Doxpop - Tools for Attorneys and Public Information Researchers: Correction to proposed Order/Notice post.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Correction to proposed Order/Notice post.

A helpful person at the State's Court Technology office pointed out an error in my post of a few days ago (thank you!) I just went back and corrected it. Apologies to anyone who was confused by the first version.

To read the updated version, click here.

Here's what changed:

The main correction is that you *will* receive an accepted filing notification for a proposed order or notice, however, for most courts, it will not be a file-stamped copy. The lack of a file stamp often leads to concern about whether the document was really accepted and processed. Don't worry! if you received the accepted filing email, your document is on its way to the judge.

In addition, some emphasis and detail has been to the section on checking to make sure the attorney is appropriately entered as an attorney of record for the case. In the past, such an omission was annoying, but not a serious issue. However, in the era of electronic document delivery, not being entered correctly means you won't get your order.

Finally, although it was not added to the already lengthy previous post, here's the detail on why we assert that most counties will not return file-stamped orders instead of all:

  • Counties using the Odyssey case management system have a consistent process that includes passing the document along to the Judge without a timestamp on the face of the document. (The judge is still able to see both your submission timestamp and the acceptance timestamp on the case management system.)
  • The Counties using the CSI case management system apply the timestamp as a way to communicate the acceptance date to the judge in situations where she or he is viewing a paper copy. This may change as processes evolve, but for now, it may help you to know why this is different in some counties. Currently, this apply to Wells, Clay and White counties.

No comments: