson, Steven V. Colorado Baca, Joseph F. New Mexico Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benham, Robert Georgia Byers, David K. Arizona Bilandic, Michael A. Illinois Cetrulo, Don Kentucky Brickley, James H. Michigan Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Brock, David A. New Hampshire Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota Durham, Barbara Washington Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Feldman, Stanley G. Arizona Drennan, James C. North Carolina Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Duncan, Robert L. Wyoming Golden, Michael Wyoming Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Grimes, Stephen H. Florida Gilmore, Oliver Alabama Hawkins, Armis E. Mississippi Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Heffernan, Nathan S. Wisconsin Glessner, James T. Maine Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Greenwood, Pamela T. Utah Holmes, Richard W. Kansas Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Holstein, John C. Missouri Hall, Marilyn K. Michigan Holt, Jack, Jr. Arkansas Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Hornsby, Sonny Alabama Harrall, Robert C. Rhode Island Johnson, Charles A. 0k 1ah o m a Irwin, John J., Jr. Massachusetts Kaye, Judith S. New York Judice, C. Raymond Texas Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Kanter, Deborah New Mexico Kruse, F. Michael American Samoa Kotzan, Bruce A. Indiana Lamorena, Albert0 C., 111 Guam Larkin, Ronald L.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Caseload Statistics
    -- National Center for State Courts 3 4185 00003622 7 State Court Caseload Statistics: A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts - State Court Caseload Statistics:IS‘Seta- 5 < Annual Report, 2992 Court Statistics Project Staff Brian J.Ostrom Steven E. Hairston Director Staff Associate Karen Gillions Way Carol R. Flango Staff Associate Staff Associate Natalie B. Davis Administrative Secretary State Justice lsJI Insti tu te A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1994 /LC& k 4-1-4Y library ‘‘1% Notional Center for State Courts ZCO Newport Ave. Wilfiamsburg, VA 23 187-8798 / I Copyright 1994 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-134-8 National Center Publication Number R-154 Suggested Citation: Brian J. Ostrom, et a]., State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1992 (National Center for State Courts 1994) This Report was developed under Grant SJI-91-07X-C-B-007-P93-1 from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. Conference of State Court Administrators Court Statistics Committee J. Denis Moran, Chairman (1983 to present) Marc Galanter (1986 to present) Director of State Courts, Wisconsin Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Robert Barnoski (1990 to present) Daniel J. Hall (1990 to present) Manager, Research & Information Services, Office Director of Planning and Analysis, Office of the Administrator for the Courts, Washington of the State Court Administrator, Colorado John A.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: an Updated Appraisal (September 2014)
    E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Updated Appraisal (September 2014) Originally by David Schanker, Clerk (retired), Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Updated and revised by Timothy A. Gudas, Deputy Clerk, New Hampshire Supreme Court1 Introduction In 2010, David Schanker, with the editorial assistance and contributions of NCACC members Polly Brock, Stuart Cohen, Carol Green, Trish Harrington, Blake Hawthorne, Judy Pacheco, Rex Renk, Rachelle Resnick, and Holly Sparrow, authored a White Paper entitled “E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Appraisal.” The 2010 White Paper reported that electronic filing (e-filing) had been implemented in “every federal district court in the nation and in several federal courts of appeal, while in state appellate courts, electronic filing continued to be discussed far more than it had been realized.” According to the 2010 White Paper, the states’ progress toward appellate (as well as trial court) e-filing had been “agonizingly slow,” with only fifteen states having implemented appellate e-filing systems of any kind.2 The stated purpose of the 2010 White Paper was to “provide a 1 This 2014 Updated Appraisal was written with the assistance and contributions of numerous NCACC members, including Tom Hall, Mike Richie, Bessie Decker, Jenny Kitchings, Blake Hawthorne, Joe Stanton, and countless others who reviewed sections summarizing the status of e-filing in their states. In addition, this 2014 Updated Appraisal is directly indebted to the work of those who contributed to the 2010 White Paper, substantial portions of which are repeated here with minimal or no change. 2 The 2010 White Paper defined an appellate e-filing system as either (1) an Internet portal used for the transmission of electronically-filed documents from filers to the courts or (2) a scheme for the voluntary or required transmission of electronic documents to the court by e-mail.
    [Show full text]