DOCSLIB.ORG

Court Administration Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Court Administration Systems COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of key characteristics of COURT ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS Presented to the Canadian Judicial Council Administration of Justice Committee Administrative Efficiency in Trial and Appeal Courts Sub-Committee By Karim Benyekhlef Cléa Iavarone-Turcotte Nicolas Vermeys Université de Montréal Centre de recherche en droit public July 6th, 2011 © Canadian Judicial Council Catalogue Number JU14-24/2013E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-21994-3 Available from: Canadian Judicial Council Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8 (613) 288-1566 (613) 288-1575 (facsimile) and at: www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca FOREWORD | iii Foreword In 2006, the Canadian Judicial Council published a report entitled Alternative Models of Court Administration. In exploring the trend towards governments granting greater administrative autonomy to the courts, the report offered seven different models present in a number of jurisdictions. In 2011 the Administration of Justice Committee of Council commissioned a research study which would present a comparison of key characteristics of court administrative systems against those models in common law countries including Australia, England and Wales, New Zealand, North Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. Key to this comparative analysis was the collection of legislation, memoranda of understanding and other forms of written agreements between the Judiciary and the Executive. They outline which level of government is responsible for certain or all aspects of court administration. The report consists of two documents. Presented here is the first part, namely, a comparative analysis building on the seven models presented in the 2006 report and further analysing how each of the selected jurisdictions advances their work according to six specific characteristics of court administration. Further below is the second part, namely, a report presented in a chart or table format which gives an overview of the analysis’ content and provides for an easy comparison of the systems in place within the respective jurisdictions. CONTENTS | v Contents PREAMBLE. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 AUSTRALIA – FEDERAL LEVEL ..........................................................................11 Federal Magistrates Court .........................................................................11 Family Court .......................................................................................13 Federal Court ......................................................................................15 High Court ........................................................................................18 AUSTRALIAN STATES ...................................................................................21 New South Wales Supreme Court ...................................................................21 Queensland Supreme Court ........................................................................23 South Australia Supreme Court .....................................................................25 Tasmania Supreme Court ..........................................................................28 Victoria Supreme Court ............................................................................30 Western Australia Supreme Court ..................................................................32 AUSTRALIAN MAINLAND TERRITORIES ..................................................................35 Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court .........................................................35 Northern Territory Supreme Court ..................................................................37 CANADA – FEDERAL LEVEL .............................................................................39 Supreme Court ....................................................................................39 Federal Court Of Appeal, Federal Court, Court Martial Appeal Court And Tax Court Of Canada .......41 CANADA – PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES ...............................................................43 Alberta – Provincial Court ..........................................................................43 Alberta – Court Of Queen’s Bench ..................................................................45 Alberta – Court Of Appeal ..........................................................................48 British Columbia – Provincial Court .................................................................50 British Columbia – Supreme Court ..................................................................52 British Columbia – Court Of Appeal .................................................................54 Manitoba – Provincial Court ........................................................................55 Manitoba – Court Of Queen’s Bench ................................................................57 Manitoba – Court Of Appeal .......................................................................58 New Brunswick – Provincial Court ..................................................................60 New Brunswick – Court Of Queen’s Bench ..........................................................61 New Brunswick – Court Of Appeal ..................................................................63 vi | CONTENTS Newfoundland And Labrador – Provincial Court ....................................................64 Newfoundland And Labrador – Supreme Court, Trial Division .......................................66 Newfoundland and Labrador – Supreme Court, Appeal Division ....................................68 Northwest Territories – Territorial Court .............................................................70 Northwest Territories – Supreme Court .............................................................71 Northwest Territories – Court Of Appeal ............................................................72 Nova Scotia – All Courts ............................................................................73 Nunavut – Court Of Justice And Court Of Appeal ....................................................75 Ontario – Court Of Justice .........................................................................76 Ontario – Superior Court Of Justice ................................................................79 Ontario – Court Of Appeal .........................................................................81 Prince Edward Island – Provincial Court ............................................................83 Prince Edward Island – Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. 84 Québec – Court Of Québec .........................................................................86 Québec – Superior Court ...........................................................................88 Québec – Court Of Appeal .........................................................................89 Saskatchewan – Provincial Court ...................................................................92 Saskatchewan – Court Of Queen’s Bench ...........................................................94 Saskatchewan – Court Of Appeal ...................................................................95 Yukon – Territorial Court ...........................................................................96 Yukon – Supreme Court ...........................................................................98 Yukon – Court Of Appeal ..........................................................................99 ENGLAND AND WALES – UK SUPREME COURT ..........................................................100 ENGLAND AND WALES – OTHER COURTS ...............................................................103 NEW ZEALAND – ALL COURTS .........................................................................106 NORTHERN IRELAND – UK SUPREME COURT ...........................................................108 NORTHERN IRELAND – OTHER COURTS ................................................................109 REPUBLIC OF IRELAND – ALL COURTS ..................................................................112 SCOTLAND – UK SUPREME COURT .....................................................................115 SCOTLAND – OTHER COURTS ..........................................................................116 SCHEDULE I. 179 SUMMARY CHART .....................................................................................193 PREAMBLE | 1 PREAMBLE In Canada, court administration is most frequently controlled by the executive, through ministries or departments of justice. However, in recent years, many provincial governments have agreed to confer greater administrative independence to courts through informal arrangements as well as written agreements (Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), protocols, etc.). This is the case of, amongst others, Québec’s Court of Québec and Court of Appeal, and Ontario’s Court of Justice. This movement among Canadian provinces towards greater administrative autonomy of courts is consistent with a broader international trend which debuted in the USA and slowly but surely won over other common law countries1. Federal courts in the United States have been operating autonomously since as early as 1939, when Congress withdrew administrative control of federal courts from the Department of Justice and assigned it to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (the “Office”). This agency performs its function under the direction and supervision of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Legal Terms Used in Scottish Court Procedure, Neil Kelly Partner
    Legal Terms Used in Scottish Court Procedure, Neil Kelly Partner, MacRoberts Many recent reported adjudication decisions have come from the Scottish Courts. Therefore, as part of the case notes update, we have included a brief explanation of some of the Scottish Court procedures. There are noted below certain legal terms used in Scottish Court Procedure with a brief explanation of them. This is done in an attempt to give some readers a better understanding of some of the terms used in the Scottish cases highlighted on this web-site. 1. Action: Legal proceedings before a Court in Scotland initiated by Initial Writ or Summons. 2. Adjustment (of Pleadings): The process by which a party changes its written pleadings during the period allowed by the Court for adjustment. 3. Amendment (of Pleadings): The process by which a party changes its written pleadings after the period for adjustment has expired. Amendment requires leave of the Court. 4. Appeal to Sheriff Principal: In certain circumstances an appeal may be taken from a decision of a Sheriff to the Sheriff Principal. In some cases leave of the Sheriff is required. 5. Appeal to Court of Session: In certain circumstances an appeal may be taken from a decision of a Sheriff directly to the Court of Session or from a decision of the Sheriff Principal to the Court of Session. Such an appeal may require leave of the Sheriff or Sheriff Principal who pronounced the decision. Such an appeal will be heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session. 6. Arrestment: The process of diligence under which a Pursuer (or Defender in a counterclaim) can obtain security for a claim by freezing moveable (personal) property of the debtor in the hands of third parties e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Remember Those from Whom You Came Newsletter of the Clan Macalpine Society
    Remember Those From Whom You Came Newsletter Of The Clan MacAlpine Society The Worldwide Organization For MacAlpines 1st Quarter 2020 ~ Volume 47 Commander’s News The Central Florida Games were well attended and well run as we have seen in the past. It is gratifying to see the amount of young people that are engaged and are learning about their heritage. Society President Dale McAlpine and I had the opportunity to attend the Burns Dinner in Woodville, Ontario, Canada. It was a lovely time, and very good to spend time with this group of very active Canadian Clan MacAlpine Society members. The Kilmartin Church is still being evaluated by the Dunadd Community, we will stay in touch and follow their progress. We have started a dialogue with the Lang Syne Publishing Group in Scotland that publishes the series of Clan Histories that are sold on Princess Street and at many Scottish venues. It is an exciting project that will, in time, put our booklets in the outlets. Yours Aye Michael T McAlpin Commander, Name of MacAlpin Commander: Michael T. McAlpin Society Officers: President: Earl Dale McAlpine Vice President: Mark McAlpin Treasurer: Janet McAlpine Secretary: Robin McAlpine Member at Large: Finn Stavsnbo Alpin Newsletter Editor: Janet McAlpine President’s News Dear Family, We started the new year out by hosting the Clan MacAlpin/e Society tent at Central Florida Highland Games, January 18th – 19th. During the Parade of Clans we received a warm welcome for our Clan and attending Commander Michael T. McAlpin. The next Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held July 11th at the 65th Annual Grandfather Mountain Highland Games July 9-12, 2020 at MacRae Meadows near Linville, North Carolina—https://www.gmhg.org or see our Clan MacAlpin/e Society’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • TIPSTAFF Volume II Issue
    WARREN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, INC. TIPSTAFF Volume II Issue Dear Sisters and Brothers of the Bar: It is with great enthusiasm that I welcome you to the 2020 Fall edition of the Tipstaff. It is my hope that you and your families are safe and healthy in these troubling times. In the midst of this pandemic and the hostile political environment, I believe that practices and activities, such as the Tipstaff which we are able to continue and enjoy from the past, are more important than ever. Since taking the reins in June, Kate and the Board have been working diligently to prepare for the upcoming year in a way and format that has never been done before. We were able to meet in person, with proper masks and semi- social distancing, on the lawn of Morgan & Co. in September. This event was enjoyed by all who attended as we were finally able to have a bit of normalcy and see each other in person. On October 29, 2020, Kate and Maria Nowotny arranged to have Attorney James Long present a CLE on the topic of the New York Shield Act, which was attended by 20 of our members. Maria and Kate are busy preparing a CLE for December discussing the re-opening of the courts to be presented by our local justices and judges and other court staff. Upon the idea of Judge Kershko, Kate and I have worked with the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York to partner in the presentation of a CLE for volunteer assistance to pro-se litigants in foreclosure actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Description
    GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT JOB DESCRIPTION 1. IDENTIFICATION Position No. Job Title Supervisor’s Position 05-NEW Executive Legal Officer, Court Director of Court Services, Nunavut Court of Administration – Nunavut Court of Justice Justice (05-09972) Department Division/Region Community Location Justice Court Services Iqaluit Nunavut Justice Centre Fin. Code: 05660-01-1-111-0545000-01-???? 2. PURPOSE Main reason why the position exists, within what context and what the overall end result is. The Nunavut Court of Justice (NCJ) is a unified trial court administering justice to the Nunavut territory. The NCJ has a current complement of five resident puisne judges, one Senior Judge and approximately 90 deputy judges recruited from other jurisdictions. The NCJ is a superior court with all the powers and legal responsibilities of both a superior court and a provincial or territorial court. The NCJ has a plenary trial jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters and serves as an Appeal Court for matters originating in the Justice of the Peace Court. The NCJ Court registry also serves as a registry for the Nunavut Court of Appeal and is a receiving agent for the Federal Court of Canada. The court operates on a court circuit model and regularly sits in 25 communities across the Territory. The Executive Legal Officer, Court Administration (“ELOCA”), reports to the Director of Court Services (“Director”). In addition to the tasks and responsibilities assigned by the Director, the ELOCA works in tandem with the Executive Legal Officer, Office of the Senior Judge, to carry out assignments and responsibilities tasked by the Senior Judge and as such, from time to time, is supervised by and receives direction from the Senior Judge.
    [Show full text]
  • National Directory of Courts in Canada
    Catalogue no. 85-510-XIE National Directory of Courts in Canada August 2000 Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Statistics Statistique Canada Canada How to obtain more information Specific inquiries about this product and related statistics or services should be directed to: Information and Client Service, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6 (telephone: (613) 951-9023 or 1 800 387-2231). For information on the wide range of data available from Statistics Canada, you can contact us by calling one of our toll-free numbers. You can also contact us by e-mail or by visiting our Web site. National inquiries line 1 800 263-1136 National telecommunications device for the hearing impaired 1 800 363-7629 Depository Services Program inquiries 1 800 700-1033 Fax line for Depository Services Program 1 800 889-9734 E-mail inquiries [email protected] Web site www.statcan.ca Ordering and subscription information This product, Catalogue no. 85-510-XPB, is published as a standard printed publication at a price of CDN $30.00 per issue. The following additional shipping charges apply for delivery outside Canada: Single issue United States CDN $ 6.00 Other countries CDN $ 10.00 This product is also available in electronic format on the Statistics Canada Internet site as Catalogue no. 85-510-XIE at a price of CDN $12.00 per issue. To obtain single issues or to subscribe, visit our Web site at www.statcan.ca, and select Products and Services. All prices exclude sales taxes. The printed version of this publication can be ordered by • Phone (Canada and United States) 1 800 267-6677 • Fax (Canada and United States) 1 877 287-4369 • E-mail [email protected] • Mail Statistics Canada Dissemination Division Circulation Management 120 Parkdale Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0T6 • And, in person at the Statistics Canada Reference Centre nearest you, or from authorised agents and bookstores.
    [Show full text]
  • Relevance and Proportionality in the Rules of Civil Procedure in Canadian Jurisdictions
    T HE S EDONA C ONFERENCE ® W ORKING G ROUP S ERIES SM THE SEDONA CANADA SM COMMENTARY ON PROPORTIONALITY IN ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE & D ISCOVERY A Project of The Sedona Conference ® Working Group 7 (WG7) Sedona Canada SM OCTOBER 2010 Copyright © 2010, The Sedona Conference ® The Sedona Canada SM Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Disclosure and Discovery Working Group 7 “Sedona Canada SM ” OCTOBER 2010 P UBLIC COMMENT VERSION Author: The Sedona Conference ® Commentary Drafting Team : Sedona Canada SM Editorial Board: Todd J. Burke Justice Colin L. Campbell Justice Colin L. Campbell Robert J. C. Deane (chair) Jean-François De Rico Peg Duncan Peg Duncan Kelly Friedman (ex officio) Edmund Huang Karen B. Groulx Kristian Littman Dominic Jaar Edwina Podemski Glenn Smith James T. Swanson The Sedona Conference ® also wishes to acknowledge the members of The Sedona Conference ® Working Group 7 (“Sedona Canada SM ”) who contributed to the dialogue while this Commentary was a work-in-progress. We also wish to thank all of our Working Group Series SM Sponsors, whose support is essential to The Sedona Conference’s ® ability to develop Working Group Series SM publications such as this. For a complete listing of our Sponsors, click on the “Sponsors” navigation bar on the home page of our website at www.thesedonaconference.org . Copyright © 2010 The Sedona Conference ® All Rights Reserved. REPRINT REQUESTS: Requests for reprints or reprint information should be directed to Richard Braman, Executive Director of The Sedona Conference ®, at [email protected] or 1-866-860-6600. The opinions expressed in this publication, unless otherwise attributed, represent consensus views of the members of The Sedona Conference ® Working Group 7 (“Sedona Canada SM ”) .
    [Show full text]
  • Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015 Christopher Manfredi Mcgill University
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by York University, Osgoode Hall Law School Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 6 Volume 52, Issue 3 (Summer 2015) Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015 Christopher Manfredi McGill University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Law Commons Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Manfredi, Christopher. "Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 52.3 (2015) : 951-984. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol52/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015 Abstract Three high-profile government losses in the Supreme Court of Canada in late 2013 and early 2014, combined with the government’s response to those losses, generated a narrative of an especially fractious relationship between Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and the Court. This article analyzes this narrative more rigorously by going beyond a mere tallying of government wins and losses in the Court. Specifically, it examines Charter-based invalidations of federal legislation since 2006, three critical reference opinions rendered at the government’s own request, and two key judgments delivered in the spring of 2015 concerning Aboriginal rights and the elimination of the long-gun registry.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Guide: In-Person Hearings at the Federal Court
    COVID-19 Guide: In-person Hearings at the Federal Court OVERVIEW This guide seeks to outline certain administrative measures that are being taken by the Court to ensure the safety of all individuals who participate in an in-person-hearing. It is specifically directed to the physical use of courtrooms. For all measures that are to be taken outside of the courtroom, but within common areas of a Court facility, please refer to the guide prepared by the Courts Administrative Service, entitled Resuming In-Person Court Operations. You are also invited to view the Court’s guides for virtual hearings. Additional restrictions may apply depending on the evolving guidance of the local or provincial public health authorities, and in situations where the Court hearing is conducted in a provincial or territorial facility. I. CONTEXT Notwithstanding the reopening of the Court for in-person hearings, the Court will continue to schedule all applications for judicial review as well as all general sittings to be heard by video conference (via Zoom), or exceptionally by teleconference. Subject to evolving developments, parties to these and other types of proceedings are free to request an in-person hearing1. In some instances, a “hybrid” hearing, where the judge and one or more counsel or parties are in the hearing room, while other counsel, parties and/or witnesses participate via Zoom, may be considered. The measures described herein constitute guiding principles that can be modified by the presiding Judge or Prothonotary. Any requests to modify these measures should be made as soon as possible prior to the hearing, and can be made by contacting the Registry.
    [Show full text]
  • British Institute of International and Comparative Law
    BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW PROJECT REFERENCE: JLS/2006/FPC/21 – 30-CE-00914760055 THE EFFECT IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS: RECOGNITION, RES JUDICATA AND ABUSE OF PROCESS Project Advisory Board: The Rt Hon Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG QC (chair); Lord Mance; Mr David Anderson QC; Dr Peter Barnett; Mr Peter Beaton; Professor Adrian Briggs; Professor Burkhard Hess; Mr Adam Johnson; Mr Alex Layton QC; Professor Paul Oberhammer; Professor Rolf Stürner; Ms Mona Vaswani; Professor Rhonda Wasserman Project National Rapporteurs: Mr Peter Beaton (Scotland); Professor Alegría Borrás (Spain); Mr Andrew Dickinson (England and Wales); Mr Javier Areste Gonzalez (Spain – Assistant Rapporteur); Mr Christian Heinze (Germany); Professor Lars Heuman (Sweden); Mr Urs Hoffmann-Nowotny (Switzerland – Assistant Rapporteur); Professor Emmanuel Jeuland (France); Professor Paul Oberhammer (Switzerland); Mr Jonas Olsson (Sweden – Assistant Rapporteur); Mr Mikael Pauli (Sweden – Assistant Rapporteur); Dr Norel Rosner (Romania); Ms Justine Stefanelli (United States); Mr Jacob van de Velden (Netherlands) Project Director: Jacob van de Velden Project Research Fellow: Justine Stefanelli Project Consultant: Andrew Dickinson Project Research Assistants: Elina Konstantinidou and Daniel Vasbeck 1 QUESTIONNAIRE The Effect in the European Community of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: Recognition, Res Judicata and Abuse of Process Instructions to National Rapporteurs Please use the following questions to describe the current position in the country for which you have been appointed as National Rapporteur. Please respond to the following questions as fully as possible, with appropriate reference to, and quotation of, supporting authority (e.g. case law and, where appropriate, the views of legal writers).
    [Show full text]
  • BLM 2010-11.Pdf
    NOVEMBER 2010 2 BLUE LINE MAGAZINE November 2010 Volume 22 Number 9 Passing of the tipstaff: Former Ontario Provincial Police Com- missioner Julian Fantino, right, passes the tipstaff to newly appointed Commissioner Chris Lewis during the Change of Command ceremony in Toronto Tuesday, August 31, 2010. The tradition of passing the tipstaff has deep roots in policing and shows the authority of the Office of the Commissioner. The tipstaff used in this ceremony was designated as the Commissioner’s official symbol of authority by an Order in Council on October 13, 1969. It is engraved with of the Latin phrase Salus Populi which means “Let the good of the people be the supreme law.” See page 6. Features 6 Building upon the foundation New OPP Commisioner accepts the tipstaff 16 Empowering present and future challenges police leaders 8 Breaking the cycle 22 Dispelling myths and moving forward Vancouver Police undergo transformational change with PEACE 12 RCMP tested by Newfoundland hurricane Departments Case Law 38 Blue Links Advertisers Index 31 Charter breaches can be addressed at sentencing 35 Blue Pages 33 Search on arrest does not require urgency 18 Deep Blue 19 Dispatches 36, 37 Market Place 5 Publisher’s Commentary 28 Technology BLUEBLUE LLINEINE MMAGAZIAGAZINNEE 33 NOVEMBERNOVEMBER 20102010 NOVEMBER 2010 4 BLUE LINE MAGAZINE PUBLISHER’S COMMENTARY by Morley Lymburner Discretion is yours, sayeth the law Blue Line has always considered it impor- asked me to explain my rationale. I explained tant to provide our readers with plenty of case it was a new school zone that had just been law because modern police officers need to changed to a 40 km/h limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Cour Fédérale
    Federal Court Cour fédérale THE HONOURABLE SEAN J. HARRINGTON THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION CONFERENCE STEERING COMMITTEE PERSONAL REMINISCENCES At our Jurisdiction Conference Steering Committee meeting, held on Thursday, 22 July 2010, it was agreed that we should focus on the present and the future. However, it was also thought that some mention should be made of the original raison d’être of our courts and their history. As Chief Justice Lutfy is fond of pointing out, Mr. Justice Hughes and I are probably the only two sitting judges who not only appeared in the courts from day one, but also appeared in the Exchequer Court! This got me to thinking how important the Federal Courts were in my practice, and gave me a bad case of nostalgia. Maritime law has always been my speciality (although my first appearance in the Exchequer Court was before President Jackett on an Anti-Combines matter). The Federal Court had many advantages over provincial courts. Its writ ran nationwide. Cargo might be discharged in one province and delivered in another. Provincial courts were less prone at that time to take jurisdiction over defendants who could not be personally served within the jurisdiction. Provincial bars were very parochial, and in the days before inter-provincial law firms, if it were not for the Federal Court, maritime players and their underwriters sometimes had to hire two or more different law firms to pursue what was essentially one cause of action. Doc: Federal Courts_Personal Reminiscences_SJH_18-Aug-10.doc Page: 1 The Crown was a much bigger player in maritime matters in the 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Adams County Rules of Judicial Administration
    ADAMS COUNTY RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1 - 99. Applicability 1. Offices To Which Rules Apply. The Rules adopted under this chapter shall apply to all offices in the Adams County court system unless the context indicates otherwise. Offices in the court system shall include the offices of Magisterial District Judges, the Clerk of Courts, Orphans' Court Division, Criminal and Miscellaneous Sections, and the Prothonotary. In some instances these rules will also apply to the Sheriff, Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds. 2. Supplement To State Rules. Local rules are intended to supplement State rules and shall be read in context with those rules. In case of a conflict the rules adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shall prevail. 3. Citation To Local Rules. Local rules may be cited: Adams C.R.J.A. (number)-- Rules of Judicial Administration Adams C.Civ.R. (number)-- Rules of Civil Procedure Adams C.Crim.R. (number)-- Rules of Criminal Procedure Adams C.Juv.R. (number)-- Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure Adams C.O.R.(number)-- Rules of Orphans' Court Procedure They may also be cited as Local (R.J.A., Civ., Crim., Juv., O.C.) Rule (number). 100- 199. Administrative Matters 101. Court Calendar. The Court shall promulgate a court calendar annually. There shall be included therein no less than twelve {12) weeks set aside for criminal jury trials and no less than seven (7) weeks set aside for civil jury trials. The Prothonotary and Clerk shall prepare a list of cases scheduled for hearing, trial argument or other action at lease five (5) days prior to a specified calendar day and provide each judge presiding over such cases with a copy thereof.
    [Show full text]