Print Page | Sign In | Register
Kansas Legal Breaking News
Blog Home All Blogs

Chief justice: Suspension of time limitations and deadlines will continue for now

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Chief justice: Suspension of time limitations and deadlines will continue for now

Reinstatement will not take place on August 17

Click to View

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  Chief Justice  Chief Justice Luckert  Kansas Supreme Court  state 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Chief justice gives update on plan to reinstate time limitations and deadlines for court proceedings

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Friday, July 24, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 24, 2020

Contact:
Lisa Taylor
Public Information Director
785-640-7997
taylorl@kscourts.org

Chief justice gives update on plan to reinstate time limitations and deadlines for court proceedings

TOPEKA—Chief Justice Marla Luckert said today she has adjusted her plan to reinstate statutes of limitation and statutory time standards or deadlines that apply to conducting or processing of judicial proceedings.

Luckert had announced June 29 she planned to reinstate most time requirements effective August 3, based on the assumption that all district courts would be providing in-person service at that time.

Due to rising numbers of COVID-19 cases in some jurisdictions, some courts have closed offices to the public. In response, Luckert is adjusting her timeline and now plans to provide an update on August 3 about a projected date to reinstate some time limits, deadlines, and time standards. She emphasized reinstatement will not be before August 17.

“My actions to suspend some deadlines and time limitations at the beginning of the pandemic were to uphold peoples’ legal and constitutional rights while courts made changes to case processing to adhere to public health guidelines,” Luckert said. “All district courts are now able to process cases remotely, but I need to be sure all courts can also provide some level of in-person service before I reinstate timelines and deadlines.”

Luckert said she’s providing this update because she wants to be sure Kansans and their attorneys have adequate notice of her plan to reinstate statutes of limitation and statutory time standards or deadlines. Once reinstated, courts, attorneys, and self-represented parties must be ready to move cases forward or accept consequences for missing deadlines or statutes of limitations, which can cause cases to be dismissed.

Luckert plans to continue the suspension of some time limitations. Those would include statutory speedy trial deadlines in criminal cases, the time requirements for filing actions under K.S.A. 60-1501 and K.S.A. 60-1507, and the time requirements for processing limited actions cases in K.S.A. 61-3002(b).

Even while statutes of limitation and statutory time standards or deadlines have been suspended, courts have continued to process cases. All state courts are conducting many types of proceedings using teleconferencing technology, greatly reducing the need for in-person hearings.

__________________________

Visit Kansas Courts Reponse to COVID-19 for information about court operations during the pandemic. 

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  Chief Justice  Chief Justice Luckert  COVID-19 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Court Issues Revised Administrative Order (2020-11) Addressing In Person Hearings

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Friday, July 17, 2020

The Court issued Administrative Order 2020-11 – Revised Transition Plan for Civil and Criminal Hearings During Pandemic, which modifies the criteria for in court, in person hearings during this COVID-19 pandemic. This order is effective immediately.

This is a federal court order that gives the presiding judge discretion to hold hearings in person. It also authorizes the use of video conferencing.

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  COVID-19  District of Kansas  Kansas 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Rule 712B: Pro Bono or Low-Cost Legal Services Provided by Retired, Inactive, or Single-Employer Attorneys

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Friday, July 10, 2020
Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Chief Justice announces plan to reinstate time limitations and deadlines for court proceedings

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Thursday, July 2, 2020

Chief Justice announces plan to reinstate time limitations and deadlines for court proceedings

View Announcement

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  Chief Justice  COVID-19  District of Kansas  Kansas Supreme Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Governor Kelly Announces Executive Orders

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Thursday, July 2, 2020
Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Supreme Court seeks comment on proposed rule creating access to justice liaisons

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Wednesday, July 1, 2020
Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

EO 20-52: Requiring Masks or Other Face Coverings in Public

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Updated: Thursday, July 2, 2020

Governor Laura Kelly has signed a new Executive Order NO. 20-52 requiring most Kansans wear a mask while in public places. The order starts Friday, July 3, at 12:01 a.m.

View Executive Order

For news and COVID updates from the Governor visit https://governor.kansas.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ or https://covid.ks.gov/

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  COVID-19  executive order  face coverings  masks  state 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Supreme Court amends Kansas eCourt Rules

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Updated: Wednesday, June 17, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 16, 2020

Contact:
Lisa Taylor
Public Information Director
785-640-7997
taylorl@kscourts.org

Supreme Court amends Kansas eCourt Rules

TOPEKA—The Kansas Supreme Court has amended Rules 20 through 24, known collectively as the Kansas eCourt Rules.

The amendments took effect June 12 and apply in district courts using the new centralized case management system and will apply in other courts as they begin using the system.

The courts now using the centralized case management system include:

  • 8th Judicial District—Dickinson, Geary, Marion, and Morris counties.
  • 21st Judicial District—Clay and Riley counties.

The amendments are included in Administrative Order 2020-RL-064.

Changes under Rule 21: Definitions

The term "filing user" has been amended to make clear this does not include any judicial branch employees, judges, temporary judges assigned to a case, retired judges or justices assigned to a case, or current Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices acting in their official capacities.

The added term "transcript" means any written verbatim record of a court proceeding or deposition.

Change under Rule 22(d): Inaccessible Documents

Using the public portal to the new centralized case management system, the public has access to many more documents than compared to the FullCourt system it is replacing.

But criminal complaints and warrants are treated differently under the centralized case management system. An arrest warrant, search warrant, or bench warrant that has not been executed is not accessible to the public using the centralized case management system's public access portal.

Comments related to this rule clarify that:

  • A criminal complaint is not sealed, even if a proposed arrest warrant is filed at the same time or an arrest warrant is pending. The criminal complaint is available to the public unless a court order previously sealed it.
  • An arrest warrant, search warrant, or bench warrant is available to the public once the return confirming the warrant was served is filed, unless a court order previously sealed it.

Change to Rule 23(a): Filing User's Obligations

The requirement to certify compliance with Rule 24(b) does not apply to those exempted from the amended definition of "filing user" in Rule 21(l).

Change to Rule 23(b): Filing Under Seal

A case or document may be sealed only if a specific court order or a statute or Supreme Court rule requires it.

Comments related to Rule 23(c): District Court Clerk Processing of an eFiled Document

The person filing a document is solely responsible for filing it correctly.

Comments clarify that Rule 23(c)(1) applies to a document filed in an existing case when the district court clerks must match the county designation, the names of the parties in the case caption, and the case number.

Change under Rule 24(b): Personally Identifiable Information

The name of a minor who is not a named party in a case must be excluded from a pleading filed with the court unless an exception in Rule 24(c) is met. Similarly, a filing must exclude the name of a person whose identity could reveal the name of a minor who is not a named party in a case.

Change under Rule 24(c): Exceptions

An exception to personally identifiable information includes any information in a transcript.

Comments were added to Rule 24 to clarify:

  • Information a filer reasonably believes is necessary or material under the exception in (c)(4) means the information is needed for the document to make sense or for its proper processing, or is information requested on a Kansas Judicial Council form.
  • If the use of initials to protect personally identifiable information is unwieldly, the first name and first initial of the last name may be used, in addition to the use of a generic identifier or a pseudonym.
  • If an exception in Rule 24(c) applies, then the information is no longer considered personally identifiable information. For example, "the physical address of an individual's residence" is considered personally identifiable information under Rule 24(b)(1); but if a law requires the physical address of an individual's residence be provided, then the address may be stated and is no longer treated as personally identifiable information.

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  COVID-19  eCourt  Kansas Supreme Court  state  Supreme Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Chief justice announces new administrative orders regarding safe operation of courts

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Updated: Wednesday, June 17, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 16, 2020

Contact:
Lisa Taylor
Public Information Director
785-640-7997
taylorl@kscourts.org

Chief justice announces new administrative orders regarding safe operation of courts

TOPEKA—Chief Justice Marla Luckert today announced two new administrative orders regarding the safe operation of Kansas courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Kansas courts continue to take steps to protect the health and safety of court users, employees, and judges," Luckert said. "People often have little or no choice but to attend court, so we need to do what we can to make sure the court environment is as safe as possible."

Court capacity and distancing

In Administrative Order 2020-PR-076, the Kansas Supreme Court updates requirements for safely operating both district and appellate courts. It replaces Administrative Order 2020-PR-054 issued May 1, although it keeps in place many of its requirements for courts opening their facilities to the public.

It lifts the 10-person limit for courtrooms and the 12-person limit for panels seated for jury selection, as long as each person has at least 6-feet of social distancing.

Workspaces must also provide social distancing for each worker or have other protections in place that have been approved by a local public health official.

The Supreme Court still requires the capacity of any court hearing room not exceed the number of people who can be accommodated with 6-feet of social distancing.

In-person hearings

Courts are now allowed to conduct in-person hearings, if appropriate social distancing requirements are met. The Supreme Court continues to encourage that matters be heard as much as possible through video or audio conferencing.

Jury trials may only proceed when necessary to protect the constitutional speedy trial rights of a defendant. Best practices for safely conducting jury trials are being developed by an Ad Hoc Jury Task Force the chief justice established earlier this month.

Remote hearings and time suspensions

Administrative Order 2020-PR-075, also signed today, extends orders the chief justice entered since March under 2020 House Substitute for Senate Bill 102. These orders suspend statutory time requirements and allow courts to conduct two-way audio and video hearings in place of requiring people to report to court.

The Legislature amended Senate Bill 102 during the recent special session as part of 2020 Special Session House Bill 2016—the Legislature's extensive COVID-19 bill. The chief justice's order clarifies that her orders continue under the new legislation but that her orders authorizing courts to conduct hearings with two-way telephonic or electronic audio-visual communication are no longer tied to the Governor's state of disaster emergency declarations.

Tags:  Administrative Order  Author: Ryan Purcell  COVID-19  state 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 1 of 6
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6