Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

[PJDiesel]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

And, if there's NO limit, then we admit there is nothing wrong with it NEVER being decided.

 

[esqappellate]

And, if there's NO limit, then we admit there is nothing wrong with it NEVER being decided.

The court has a duty to decide a case properly before it. That duty is enforceable through a writ of mandamus. It will decide the case, of that I have no doubt. Honestly, it has only been six months. That is well within the bell curve

 

[PJDiesel]

Defer to the pro(s) obviously. I'm just always surprised it takes anywhere even remotely near this long for things to proceed.

 

[esqappellate]

Defer to the pro(s) obviously. I'm just always surprised it takes anywhere even remotely near this long for things to proceed.

It's a big case with big, difficult issues with potential for conflicts in the circuits. Those *always* take longer. And we too easily forget that this is not the only case on their docket.

 

[CrazyIvan]

I'm not a lawyer, and I have as little to do with the court system as possible (except serving jury duty or testifying if I'm called to do so in a case) but I always heard that people were entitled to a speedy trial, which I would interpret to mean that they also have a right to a speedy result of that trial. if half a year isn't considered unreasonable, what is? Is a year unreasonable, two years? At what point does the court get smacked?

 

[Jaybeez]

whats the status on the ny and ct ban cases?

 

[RepublicanJD]

I'm not a lawyer, and I have as little to do with the court system as possible (except serving jury duty or testifying if I'm called to do so in a case) but I always heard that people were entitled to a speedy trial, which I would interpret to mean that they also have a right to a speedy result of that trial. if half a year isn't considered unreasonable, what is? Is a year unreasonable, two years? At what point does the court get smacked?

 

[rwbow1969]

The court has a duty to decide a case properly before it. That duty is enforceable through a writ of mandamus. It will decide the case, of that I have no doubt. Honestly, it has only been six months. That is well within the bell curve

In other words. Hurry up and wait....

 

[Mark75H]

I'm not a lawyer, and I have as little to do with the court system as possible (except serving jury duty or testifying if I'm called to do so in a case) but I always heard that people were entitled to a speedy trial, which I would interpret to mean that they also have a right to a speedy result of that trial. if half a year isn't considered unreasonable, what is? Is a year unreasonable, two years? At what point does the court get smacked?

A speedy trial, but no promises on appeals. These are appeals to the completed trials.

 

[dblas]

I'm not a lawyer, and I have as little to do with the court system as possible (except serving jury duty or testifying if I'm called to do so in a case) but I always heard that people were entitled to a speedy trial, which I would interpret to mean that they also have a right to a speedy result of that trial. if half a year isn't considered unreasonable, what is? Is a year unreasonable, two years? At what point does the court get smacked?

The above applies to criminal cases, which take precedence over civil cases.

 

[Mr H]

This is just pathetic.

And should they take another couple months and rule as we want, no doubt we'd be praising them for reasoned and deliberative decision.

 

[PJDiesel]

And should they take another couple months and rule as we want, no doubt we'd be praising them for reasoned and deliberative decision.

Déjà vu all over again.

 

[Schipperke]

Friend of mine was defendant in a hearing in Montgomery County civil matter. Hearing was eight days and ended Oct 16, 2014. Still no decision.

 

[swinokur]

And should they take another couple months and rule as we want, no doubt we'd be praising them for reasoned and deliberative decision.

so true, so true.

 

[esqappellate]

I'm not a lawyer, and I have as little to do with the court system as possible (except serving jury duty or testifying if I'm called to do so in a case) but I always heard that people were entitled to a speedy trial, which I would interpret to mean that they also have a right to a speedy result of that trial. if half a year isn't considered unreasonable, what is? Is a year unreasonable, two years? At what point does the court get smacked?

I understand the frustration. I share it. But, a right to a speedy trial is a right of criminal defendant under the 6th Amendment and there are specific time constraints in statutes for that. For example, The Speedy Trial Act mandates that a criminal defendant must be brought to trial within 70 days of the filing of the indictment or the defendant's initial appearance, whichever occurs later. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). If that deadline is not met, the Act provides that the indictment “shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2).

But Kolbe is a civil case and the right of a speedy trial simply doesn't apply. Indeed, civil cases are delayed all the time because criminal trials get fast tracked over civil matters. The courts have a lot of leeway in civil matters. Take a look at Palmer and how long it took to get a district court decision in that case, notwithstanding two petitions for a writ of mandamus and an assignment of an out of district judge. Again 6 months since argument is well within the ball park.

 

[esqappellate]

In other words. Hurry up and wait....

Well, they didn't exactly hurry in the first place. At least the trial judge moved fairly promptly and we didn't have a Palmer situation.

 

[lseries]

It's a big case with big, difficult issues with potential for conflicts in the circuits.

This also seems to me to be the sort of case that is almost guaranteed to be appealed no matter the Fourth Circuit's findings. So they may well want to be sure all their I's are dotted and T's crossed since the Supremes are likely to see it.

 

[esqappellate]

This also seems to me to be the sort of case that is almost guaranteed to be appealed no matter the Fourth Circuit's findings. So they may well want to be sure all their I's are dotted and T's crossed since the Supremes are likely to see it.

Agreed, and not sure the SCT but also for their colleagues on the 4th Circuit who decide any petition for en banc.

 

[pcfixer]

I kinda thought today! End of Sept would be good for me.

 

[DC-W]

I kinda thought today! End of Sept would be good for me.

Friday?

(Someone please cue Rebecca black)