Glad this is helpful and thank you for the feedback.
Regarding Division, I have seen this level/name most often used between “Court” and “Case Category”. For example, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas has a General Division, Domestic Relations Division, and Probate Division. Beneath these
“Division” they have case categories/types (e.g., the Probate Division has Guardianship, Conservatorship, etc.). Pennsylvania is similar to Ohio for Court of Common Pleas. This is consistent with Jim Price/Arizona note. There are others that follow this
pattern (e.g., Washington State, Washington, D.C.)
Georgia used to (maybe still does) use “Division” to mean “Case Category” and “Case Category” to mean “Case Type” (using terms from the original email).
In California, CCMS and Tyler use Case Category and Case Type as described in the original email. However, JTI switches this, using Case Type as Case Category and Case Category as Case Type. This is a joy when writing requirements for
developers. 😊
“Department” is used in California to mean a Judge or group of Judges and is often used for case assignment or scheduling. Perhaps California has corrupted me, though some might say it is the other way around.
😊
From: Price, Jim [mailto:JPrice@courts.az.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:59 AM
To: 'McMillan, Jim' <jmcmillan@ncsc.org>; Todd Vincent <tvincent@onelegal.com>; 'James E Cabral' <jec@mtgmc.com>; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: ECF 5: CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText
Thanks Todd. This does help.
Jim M’s observation of Department correlating to a Division (Civil, Family, Criminal, Probate, Drug Court, etc.) is consistent with Arizona’s court system. Location, as you’ve described, works for identifying a specific court within a
county that contains several court locations.
It should be clear by your examples and descriptions, the table derived from Jim C’s work, and the Rosetta Stone Arizona shared that we (TC) must have a common language if the ECF specifications and resulting schema we develop are going
to be meaningful and actionable. We all use words all the time to explain concepts. Words have meaning and context is everything (e.g., Case Category, Case Type, Case Subtype, etc.).
Jim
From: McMillan, Jim [mailto:jmcmillan@ncsc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:47 AM
To: Todd Vincent <tvincent@onelegal.com>; Price, Jim <JPrice@courts.az.gov>; 'James E Cabral' <jec@mtgmc.com>;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: ECF 5: CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText
Thanks Todd. I like it. I would say that perhaps Department/Division is used when say there are special divisions such as Drug Court? Many places they aren’t separate court organizations but rather integrated into the criminal court system.
Good stuff. – Jim M
From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Todd Vincent
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Price, Jim <JPrice@courts.az.gov>; 'James E Cabral' <jec@mtgmc.com>;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 5: CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText
Jims, All:
1. The following may be interesting:
2. Case Type can go first and Case Category second. Does not really matter.
2.1. No harm in having Subcategory or Subtype.
2.2. Useful to have a “Case Class” which generically identifies the group (see California / Georgia examples below). Could have a Case Subclass.
2.3. Some courts have a “Division” that could go between “Court” and “Case Category” or could be considered the same as “Case Category.”
3. Department often means one or more Judges. Often used for Scheduling. Less often or not used when Filing.
4. Typically see Location, although can envision this as less important in the future. Location can also be associated with a Zip Code.
5. The combination is usually associated with an Court ID or Court Key, unique with the Court Policy / Implementation that can be used to associate Court Policy values.
6. The combination can be used to disambiguate case numbers. Nice thing about this is that all data is “real” – there are no made up UUIDs or other technical identifiers – and you still get uniqueness. Not to say that you cannot or should
not use technical identifiers; only to say that this is a way to round those identifiers in the real world.
7. Examples (without Department):
State: California
County: Orange
Court: Superior
Case Category: Civil Limited
Case Type: Contract
Location: Central Justice Center
Case Class: Civil
State: California
County: San Diego
Court: Superior
Case Category: Probate
Case Type: Conservatorship
Location: Central
Case Class: Probate
State: California
County: San Diego
Court: Superior
Case Category: Juvenile
Case Type: Delinquency
Location: Central
Case Class: Juvenile
Notice the difference between California and Georgia. In California, Juvenile is a case category, whereas in Georgia Juvenile is its own court. While not “standard”, this is accurate to the court structure in those states.
State: Georgia
County: Appling
Court: Juvenile
Case Category: Delinquency
Case Type:
Location: Appling County Courthouse
Case Class: Juvenile
State: Georgia
County: Baldwin
Court: Superior
Case Category: Civil
Case Type: Tort – Automobile Accident
Location: Baldwin County Courthouse
Case Class: Civil
State: Texas
County: Bexar
Court: County Court at Law
Case Category: Condemnation
Case Type:
Location: Bexar Courthouse
Case Class:
Thanks,
Todd
From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Price, Jim
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:19 PM
To: 'James E Cabral' <jec@mtgmc.com>;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 5: CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText
Jim,
I believe the CaseCategoryCode.gc will work for Arizona, but before committing to a definitive answer, I have a couple of questions that require clarification. Perhaps a gc primer is in order…
- Each of the “attributes” (or elements) associated with CaseCategoryCode (i.e., CaseType, CaseCategory, CaseSubCategory, and CaseSubType) appear to indicate they are required (Use=”required”). In reality,
not all of these “attribute values” are required. Does “Use=required” mean that “attribute” or element values that have no value to communicate must be present but empty in XML messages?
- From a Court Policy perspective, must each CaseCategoryCode “attribute” or element value be pre-defined? In other words, based on the table below, if a message contains ‘Non-IV-D’ in the element representing
CaseCategoryCode, does this mean that we would know, without having any of the other “attribute” or element values contained in the table, that CaseType is ‘FamilyLaw’, CaseCategory is ‘Domestic Relations’, CaseSubCategory is ‘Dissolution with Children’, and
CaseSubtype is ‘Non-IV-D’?
|
CaseCategoryCode |
Definition |
CaseType |
CaseCategory |
CaseSubCategory |
CaseSubtype |
|
Civil Penalty |
Civil Penalty |
Civil Penalty |
Civil Penalty |
Contract, Civil Penalty |
|
|
Non-IV-D |
Non-IV-D for both Dissolution and Paternity |
FamilyLaw |
Domestic Relations |
Dissolution with Children |
Non-IV-D |
|
Open Stated |
Probate |
Will |
Will |
Open Stated |
Non-IV-D |
|
Mental Health Adult |
Probate |
Probate |
Mental Health |
Mental Health Adult |
|
Thanks,
Jim
From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 9:19 AM
To: Price, Jim <JPrice@courts.az.gov>;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: ECF 5: CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText
Jim,
Here is my attempt to map the Rosetta stone to a version of CaseCategoryCode.gc for Arizona. Does this help?
__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532
From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Price, Jim <JPrice@courts.az.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:28:28 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] ECF 5: CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText
Jim Cabral,
Per today’s TC conference call, please find the attached “ECF TC - Arizona CRMDE Rosetta Stone” document. The Rosetta Stone is used in Arizona to correlate CaseGeneralCategoryText, CaseCategoryText, and CaseSubCategoryText values across
disparate CRMDEs (a Federated model approach). Note that the
highlighted text refers to the values used to set Court Policy for each of the identified CRMDEs. Please note that there are other CRMDEs not yet accounted for in the attached Rosetta Stone document.
Regards,
Jim Price