Illinois now joins Florida (appellate courts), Oklahoma (Supreme Court only), Washington (Supreme Court only), and West Virginia (all elected officials) in considering some kind of
judicial term limits in 2016.
No other state has
judicial term limits for appellate judges.
Not exact matches
Americans have not been harmed by having our president
limited to two
terms and quite honestly, I believe New Yorkers will benefit with
term limits for members of the executive, legislative and
judicial branches of government.»
Florida: appellate
term limits bills reintroduced; Senate version is retroactive, requires nominees be at least 50 years old, and have prior
judicial experience
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
The Supreme
Judicial Court ruled, under the Insurance Liquidation Act, G.L. c. 175, § § 180A - 180L, that the
term «policyholders» is
limited to parties with in - force policies at the time of the appointment of the receiver.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
Though
term limits would not stem the tide of candidate and special interest spending in the state's
judicial elections,...
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
HB 3378: mandatory retirement for appellate judges at age 75; judge may serve out
term in which age 75 is reached HB 3379:
term limits of 12 years for the Court of Civil Appeals only; there is no mention of
term limits for the state's top courts (Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals) although news reports indicate that may be in the offing HB 3380: Creation of Board on
Judicial Performance Evaluation.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
Oklahoma Speaker puts forth
judicial agenda: keep merit selection but change nominating commission,
term limits but only for Court of Civil Appeals, mandatory retirement age for all appellate judges, several «placeholder» bills
From that followed this secondary message:
Term limits for judges threaten
judicial independence and therefore threaten the First Amendment.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
[1] Regarding the
term «
judicial candidate,» in Arkansas, there are no retention elections, and selection by appointment arises in
limited situations, such as to fill a newly created judgeship or a vacancy.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the
terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order
limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of
judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
Moreover, doctrinal entrenchment is particularly problematic in the FISA courts, where secrecy and institutional context indicate that outside efforts at doctrinal reform are less likely to be effective than they are with courts that publish their opinions.35 Unlike published opinions, secret opinions can not provoke the public into lobbying for a legislative override36 or
judicial overruling37 — two important paths of legal reform.38 Perhaps to hedge against the risks of
limited external oversight, FISA
limits FISC and Court of Review judges to non-renewable, seven - year
terms, 39 a provision suggesting that Congress envisioned a FISA court whose membership would be responsive to shifting factual circumstances and policy priorities.40 Stare decisis, which requires judges to adhere to interpretations of law that they might otherwise reject as unjust or unpersuasive, constrains these judges» ability to adapt to such factual and policy shifts.