Archive for June, 2012

« Older Entries

Delaware legislature approves reforms to City of Newark Alderman’s Court

June 29th, 2012

I’ve mentioned in the past the use of mayor’s as trial judges (and the efforts to end the practice in South Carolina). Now comes word that Delaware will revise the way aldermen will serve as judges, at least in the City of Newark.

Some background is in order.

Like Mayor’s Courts, Aldermen’s Courts existed in at least some of the 13 colonies immediately after the revolution. There are records of such courts in Pennsylvania (Emerick v. Harris, 1 Binn. 416 (1808)), New Jersey until at least 1851 (Godfrey v. Myers, 23 N.J.L. 197) and Georgia as late as 1857 (Savannah v. Hussey, 21 Ga. 80) and reports of a similar court in South Carolina in 1789. Such courts appear in the records of Utah, where an Alderman for the City of Salt Lake ordered the arrest and conducted the trial of a local druggist who was selling “spirituous liquors” without a license  (Godbe v. Salt Lake, 1 Utah 68 (1876)).

Delaware is the only state that appears to retain such courts which date back to at least 1832. The courts appear to exist in a few Delaware cities based on charters granted by the legislature to the cities, primary among them Newark.

HB 351 of 2012 amends the Charter of the City of Newark by re-writing the provisions related to aldermen in its entirety. Under the current system the city council nominates a single person, whose name is sent to the Governor. After the Governor reviews the individual, the state’s senate must confirm the nomination. Under HB 351, the Governor would get one or more names, along with supporting documentation for each, subject to state senate confirmation. The aldermen would be appointed for 4-year terms and must repeat the process (city nominates, governor approves, state senate confirms).

HB 351 also requires that the aldermen appointed be attorneys and neither a member of the City Council nor otherwise an officer or employee of the city. A synopsis of the bill indicates “This Act serves to codify numerous policies that promote the autonomy of the Alderman’s Court and thereby foster public confidence in the Court…many of the policies applicable to the Magistrate’s Court are applied to Alderman’s Court, such as requirements to segregate the Court from the Town’s offices.”

The bill was approved by full Senate on June 26, having been previously approved by the House June 12.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Qualification & Terms, Selection

Tags:

Delaware legislature considers blue ribbon task force on opening Family Court proceedings to public

June 26th, 2012

The question of whether family law/domestic relations cases, especially where juveniles are involved, should be open to the public has been at issue in numerous states. The process and openness of Delaware’s system was previously reviewed by  a task force created by the state legislature 15 years ago (HJR 4 of 1997) and now Delaware’s legislature appears prepared to readdress the subject in much the same manner.

SCR 21 would convene a Blue Ribbon Task Force to review the feasibility of opening Family Court proceedings to the public. When originally introduced in 2011, SCR 21 required the task force report by February 15, 2012. A Senate amendment extended the deadline to 2013 and modified the membership of the task force.

The amended resolution was approved by the Senate in March and the House Judiciary committee on June 13.

No comments »

Posted in Other

Tags:

South Carolina legislature overrides governor, allows CJ to set e-filing fees to pay for court technology

June 25th, 2012

Cross-posted at Court Technology Bulletin

I mentioned two weeks ago the e-filing fees situation in South Carolina. In sum, the legislature unanimously adopted HB 4821, which would have allowed the state’s chief justice to set an e-filing fee to pay for court technology

for filing court documents by electronic means from an integrated electronic filing (e-filing) system owned and operated by the South Carolina Judicial Department in an amount set by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and all fees must be remitted to the South Carolina Judicial Department to be dedicated to the support of court technology

Despite the legislature’s unanimity, the governor vetoed the bill, arguing no ” branch of government should be provided with such comprehensive, unilateral authority to impose fees without regulatory or other comparable review.”

The South Carolina legislature has now voted to override the governor’s veto: 93-14 in the House and 39-3 in the Senate.

2 comments »

Posted in Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget

Tags:

West Virginia interim judiciary committees meet

June 25th, 2012

West Virginia’s legislature is having its monthly interim committee meetings this week. Topics to be discussed include:

June 25

Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee A: Secretary of State election issues & Election candidate eligibility

June 26

Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee B: Forensic lab operation and management

Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee C: Driver’s license suspension

June 27

Full Committee: Reports of the subcommittees

No comments »

Posted in Interim Activities

Tags:

Michigan legislature set to officially kill off its cyber court?

June 22nd, 2012

Cross-posted at Court Technology Bulletin

Back in 2001 amid another recession, Michigan’s legislature made an attempt to address the issue of technology-related litigation by authorizing the creation of a “Cyber Court”, the purpose of which was (MCL 600.8001(2)) to:

(a) Establish judicial structures that will help to strengthen and revitalize the economy of this state.
(b) Allow business or commercial disputes to be resolved with the expertise, technology, and efficiency required by the information age economy.
(c) Assist the judiciary in responding to the rapid expansion of information technology in this state.
(d) Establish a technology-rich system to serve the needs of a judicial system operating in a global economy.
(e) Maintain the integrity of the judicial system while applying new technologies to judicial proceedings.
(f) Supplement other state programs designed to make the state attractive to technology-driven companies.
(g) Permit alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to benefit from the technology changes.
(h) Establish virtual courtroom facilities, and allow the conducting of court proceedings electronically and the electronic filing of documents.

The cyber court’s sponsor envisioned it as the ‘‘first completely electronic court to resolve commercial transactions effectively, expeditiously, and efficiently, saving time and cost normally associated with the traditional litigation model.’’ The court was envisioned as having virtual ADR & court sessions, complete e-filing and e-storage, etc.

The cyber court program itself, however, never took off, due to lack of funding and insufficient technology. An article last year in Michigan Lawyers Weekly gave indications that the program might be revived.

Such efforts appear to be ending however with the passage last week in the Michigan House of HB 5128. As introduced, HB 5128 would have added a new section in the state’s existing law (Chapter 10B of the Revised judicature act of 1961) to create business courts within the state’s existing circuit courts. A committee amendment instead opted to repeal all the language related to Cyber Courts (Chapter 80 of the Revised judicature act of 1961) and replace with the Business Court authorization.

HB 5128, as amended, was approved by the House on June 14 on a 103-7 vote.

 

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Structure Changes

Tags:

NJ Senate Budget Committee to take up delayed bill allowing judicial salaries to be diminished

June 21st, 2012

I mentioned earlier in the week that the New Jersey Senate Budget committee (and not the Judiciary committee) was to take up  ACR 152 / SCR 110, which would re-write the state’s constitution to read (additions underlined):

The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment, except for deductions from such salaries for contributions, established by law from time to time, for pensions as provided for under paragraphs 3 and 5 of Section VI of this Article, health benefits, and other, similar benefits.

That bill was not in fact taken up on its initial hearing date Monday, instead being postponed until today.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

South Carolina mayors may no longer preside as trial judges

June 19th, 2012

I’ve mentioned in the past that Louisiana and Ohio are the only remaining states that have “Mayor’s Courts” named as such, however some states do allow mayors to sit as judges in courts using different names, among them South Carolina’s Municipal Courts under 5-7-90:

The mayor or municipal judge or judges of any municipality shall speedily try all persons charged with violations of the ordinances of the municipality or the laws of the State within their jurisdiction in a summary manner without a jury unless jury trial is demanded by the accused.

That will soon end however as the state’s governor has signed into law yesterday HB 4798. When introduced the bill dealt with how long a person could be held pending trial (currently 7 days). The bill extends that to 10 days, but a committee amendment also struck out the provision allowing mayors to sit as trial judges.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

New Jersey Senate considers constitutional amendment removing some judicial salary protections; bill assigned to Budget, not Judiciary committee

June 18th, 2012

Last year the New Jersey enacted a plan to require increases to the amount government employees would have to pay into the state’s retirement system(s). The state’s courts, however, struck down the law as it applied to judges under the state’s constitution, which reads in operative part (Article VI, Section 6)

The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment.

There were also suggestions the legislature and governor imposed the increases on judges as retaliation for decisions of the state’s supreme court.

However, several constitutional amendments were introduced starting last November to amend the salary protection clause. One  such amendment, ACR 152 / SCR 110, is set for a hearing later today and would amend the existing provision to read:

The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment, except for deductions from such salaries for contributions, established by law from time to time, for pensions as provided for under paragraphs 3 and 5 of Section VI of this Article, health benefits, and other, similar benefits.

Interestingly, while the Assembly portion is assigned to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, the Senate version will be heard today not in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.

Making it even more curious, similar bills that would alter the provision have all been referred to their respective Judiciary Committees, not Budget:

ACR 13 / SCR 72 Amend to read “The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment, except for deductions from such salaries for contributions established by law from time to time for pensions, health benefits, and other benefit.” In Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees.

SCR 33 Eliminate phrase “which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment”. In Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

2 comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

Week ahead: Interim judiciary committees meeting in Utah, Montana, Wyoming; topics include juvenile justice and rights of parents & children

June 15th, 2012

June 18

Wyoming Interim Joint Judiciary Committee to receive testimony on:

  • eminent domain and regulatory takings
  • juvenile justice
  • prison industries and prison health care costs
  • crime reduction on the Wind River Indian Reservation
  • other matters the Committee may consider

June 19

Wyoming Joint Judiciary Committee to receive testimony on:

  • eminent domain and regulatory takings
  • juvenile justice
  • prison industries and prison health care costs
  • crime reduction on the Wind River Indian Reservation
  • other matters the Committee may consider

June 20

Utah Joint Interim Judiciary Committee

June 21

Montana Law and Justice Interim Committee
TBD

June 22

Montana Law and Justice Interim Committee
TBD

No comments »

Posted in Coming Week, Interim Activities

South Carolina Governor vetoes bill to allow CJ to set e-filing fees to pay for court technology

June 14th, 2012

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley on Monday June 11 vetoed HB 4821. The bill, which was unanimously approved by the House on April 24 and the Senate on May 31, would have amended the state’s schedule of fees and costs to be collected by clerks of court (8-21-310) to include a new section that reads

for filing court documents by electronic means from an integrated electronic filing (e-filing) system owned and operated by the South Carolina Judicial Department in an amount set by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and all fees must be remitted to the South Carolina Judicial Department to be dedicated to the support of court technology

The governor’s veto message is only two sentences

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval R258, H.4821, a bill that grants the Judicial Department permission to establish electronic filing fees at any rate it chooses. I am vetoing this bill because I do not believe that any branch of government should be provided with such comprehensive, unilateral authority to impose fees without regulatory or other comparable review.

The legislature is set to return shortly for a special session to deal with other matters, but it is unclear if they can or will override the governor’s veto.

2 comments »

Posted in Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget

Tags: