DOCSLIB.ORG

Georgia Appellate Practice Handbook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GEORGIA APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK 7th Edition - 1 - GEORGIA APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK 7th edition • 2012 CONTRIBUTORS Chief Editors Daniel F. Diffl ey Jeffrey J. Swart Associate Editors M. Scott Orrell L. Boone Park Melissa Mahurin Whitehead Principal Chapter Editors Judicial Contributors Van A. Anderson Justice David E. Nahmias Debra D. Bernstein Judge Christopher J. McFadden Nowell D. Berreth Adam J. Biegel Co-Chapter Editors Derin B. Dickerson Angela Adams Stephanie B. Driggers Lisa K. Bojko Christina Hull Eikhoff Bennett D. Bryan Gregory B. Mauldin Meredith Jones Wade Pearson Miller Kacy McCaffrey Daniel C. Norris Kimyatta E. McClary T. C. Spencer Pryor Ellen H. Persons Christopher A. Riley Jason D. Popp Samuel R. Rutherford Allison S. Thompson Douglas G. Scribner Andrew J. Tuck Brian R. Stimson Cover photograph: Doors to Georgia Judicial Building (detail) ©2012 Alston & Bird LLP Photography by Louis M. Lindic All rights reserved FOREWORD Alston & Bird LLP is pleased to provide this Seventh Edition of the Georgia Appellate Practice Handbook to the Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. The Handbook was fi rst published in 1985 under the leadership of Alston & Bird partner Terry Walsh, with the invaluable assistance of Supreme Court Justices Harold Clarke and George Carley (then a Court of Appeals Judge). The lawyers and judges who have contributed to updated editions of the Handbook during the intervening decades are too numerous to name, but we remain thankful for their contributions, leadership, and guidance in connection with this work. For this Seventh Edition, we are particularly grateful to Justice David E. Nahmias of the Supreme Court and Judge Christopher J. McFadden of the Court of Appeals, each of whom authored chapters for this edition of the Handbook. Their comments and insights will undoubtedly be of great interest to all appellate practitioners in Georgia. We are also deeply appreciative of the time and effort spent by Therese “Tee” Barnes, Clerk of the Supreme Court, and Holly K.O. Sparrow, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, in reviewing and commenting on relevant portions of this edition. The names of the Alston & Bird lawyers who contributed to this edition are found on the preceding page. We thank each of them for their outstanding effort to make the Seventh Edition of the Handbook both user-friendly and accurate. We hope that the Handbook will continue to be a valuable resource for all who practice in the Georgia appellate courts. Daniel F. Diffl ey Jeffrey J. Swart Chief Editors TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One Appeal Timetable Summary Chapter Two Jurisdiction, Availability, and Dismissals of Appeals Chapter Three Post-Trial Motions as Part of the Appeals Process Chapter Four Commencing the Appeal: Notice of Appeal, Transcript, and Record Chapter Five Stays of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment Chapter Six Briefs and Enumerations of Error Chapter Seven Oral Argument Chapter Eight Extraordinary Writs Chapter Nine Internal Procedures of the Appellate Courts Chapter Ten Proceedings Subsequent to Decisions Chapter Eleven An Overview of the Criminal Appellate Process and Procedure Chapter Twelve Civil Appeals Involving Pro Se Parties Chapter Thirteen Frivolous Appeals Chapter Fourteen Tips on Effective Oral Argument Chapter Fifteen Professionalism in Appellate Practice: The Importance of Selectivity Chapter Sixteen Forms - i - CHAPTER ONE: APPEAL TIMETABLE SUMMARY § 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 § 1.1.1 General Information ........................................................................ 2 § 1.2 Direct Appeals ................................................................................................ 4 § 1.2.1 Notice of Appeal and Cross-Appeal ................................................ 4 § 1.2.1.1 Time for Filing .............................................................. 4 § 1.2.1.2 Extensions of Time for Filing Notice............................ 4 § 1.2.2 Filing of Transcript .......................................................................... 5 § 1.2.3 Record ............................................................................................. 5 § 1.2.4 Docketing ........................................................................................ 6 § 1.2.4.1 Closing of the Docket ................................................... 7 § 1.2.5 Supersedeas ..................................................................................... 7 § 1.2.6 Payment of Costs ............................................................................. 7 § 1.2.7 Oral Argument ................................................................................. 8 § 1.2.8 Briefs and Enumerations of Error ................................................... 9 § 1.2.8.1 Briefs, Generally ........................................................... 9 § 1.2.8.2 Supplemental Briefs ...................................................... 9 § 1.2.8.3 Amicus Curiae Briefs .................................................... 9 § 1.3 Discretionary Appeals of Final Order or Judgment ....................................... 10 § 1.3.1 Application for Leave, Response, and Decision on Application ..... 10 § 1.3.1.1 Application .................................................................... 10 § 1.3.1.2 Costs .............................................................................. 10 § 1.3.1.3 Response ....................................................................... 10 § 1.3.1.4 Decision by Court on Application ................................. 11 - ii - § 1.3.2 Notice of Appeal .............................................................................. 11 § 1.4 Interlocutory Appeals ..................................................................................... 11 § 1.4.1 Automatic Stay ................................................................................ 11 § 1.4.2 Certifi cate of Immediate Review ..................................................... 11 § 1.4.3 Application for Interlocutory Appeal, Response, and Decision ...... 12 § 1.4.3.1 Application .................................................................... 12 § 1.4.3.2 Costs .............................................................................. 12 § 1.4.3.3 Response ....................................................................... 12 § 1.4.3.4 Decision by Court on Application ................................. 12 § 1.4.4 Notice of Appeal .............................................................................. 12 § 1.5 Motion For Reconsideration .......................................................................... 13 § 1.5.1 Motion in Supreme Court ................................................................ 13 § 1.5.2 Motion in Court of Appeals ............................................................. 13 § 1.5.3 Responding to a Motion for Reconsideration ................................. 14 § 1.6 Certiorari Petitions ........................................................................................ 14 § 1.6.1 Petition for Certiorari to Georgia Supreme Court ........................... 14 § 1.6.1.1 Record ........................................................................... 14 § 1.6.1.2 Response ....................................................................... 15 § 1.6.1.3 Briefs ............................................................................. 15 § 1.6.2 Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court .................. 15 § 1.7 Stay of Remittitur Pending Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court ............................................................................................... 15 - iii - CHAPTER TWO: JURISDICTION, AVAILABILITY, AND DISMISSALS OF APPEALS § 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 17 § 2.2 Right of Appeal Generally ............................................................................. 18 § 2.2.1 Appeals from Superior and State Courts Generally ........................ 18 § 2.2.2 Appeals from Magistrate, Probate, and Juvenile Courts Generally ............................................................................. 19 § 2.3 Jurisdiction of the Georgia Appellate Courts ................................................. 19 § 2.3.1 Jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court ..................................... 19 § 2.3.2 Jurisdiction of the Georgia Court of Appeals .................................. 21 § 2.4 Appealability of Judgments and Orders ......................................................... 22 § 2.4.1 Direct Appeals Generally ................................................................ 22 § 2.4.2 Direct Appeals from Final Judgments ............................................. 23 § 2.4.3 Direct Appeals from Non-Final Orders and Judgments .................. 24 § 2.4.4 Motions for Summary Judgment ..................................................... 25 § 2.4.5 Final Orders Appealable Only by Application ................................ 26 § 2.4.6 Orders Requiring Interlocutory Application for Appeal ................. 29 § 2.4.7 Basis for Granting Interlocutory Appeal ......................................... 29 § 2.4.8 Orders Requiring Interlocutory Appeal ........................................... 30 § 2.5 Procedure for Filing Appeal ..........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Appellate Practice Handbook

    Appellate Practice Handbook

    KANSAS APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK 6TH EDITION KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL Subscription Information The Kansas Appellate Practice Handbook is updated on a periodic basis with supplements to reflect important changes in both statutory law and case law. Your purchase of this publication automatically records your subscription for the update service. If you do not wish to receive the supplements, you must inform the Judicial Council. You may contact the Judicial Council by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at (785) 296-2498 or by mail at: Kansas Judicial Council 301 SW 10th, Ste. 140 Topeka, KS 66612 © 2019 KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION This is the first edition of the Handbook since the advent of electronic filing of appellate cases. All prior editions, while containing some useful suggestions, are obsolete. With clear marching orders from our Supreme Court, all appellate attorneys must enroll and monitor their cases. Paper filing is now relegated to litigants that are unrepresented. Prompted by these massive changes we have consolidated some chapters and subjects and created new sections for electronic filing. But there is more to an appeal than just getting in the door. Scheduling, briefing, and pre- and post-opinion motion practice are dealt with. We sincerely hope that this work will be helpful to all who practice in this important area of the law. It is an attempt to open up the mysteries of electronic filing of appellate cases in Kansas. I must shout from the rooftops my praise for Christy Molzen with the Kansas Judicial Council, who has done all of the heavy lifting in putting this handbook together.
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    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.
  • Beckwith V. State, Mississippi 1992

    Beckwith V. State, Mississippi 1992

    Beckwith v. State Miss.,1992. Supreme Court of Mississippi. Byron De La BECKWITH v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 91-IA-1207. Dec. 16, 1992. Rehearing Denied April 22, 1993. Defendant was reindicted for murder for which nolle prosequi had been entered in 1969. The First Judicial Circuit Court, Hinds County, L. Breland Hilburn, Jr., J., denied motion to dismiss indictment. Interlocutory appeal was permitted. The Supreme Court, Hawkins, P.J., held that: (1) Supreme Court lacked authority to stop proceedings and order discharge of defendant to protect alleged violation of due process and speedy trial rights, and (2) enter of nolle prosequi following deadlocked jury did not terminate original jeopardy or accrue to defendant right not to be reindicted. Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. Roy Noble Lee, C.J., dissented and filed opinion joined by Dan M. Lee, P.J., and Prather, J. Dan M. Lee, P.J., dissented and filed opinion joined by Roy Noble Lee, C.J., and Prather, J. West Headnotes [1] Criminal Law 110 1023(3) 110 Criminal Law 110XXIV Review 110XXIV(C) Decisions Reviewable 110k1021 Decisions Reviewable 110k1023 Appealable Judgments and Orders 110k1023(3) k. Preliminary or Interlocutory Orders in General. Most Cited Cases Correctness of trial court's rejection even of constitutional claim must await conviction. [2] Criminal Law 110 1023(3) 110 Criminal Law 110XXIV Review 110XXIV(C) Decisions Reviewable 110k1021 Decisions Reviewable 110k1023 Appealable Judgments and Orders 110k1023(3) k. Preliminary or Interlocutory Orders in General. Most Cited Cases Supreme Court lacked authority on interlocutory appeal to intervene and interpose itself into circuit court criminal trial, stop proceedings, and order discharge of defendant to protect alleged denial of speedy trial and due process; those rights could be vindicated on appeal from conviction.
  • 1 United States District Court Middle District of Louisiana

    1 United States District Court Middle District of Louisiana

    Case 3:19-cv-00479-JWD-SDJ Document 58 10/19/20 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 19-479-JWD-SDJ STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. RULING AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Certification of Order for Interlocutory Appeal (the “Motion for Interlocutory Appeal”) (Doc. 51) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by Defendants, the State of Louisiana and the Secretary of State of Louisiana (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs, the Louisiana State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Anthony Allen, and Stephanie Allen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), oppose the motion. (Doc. 54.) Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 56.) Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background A. Factual Background Plaintiffs brought suit under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq. (Doc. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs discuss, inter alia, Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 111 S. Ct. 2354, 115 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1991), where minority plaintiffs challenged the original electoral process for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which consisted of six judicial districts, five single- 1 Case 3:19-cv-00479-JWD-SDJ Document 58 10/19/20 Page 2 of 27 member districts and one multi-member district which encompassed Orleans Parish and which elected two justices.
  • Q:\EVEN\12-505\12.505 Order Deny Interlocutory Appeal 7.16.13

    Q:\EVEN\12-505\12.505 Order Deny Interlocutory Appeal 7.16.13

    Case 2:12-cv-00505-NJB-DEK Document 30 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KENYA D. CROCKEN-WAUGH CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 12-505 ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. SECTION: “G”(3) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Plaintiff Kenya D. Crocken-Waugh's ("Plaintiff") Notice and Motion of Interlocutory Appeal,1 wherein Plaintiff seeks an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 regarding this Court's February 6, 2013 Order and Reasons, which granted Defendant ITT Educational Services, Inc.'s ("ITT") motion regarding Plaintiff's La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(A)(3) retaliation claims to the extent they are predicted on violations of federal law, rather than state law, by ITT.2 Plaintiff has conceded that her La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(A)(1) claim, also addressed in the motion, is limited to violations of state law.3 Plaintiff's sole stated ground for seeking an interlocutory appeal is that she believes "there is sufficient evidence that the ruling was erroneous," but provides no further explanation.4 In Matter of Ichinose,5 the Fifth Circuit instructed that a district court should only grant an interlocutory appeal when: 1 Rec. Doc. 26. 2 Order and Reasons, Rec. Doc. 23 at pp. 6-7. 3 Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 1 n.1. 4 Rec. Doc. 26. 5 946 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1991). Case 2:12-cv-00505-NJB-DEK Document 30 Filed 07/17/13 Page 2 of 4 (1) a controlling issue of law [is] involved; (2) the question [is] one where there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal [will] materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.6 The narrow issue before this Court was whether La.
  • The Mcmahon Mandate: Compulsory Arbitration of Securities and RICO Claims Stephen P

    The Mcmahon Mandate: Compulsory Arbitration of Securities and RICO Claims Stephen P

    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 19 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 1987 1987 The McMahon Mandate: Compulsory Arbitration of Securities and RICO Claims Stephen P. Bedell Partner, Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Chicago, IL Lolla M. Harrison Assoc., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Chicago, IL Stuart C. Harvey Jr. Assoc., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Chicago, IL Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen P. Bedell, , Lolla M. Harrison, & Stuart C. HarveyJr., The McMahon Mandate: Compulsory Arbitration of Securities and RICO Claims, 19 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 1 (1987). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol19/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The McMahon Mandate: Compulsory Arbitration of Securities and RICO Claims Stephen P. Bedell* Lolla M. Harrison** Stuart C Harvey, Jr. *** I. INTRODUCTION As a matter of standard practice, arbitration clauses are included in commercial contracts, particularly those between brokerage firms and their customers. These arbitration clauses are typically very broad and provide for arbitration of all disputes that arise out of the contractual relationship of the parties. As such, broker- dealer arbitration clauses have given rise to a seminal issue: whether federal courts must enforce agreements to arbitrate sec- tion 10(b) and Rule lOb-5 claims arising out of the Securities Ex- change Act of 1934' (the "1934 Act") and claims arising out of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 2 ("RICO").
  • 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?

    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.
  • STATE COURT� ADMINISTRATORS� 1997� Annual Meeting

    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.
  • A New Perspective on the Timeliness of State Supreme Courts

    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.
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators

    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.
  • E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: an Updated Appraisal (September 2014)

    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.
  • Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020

    Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020

    JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP HANDBOOK 2019-2020 The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office C. Blake McDowell Law Center 150 University Avenue Akron, OH 44325 Phone: 330-972-5321 https://www.uakron.edu/law/career-services/ Alisa Benedict O’Brien, Assistant Dean Alecia Bencze, Assistant Director 1 | Page The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office ___________________________________________________________________ Judicial Clerkships A judicial clerkship is one of the strongest foundations upon which any law career can be built. Judicial clerkships are post-graduate positions, usually lasting one or two years, in which you work as the right-hand analytical and research person for a judge. The positions usually start in August or September of each year. Deadlines for applications to federal judges are rolling and determined by individual judges. Student applicants should apply beginning in February of 2L year (2D, 3E). Some federal judges will accept applications from students during the fall or spring of their 3L year. For Class of 2020 grads, applications will be released beginning June 17, 2019. For Class of 2021 grads, applications will be released beginning June 15, 2020. Applications for judicial clerkships with state court judges are due for some states during the 2nd year of law school, and for most states, during the fall of the 3rd year of law school. More positions are available with state court judges in your final semester as well. Judicial law clerk (“judicial clerk”) experience is universally recognized by the legal community to be extremely useful in law practice, so it is one of the most valuable experiences you could ever want on your resume.