7 Guam Code Ann. § 4101
Terms Used In 7 Guam Code Ann. § 4101
- Affirmed: In the practice of the appellate courts, the decree or order is declared valid and will stand as rendered in the lower court.
- Equitable: Pertaining to civil suits in "equity" rather than in "law." In English legal history, the courts of "law" could order the payment of damages and could afford no other remedy. See damages. A separate court of "equity" could order someone to do something or to cease to do something. See, e.g., injunction. In American jurisprudence, the federal courts have both legal and equitable power, but the distinction is still an important one. For example, a trial by jury is normally available in "law" cases but not in "equity" cases. Source: U.S. Courts
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Remainder: An interest in property that takes effect in the future at a specified time or after the occurrence of some event, such as the death of a life tenant.
her election. Thereafter a Presiding Judge shall serve a term of three (3) years, unless he or she is elected to fill a vacancy, in which case he or she shall serve only the remainder of the unexpired term of his or her predecessor. No person may be elected to consecutive terms as a Presiding Judge.
(b) If the Judicial Council determines that additional Judges are required for the proper dispatch of business, the Chief Justice shall so notify I Maga’lahi [the Governor], who, if he or she concurs, shall appoint a new Judge as in the case of a vacancy.
(c) If, for any reason, a vacancy is created in the Superior Court and the Judicial Council determines that the business of the Court is such that no new Judge is required to fill the vacancy, the Chief Justice shall so declare, and upon such declaration, no Judge shall be appointed to fill the vacancy until the Judicial Council again determines that a need exists and proceeds in the manner prescribed by Subsection (b) of this § 4101.
(d) All Judges sitting on the effective date of this Chapter shall continue to sit for the remainder of their respective terms without need for reappointment, reconfirmation or additional declarations required by this § 4101.
(e) Enactment of Rules on Case Management and Disposition. The Supreme Court shall enact rules governing the efficient dispatch of the Superior Court’s business, including the following:
(1) time frames and deadlines for matters taken under submission to provide speedy and efficient disposition of cases;
(2) compilation of data and statistics regarding the court and each judge’s performance and publication of the same on the Supreme Court website. Said compilation shall include, but not be limited to, the number of motions filed in cases pending before each judge, the number of motions and trials to the court which each judge has had under submission more than sixty (60) days, and the number of motions and trials to the court each judge has had under submission more than one hundred twenty (120) days
prompt and equitable assignment and distribution of cases and workload and time off among the judges;
(3) assignment, management, distribution, processing, scheduling and disposition of cases in the Superior Court;
(4) whether a referee or hearing officer may hear a case; and
(5) any other matters which affect the prompt, fair and just disposition of cases in the Superior Court.
SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993). Amended (as CCP § 81) by P.L. 22-075:2 (Mar. 3, 1994). Subsection (b) repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-139:30 (Feb. 7, 1998). Subsection (c) repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-139:31 (Feb. 7, 1998). Subsections (b) and (c)
amended by P.L. 27-031:11 (Oct. 31, 2003). Subsection (e) added by
P.L. 27-031:12 (Oct. 31, 2003), and repealed and reenacted by P.L. 28-
137:1 (July 11, 2006).
COURT DECISIONS: The Supreme Court, in Pangelinan v. Gutierrez,
2000 Guam 11 (2000); affirmed by the Ninth Circuit as 276 F.3d 534 (1/10/2002), held P.L. 24-139 not to have existed at all as a public law
because it was “”pocket vetoed”” by the Governor. Therefore, this section
reverts to the way it read upon its original enactment as there were no amendments prior to P.L. 24-139. The main difference is to return the authority to the Chief Justice from the Judicial Council.
1985 SOURCE: New section, but compare CCP § 81 in part.
1985 COMMENT: The confusion arising over the appointment of Judge Diaz (August 1980) and the appointment of Attorney Crain (who was not confirmed by the Legislature) (December 1982) has shown that there is no clear means by which a new judicial position is created. Judge Diaz was appointed and confirmed as judge before any new position was funded. However, the funding was authorized by the Legislature before the new judge was sworn in and took office.
To remedy this situation P.L. 15-140:2, in amending § 81 of the CCP, stated that there are “”a presiding judge and 5 additional judges””. However, with the resignation of Judge Benson, there was no hurry in filling that vacancy because all concerned believed that the business of the court did not require an additional judge. Therefore, this Section takes care of not only increased judicial business, but also decreased judicial business. This Section will also take care of the problem occurring in
1982 when the Bar Association still believed that no new judge was required, but the Governor disagreed.
7 Guam Code Ann. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CH. 4 SUPERIOR COURT