Download Free Streamlining The Courts Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Streamlining The Courts and write the review.

Brazos, an e-citation system from Tyler Technologies, becomes available to NC law enforcement agencies and court staff to streamline records management and communication among judicial agencies.
America is a nation founded on justice and the rule of law. But our laws are too complex, and legal advice too expensive, for poor and even middle-class Americans to get help and vindicate their rights. Criminal defendants facing jail time may receive an appointed lawyer who is juggling hundreds of cases and immediately urges them to plead guilty. Civil litigants are even worse off; usually, they get no help at all navigating the maze of technical procedures and rules. The same is true of those seeking legal advice, like planning a will or negotiating an employment contract. Rebooting Justice presents a novel response to longstanding problems. The answer is to use technology and procedural innovation to simplify and change the process itself. In the civil and criminal courts where ordinary Americans appear the most, we should streamline complex procedures and assume that parties will not have a lawyer, rather than the other way around. We need a cheaper, simpler, faster justice system to control costs. We cannot untie the Gordian knot by adding more strands of rope; we need to cut it, to simplify it.
Including a discussion of legislative powers, constitutional regulations relative to the forms of legislation and to legislative procedure.
Judicial review cannot serve as an effective check on administrative action unless aggrieved applicants have a real way to access the courts to obtain relief. In an admirable, albeit belated move, significant amendments were made to the Singapore Rules of Court to remove the procedural strictures inherited from the pre-1977 UK system. The amendments allow an applicant to seek a declaration in addition to the traditional prerogative orders and recover damages within the same proceedings if the applicant can prove that he/she would have had a valid claim in a private law action. This article examines the mischief that the amendments sought to cure, which stemmed from overly technical rules that hitherto plagued such applications. It is argued that the changes are underpinned by a desire to allow greater access to justice by facilitating the review process. In a bid to create a litigation-friendly environment, and having learnt from the UK experience, the Singapore rule makers eschewed aspects of the UK reforms. In so doing, the amendments have largely achieved their goals, but there remain areas of uncertainty to be resolved. This article examines possible further refinements to the procedures, bearing in mind the central philosophy of access to justice.