Create New Comment

 

Comments to Proposed UTCR Rules
Previous Page


Hide details for Chapter 5Chapter 5
5.100 (03/23/2015) - I submit that the rule adds to much time to the equation. Two weeks is simply unnecessary. The same rule could be completed, and often is, in the current 3 day time period. In my practice, most of th...
5.100 (03/23/2015) - The proposed revisions is unnecessary, in my view. It's also time-consuming and over-complicated. I'm a pro tem judge, and I receive and sign proposed orders and judgments all the time. The submittin...
UTCR 5.100 (03/26/2015) - Lengthening service and submission for proposed orders and judgments to 14 days from 3 days is a terrible idea. No one needs two weeks to review a proposed order or judgment to determine if they agre...
5.100 (03/26/2015) - This rule is unnecessary and prejudicial to the fair administration of justice. It is guaranteed to build delay into the system. Too many lawyers will take advantage of the rule and purposely and nee...
5.100 (03/26/2015) - This rule is unnecessary and prejudicial to the fair administration of justice. It is guaranteed to build delay into the system. Too many lawyers will take advantage of the rule and purposely and nee...
5.100 (03/26/2015) - The present time allowance works just fine. Don't mess with it. Objections to the form of an order should be brought before the judge who ruled on the matter while the case is still fresh in their mi...
5.100 (03/27/2015) - As proposed, there is an inconsistency between the 14-day deadline for the drafting party to serve a proposed judgment or order on the opposing party set forth in UTCR 5.100(1)(a) and the 14-day dead...
5.100 (03/31/2015) - You might consider adding to the proposed out-of-cycle revision, where service pursuant to ORCP 9 is specified in 5.100(1)(a) and 5.100(2)(a)(ii), the option to serve "pursuant to ORCP 9 or UTCR 21.1...