My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Meetings Steering Committee(Folders 1-2)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Meetings Steering Committee(Folders 1-2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:37:49 AM
Creation date
8/5/2011 3:34:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10093
Title
Meetings Steering Committee(Folders 1-2)
BLDG Date
1/1/1999
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
615
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
appropriate venue for resolving the dispute. This critical process, considered a judicial <br />function, is sophisticated, consistent and valid. Case assessment occurs before any case is <br />actually filed. <br />• Potential litigants have the right to select a dispute resolution venue not recommended <br />by the case assessment center. However, they must pay more if greater time and <br />resources are involved; taxpayers are not solely responsible for these additional costs. <br />Court fees are structured to reflect the actual costs of non-recommended court uses. <br />• Through the case assessment process, many potential cases are routed to court-annexed <br />dispute resolution venues, reducing the overall volume of court cases and saving <br />taxpayers considerable money. Trial courts rarely process small claims, landlord/tenant <br />actions, or traffic infractions. For example, traffic infractions are usually handled by <br />CDRCs or the Department of Motor Vehicles. <br />• The Bar, state legislators, police, corrections and other justice system stakeholders have <br />been actively involved in developing the case assessment system. The f3ar is also <br />involved in the actual case assessment process. Lawyers still represent clients during <br />case assessment, but act as problem-solvers first and litigators second only if non- <br />adversarial options are not appropriate. <br />Criminal ADR <br />Appropriate dispute resolution ~s noK~ used through~~ut the cnminal iustice system <br />following estab(ished standards and guidelines. A menu of criminal ADR options is <br />available statewide. This non-traditional approach to criminal justice has helped mitigate <br />the continual increase in criminal cases facing the courts <br />• Stakeholders in the system (the courts, district and defense attorneys, probat~on and <br />parole officers, corrections personnel, etc.) act as probiem-solvers. They work more <br />collaboratively than in the past, using criminal ADR methods and techniques. <br />• ADR methods and techniques are used at every stage of the criminal process. For <br />example, if an offender chooses and it is appropriate, law enforcement officers are <br />authorized to determine and impose a sanction immedialely, or refer the matter directly <br />to a CDRC or other venue for further action. At the time of sentencing, offenders in <br />Final Vision Texf 10 Aug<<st 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.