Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Ind. Courts - Must read article on Chronological Case Summary (CCS) Records
This Sept. 26, 2012 ILB post linked to a Court Times article on Chronological Case Summary and Record of Judgments and Orders.
The newest issue of Court Times links to a much more "hands on" CCS article which, in my opinion, should be read very carefully by practitioners.
Some high points [emphasis added by ILB] from the long article:
The CCS is a key, official record. It provides in one place an accurate summary of what has transpired in a case, without the need to search files for pleadings and orders. Thus, the accuracy and timeliness of CCS event entries is of critical importance to an accurate court record. This means that the date of every notation on the CCS should be the date that the notation is made, regardless of the date the motion is filed or an order is signed. It also means that the CCS entry is not a substitute for a court order; the CCS is a brief description of the motion, order or other event that happened.ILB: One line jumped out at me:
In most modern automated case management systems (CMS), such as the state Odyssey CMS, the user is guided to a drop-down list from which he must select the CCS description that best reflects the event. CCS entries, once made, should not be amended. In order to amend a CCS event, the user must make another entry explaining the change and when it was made. Furthermore, the date an action is entered on the CCS is the date from which all time limits run (except in a few criminal case instances). As more and more courts post their CCS records on the Internet, compliance with these rules is critical in order to assure the integrity of the court record. * * *
A local rule with clear statements of the courts’ policies and deadlines can help assure the accurate and prompt entry of CCS event. For example, such a local rule should:
The Senior Judge Committee strongly recommends that courts provide senior judges “instructions” about specific guidelines and expectations. For instance, the courts could prepare a special instruction sheet for “visiting judges” telling them to whom, how and when they must send or email the CCS entries.
- state what office (clerk or court) and what positions (not the particular names) are responsible for the CCS entries;
- establish a “paper flow” process if the making of CCS entries involves the passing of orders, motions and other paper from one office to another;
- require lawyers to submit proposed entries or designate the particular event from the CMS drop down menus;
- set a specific time from the date of the filing of an order and other papers, within which the persons making the CCS entry must complete the task in the system;
- provide instructions about what and when special judges, judges pro tempore, senior judges and other “visiting judges” have to do to get their events entered on the CCS.
If the clerk’s staff will be responsible for CCS entries, the courts should engage the clerk and his/her staff in figuring out a reasonable but also timely period within which CCS entries must be made. Input from the local bar, particularly if the court will require lawyers to propose CCS entries, would also be helpful. Having all the parties at the table should go a long way to achieve buy-in from all.
In most modern automated case management systems (CMS), such as the state Odyssey CMS, the user is guided to a drop-down list from which he must select the CCS description that best reflects the event.Two observations:
- Everyone should know what options are available on the drop-down lists, not only staff, but the judges and attorneys.
- A court not using Odyssey might have different options; some courts may have blanks. Statewide consistency here, such as spelling out the options in the rules, might be useful.
- Because Mother claimed that KCDCS failed to provide her with notice of the August 2011 termination hearing, the burden has shifted to KCDCS to prove compliance with Indiana Code section 31-35-2-6.5. The trial court’s CCS makes clear that an order was “entered” on June 3, 2011, following the court’s consolidated initial hearing in the termination cases. The specific language of the trial court’s order, however, was not included in the CCS entry, and the CCS does not indicate whether the trial court’s order was ever provided to Mother and/or whether the order included the date of the final evidentiary hearing scheduled in August 2011. Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of H.K., Ta.K., and Ty.K.
- Finally, we remand with instructions for the juvenile court to correct the February 23, 2011 disposition order and CCS entry to accurately reflect the true findings that were entered by the court. K.F. v. State of Indiana
- Ind. Courts - "Lazy judge" rule changed, effective Jan. 1st. Nov. 28, 2011
- In this case estimates referenced in open court were not copied for the court or opposing counsel, and allegedly cannot be found in the clerk’s paper record or on the electronic docketing system; documents scanned into quest were not included in the record provided to counsel by the clerk; and many entries on the CCS are vague or incomplete. Inadequate organization and compilation of the record hinders our ability to review the issues raised on appeal. J.H. v. State of Indiana
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 6, 2013 01:05 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts