Archive for the ‘Jurisdiction’ category

« Older Entries

Will Louisiana become the sixth state to have a Tax Court within the judicial branch?

April 11th, 2013

Presently 5 states have a tax court within the judicial branch to hear tax matters. Georgia considered creating such a court in 2011, now Louisiana is considering a similar proposal in 2013.

Under Louisiana’s HB 585 and SB 230  the new Tax Court, which would take the place of the existing Board of Tax Appeals, would serve “within the Louisiana Court of Appeals”, but it not clear if they would function as a court separate from the Court of Appeals (as in Indiana), as a sort of junior chamber, or as (in effect) an administrative agency within the Court of Appeals. The judges of the three judges of the Tax Court would not only have to be attorneys but would also have to be a certified as a tax specialist by the state’s Board of Legal Specialization.

What makes the Louisiana bill unique is the placement of the court in the judicial branch. “Tax courts” in most other states are executive branch or administrative agencies that perform quasi-judicial functions but are not formally parts of the judicial branch, such as in Maryland and Minnesota. The Tax Courts in Arizona, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Oregon plus a specialized intermediate appellate court in Indiana, are all within the judicial branch.

HB 585 is pending before the House Judiciary Committee. SB 230 is in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee.

 

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Structure Changes

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: AL & OK versions look for final votes soon; MO Senate committee approves its version

April 4th, 2013

It has been less than a week since my last update in this area, but the legislative pace has increased and required a faster update.

  • Alabama’s constitutional amendment SB 4, complete with restriction on full faith and credit to any court decision in another state that uses international or foreign law, cleared its final committee hurdle earlier this morning (April 4) when it was ok’ed by the House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee. Assuming passage by the full House the amendment would go to Alabama voters.
  • Missouri’s version (SB 267) cleared the Senate General Laws committee on March 27.
  • Oklahoma has several versions, but the most recently active one (HB 1060) which had cleared the House in March was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee March 26.
  • Texas’s SB 1639 which is limited to a ban on court use of international/foreign law in family law (divorce, marriage, parent-child relationship)  was heard in the Senate Business & Commerce Committee on April 2.

List of bills below the fold » Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: AL & OK versions look for final votes soon; MO Senate committee approves its version

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: AL threatens to refuse full faith and credit to court decisions of other states; new OK bill avoids using word “sharia”

March 29th, 2013

As I noted in last month’s update, this year’s batch of bans of sharia/international law use by state courts looks very different than those of the past several years. After criticism that a) past versions would effectively cripple businesses who have to sign international contracts and b) that bans on references to the law and court decisions of other nations would make the judicial determinations of tribal courts in the U.S. enforceable, most such bills have been completely rewritten.

  • Alabama’s newest versions (SB 4 and SB 44) are new and unique; beyond banning just that state’s courts from using international law they also purport to ban the use in other state courts. SB 4, as approved by the Senate last week, reads in operative part:

Where the public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of another state violate the public policy of the State of Alabama, the State of Alabama shall not give full faith and credit thereto

The bill elsewhere defines the “public policy” of the state to exclude use of international law.

  • Oklahoma, whose original version used the word “sharia” and was struck down by the federal courts for that reason, has come up with a new version that amends existing statutes (the original version amended the state’s constitution) and avoids using the word “sharia”.
  • Also tellingly is the concern businesses have had over such bans in the past. Texas’ latest version, although limited to banning use of international or foreign law in family court proceedings, has nevertheless been forwarded to the Senate Business & Commerce Committee.

List of bills below the fold » Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: AL threatens to refuse full faith and credit to court decisions of other states; new OK bill avoids using word “sharia”

4 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Despite 2012 veto, Arizona House wants to increase small claims court to $5,000; Senate balking at the number

March 26th, 2013

This time last year Arizona’s Governor vetoed a plan (SB 1310) to increase the state’s small claims court limits from $2,500 to $5,000. Undaunted, the House earlier this year approved HB 2240 as introduced that effectively disregarded the veto and put a $5,000 increase back on the table. The Senate Judiciary Committee, however, approved an amendment to set the amount at $3,500 instead. That limit was approved by the full Senate on March 21.

The question now comes as to whether or not a conference committee will be able to meet and come up with a solution before the session adjourns in April.

 

 

 

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Iowa bill attempts to strip state supreme court of power regarding same-sex marriage; would reimpose ban on such marriages

March 12th, 2013

In 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state statute that banned same sex marriage. As a result of what became known as the Varnum decision, 3 justices of that court lost retention elections in 2012 and an effort was made to impeach the other justices. A bill introduced last week would in effect reimpose the ban and prohibit the state supreme court from ruling on it.

HB 444 contains 2 provisions.

The first prohibits court registrars from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, until a constitutional amendment is submitted to Iowa voters on the subject (such as HJR 11, introduced by many of the same co-sponsors of HB 444, or the Senate version SJR 5)

The second prohibits any appellate review of the marriage license ban by the state’s top court: “The supreme court shall not have appellate jurisdiction over any prohibitions or restrictions established by this Act relating to the granting of a marriage license in this state.”

The language mirrors similar bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to prohibit federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing same-sex marriage bans (HR 724 of 2007, HR 1269 of 2009 & HR 875 of 2011) however the federal version prohibited any federal court from hearing such a challenge; the Iowa bill merely limits the appellate jurisdiction of the state’s supreme court.

HB 444 is currently before the House Judiciary Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: heavily modified bills introduced in 2013, exempts contracts, Native American tribes, avoids using word “sharia”

February 13th, 2013

This year’s batch of bans of sharia/international law use by state courts looks very different than those of the past several years. After criticism that a) past versions would effectively cripple businesses who have to sign international contracts and b) that bans on references to the law and court decisions of other nations would make the judicial determinations of tribal courts in the U.S. enforceable, most such bills have been completely rewritten. Specifically, most now specify the prohibition on the use of foreign law/sharia

  • applies only to a particular case type (such as family law or domestic relations)
  • does not infringe on the right to contract
  • does not apply to not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, etc.
  • does not apply to recognition or use of tribal court decisions in state courts
  • does not apply to ecclesiastical matters within a denomination

Even with these modifications, as in the past, most such bills are failing to advance in the legislatures.

List of bills below the fold » Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: heavily modified bills introduced in 2013, exempts contracts, Native American tribes, avoids using word “sharia”

6 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Minnesota bill would prohibit supreme court from issuing writ of mandamus against environmental agencies

February 7th, 2013

The writ of mandamus, in effect, orders a governmental agency or subordinate court to do some act. In some states it is has a constitutional basis (Virginia: “The Supreme Court shall, by virtue of this Constitution, have original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition…”) but in others like Minnesota it is statutorily based. Minn. Stat. § 586.01 currently reads:

The writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.

Almost identical language can be found in Arizona (A.R.S. § 12-2021), California (Cal Code Civ Proc § 1085), Montana (Mont. Code Anno., § 27-26-102), Nebraska (R.R.S. Neb. § 25-2156), North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code, § 32-34-01), Oklahoma (12 Okl. St. § 1451), Oregon (ORS § 34.110),  and South Dakota (S.D. Codified Laws § 21-29-1). In none of these states are particular state agencies apparently exempted from the power of the writ.

Minnesota’s HB 48 of 2013, interestingly, would exempt two agencies from the Supreme Court’s power, amending Minn. Stat. § 586.01 to include the following:

The writ of mandamus may not be issued to the Department of Natural Resources or its commissioner or the Pollution Control Agency or its commissioner.

There is no indication why these two agencies would be exempted. The bill is currently before the House Civil Law Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Oklahoma’s effort to ban court use of international/sharia law having been held unconstitutional, new version introduced avoids using word “sharia”

January 23rd, 2013

I’ve been following for years the efforts in Oklahoma to ban the use of sharia law by the courts starting with (and focused on) 2010′s HJR 1056, approved by Oklahoma voters in November 2010 and later struck down by the federal courts (and leading to an effort by the 2011 Oklahoma legislature to impeach the federal trial judge that struck down the statute).

There was little activity on the subject in the 2012 Oklahoma legislature (a 2011 bill went nowhere in the 2012 session) it appeared the subject had died.

2013 however finds a new effort filed as HB 1486. This version, following in the footsteps of other states that learned the lesson of Oklahoma not to specifically name sharia specifically, instead provides:

Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.

The bill is prefiled in the House with no committee assignment.

 

 

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: withdrawn in VA, only 5 heavily modified bills introduced in 2013

January 14th, 2013

This year is proving to be a substantially different one in terms of legislative efforts to ban the use of sharia or international law in state courts. By January 14 in 2011 (the last most comparable year; some legislatures do not meet in even numbered years) there were at least a dozen bills filed. So far this year there are only 5 bills in as many states and at least one such bill has already been withdrawn.

Unlike in the bills introduced previously, which specifically mentioned sharia or broadly and generally prohibited reference to international law, most the bills introduced so far are limited to only a particular case type or area of law and provide a series of exceptions, in particular with reference to commercial contracts.

Even then, the first such bill to be considered, Virginia’s HB 1332 which was limited to domestic relations cases, was stricken at the request of the author when it was first heard in a subcommittee last week.

List of bills below the fold

» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: withdrawn in VA, only 5 heavily modified bills introduced in 2013

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Trying to eliminate the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: will fourth attempt in 20 years succeed?

December 6th, 2012

Only two states, Texas and Oklahoma, bifurcate their courts of last resort into civil (Supreme Court) and criminal (Court of Criminal Appeals). The history of why Texas wound its way into this situation is complex (the Texas State Historical Association has an overview) and has lead one justice of the state’s Supreme Court to declare in a recent dissenting opinion “We Have Arrived Here Through Historical Happenstance”. With the introduction last month of HJR 36 of 2013 which would in fact eliminate the court, the fourth such legislative effort to end the Court of Criminal Appeals in the last 20 years continues.

1993: Keep existing Supreme Court, transfer all cases in Court of Criminal Appeals

The 1993 effort (HJR 97 / SJR 39) when nowhere in House, but was at least the subject of a hearing before the Senate Jurisprudence Committee 4/6/1993.

1999: Merge the Court of Criminal Appeals into Supreme Court; change judicial selection; create judicial term limits

A 1999 proposal (HJR 96) would have effectively merged the two courts, creating a mega-court consisting of 15 justices (Chief Justice + 14), 8 of whom would for a quorum generally. The proposal would have required the concurrence of eight justices  to decide a case, authorized the court to sit in panels of at least five justices, and required the court to sit en banc during proceedings involving capital punishment, rehearings of cases on granted motions, and other cases as required by law.

Perhaps even more intriguing about the 1999 proposal was the method of selection for the 15 member court.

  • 7 would be elected by district in partisan elections for their initial terms and yes/no retention elections thereafter
  • 7 would be appointed by district by the governor
  • The chief justice would be appointed by the governor but could not be from the same district has the immediate past chief justice

Finally, HJR 96 would have imposed judicial term limits of 20 years (terms would remain at 6 years).

HJR 96 got a hearing before the House Judicial Affairs Committee on April 26, 1999 and proceeded no further.

2003: Keep existing Supreme Court, transfer all cases in Court of Criminal Appeals

HJR 67 and SJR 40 of 2003, as well as HJR 5A of the First 2003 Special Session, picked up where their 1993 counterparts left off and met substantively the same fate: none received a committee hearing.

2011/2013:  Keep existing Supreme Court, transfer all cases in Court of Criminal Appeals

HJR 35 of 2011 and HJR 36 of 2013, both introduced by the same House member, repeat almost verbatim the original 1993 proposal(s). The 2011 version failed to have so much as a committee hearing. The 2013 version was prefiled in mid-November.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Selection, Structure Changes

Tags: