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

Pretrial Justice Task Force to host two public forums to discuss draft report and recommendations

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Before a Kansas Supreme Court task force charged with examining pretrial detention practices delivers its final report to the court, it will offer two public forums to answer questions about its findings, recommendations, and proposed best practices.

Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger, the Kansas Court of Appeals judge who chairs the task force, said the forums are to answer questions and to discover whether there are concerns not already addressed during the two-year project.

“The full task force met quarterly and subcommittees more frequently to work through the mountains of information available on this topic,” Arnold-Burger said. “We also invited every stakeholder group we thought might be interested to ensure we heard all viewpoints. The public forums are to hear from anyone who might want to weigh in before we finalize our report.”

Public forums September 9 and 24

The forums will be conducted virtually on Zoom and participants are encouraged to submit questions ahead of time. Questions may also be asked by chat during the events.

People who want to participate in a forum must register ahead of time.

Learn More/Register to Participate

Tags:  Author: Ryan Purcell  Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger  courts  Kansas Court of Appeals  Kansas Supreme Court  Kansas Supreme Court task force  task force 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

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)
 

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)
 

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

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Wednesday, July 1, 2020
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)
 

Supreme Court Accepting Comment on Amendment to Rule on Individual Attorney Course Approval

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Friday, May 29, 2020
Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Supreme Court issues two new administrative orders in its COVID-19 pandemic response

Posted By Ryan Purcell, Friday, April 3, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 3, 2020
Contact:
Lisa Taylor
Public Information Director
785-296-4872
taylorl@kscourts.org

Supreme Court issues two new administrative orders in its COVID-19 pandemic response

TOPEKA—The Kansas Supreme Court today issued two new administrative orders to add direction to courts and clarity to court users about how courts function during the COVID-19 pandemic response.

“The need to reduce in-person contact as much as possible is paramount to our state’s COVID-19 response,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “These orders clarify points in the judicial branch’s actions to reduce or eliminate in-person contact with court staff and judges to protect the health of our workforce and the health of people who need our services.”

Administrative Order 2020-PR-031: Order Suspending Certain Deadlines and Time Limitations in Kansas Municipal Courts Due to the COVID-19 Emergency

This order applies to municipal courts some of the same provisions regarding state court operations and deadlines as outlined in Administrative Order 2020-PR-016 and continued in 2020-PR-32. It authorizes municipal courts to conduct hearings by videoconference and suspends deadlines and time limitations related to speedy trial and arraignment while the order is in effect.

Administrative Order 2020-PR-032: Order Amending 2020-PR-016

Administrative Order 2020-PR-016 named the essential functions state courts are required by state statute to perform and outlined how these can be accomplished without face-to-face contact, whether by telephone conference or videoconference.

Administrative Order 2020-PR-032 modifies Administrative Order 2020-PR-016 by: 

  • renaming emergency operations as essential functions;
  • clarifying that litigation conduct is not limited when it does not involve a judge or court employee;
  • encouraging parties to meet deadlines that do not require in-person proceedings;
  • confirming state courts must have staffing necessary to carry out essential functions and nonessential functions may be performed as local resources and circumstances allow;
  • clarifying that hearings related to nonessential functions may occur, but only by telephone conference or videoconference;
  • clarifying that court staff, whether working in a courthouse or from home, may perform both essential and nonessential functions; and
  • clarifying that courts continue to accept electronic filings in all case types and explaining that processing of filings related to nonessential functions may be delayed depending on staffing levels and demands of essential functions. 

2020 House Substitute for Senate Bill 102

Today's administrative order clarifies that provisions in 2020 House Substitute for Senate Bill 102 became effective March 19, 2020, when it was published in the Kansas Register. It permits the chief justice to issue an order suspending all statutory deadlines and time limitations to bring a defendant to trial until further order of the chief justice.

Essential court functions

Essential functions are outlined in the Administrative Order 2020-PR-32, and generally include: 

  • determining probable cause for persons arrested without a warrant;
  • first appearances;
  • bond hearings;
  • warrants for adults and juveniles;
  • juvenile detention hearings;
  • care and treatment emergency orders;
  • protection from abuse and protection from stalking temporary orders;
  • child in need of care hearings and orders;
  • commitment of sexually violent predators; and
  • isolation and quarantine hearings and orders. 

For a complete list of judicial branch actions to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus, visit Kansas Courts Response to COVID-19.

State of Kansas
Office of Judicial Administration
Kansas Judicial Center
301 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612-1507
785-296-2256
www.kscourts.org

Source Info

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

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Supreme Court issues administrative order to allow file-stamped copies when docketing an appeal

Posted By Meg Wickham, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Click below for the full press release.

Press release from the Kansas Supreme Court

Tags:  Author: Meg Wickham  Kansas Supreme Court  state 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

A Message from Chief Justice Marla Luckert

Posted By Administration, Friday, March 20, 2020
Updated: Thursday, March 26, 2020

Dear Members of the Kansas Bar:

As the Kansas Supreme Court and the rest of the Kansas Judicial Branch move to emergency operations status under the orders filed and publicized over the last few days in response to COVID-19 disease, I want to reassure you that the state's electronic filing system continues to be accessible. Although statutes of limitation and other statutory timelines are suspended, you can still submit filings even if the filing does not relate to one of the emergency operations outlined in 2020-PR-016: Imposing Statewide Judiciary Restricted Operations Due to COVID-19 Emergency. Some e-filing processing will still occur, and judges will continue to deal with some matters. You should not expect a normal level of service, especially if your matter is not part of the emergency operation.

My colleagues and I and all others in the Kansas judicial branch will continue to do our best to move your cases through the system as expeditiously as possible. Our mission, of course, is to keep our judges and employees and the communities all of us care about safe while we maximize access to justice for our fellow Kansans.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this challenging time.

Marla Luckert
Chief Justice
Kansas Supreme Court
301 SW 10th Ave.
Topeka, KS 66612

Tags:  judiciary  Kansas Supreme Court  state 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)