Talk:Docket (court)

[Untitled]

--Patentdude 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not sure if these fall under WP:RS, so I thought I'd place them here for discussion instead of in the article.

• Docket Law & Legal Definition
• Legal Definition of Docket
• Laws of the State of New York, Volume 1 (Gbooks)
• Acts passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (GBooks)
• The State Bar Court of California
• ACLU Appeals Decision Allowing Government to Keep Court Processes Secret (It's a blog, but I didn't want to exclude it, just in case)
• Berkeley County Ninth Judicial Circuit Courts Access
• The American and English encyclopedia of law (Gbooks)

I'll keep searching, but for now those are what I have found. - SudoGhost™ 08:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stubborn Children: Controlling Delinquency in the United States, 1640-1981 (Gbooks)
• Records and briefs of the United States Supreme Court (Gbooks)
• The Southwestern Reporter: National Reporter System, Volume 46, Volume 46 (Gbooks)
• The Changing Face of U.S. Courts (Gbooks)

These are a few more. I wanted to discuss these before searching for more, if necessary. - SudoGhost™ 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"cited source does not even mention dockets"

To which source were you referring? The American and English encyclopedia of law goes into a good bit of detail about dockets, and Juvenile Court and Social Welfare: Dynamics of Progressive Reform defines dockets in the context of the court systems (specifically the juvenile courts). - SudoGhost™ 11:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Docket" as used by NTSB

NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) uses the term "docket" in a way that is not any of the meanings given in the article, e.g. in this typical text from a NTSB press release: "As part of its continuing investigation into the crash of a Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation G-IV that occurred in Bedford, Massachusetts, the National Transportation Safety Board has opened the accident docket, releasing about 800 pages of documents.". About 800 pages of documents is hardly a summary, an agenda, a schedule nor any other of the given meanings (in the Wiktionary entry) but rather some kind of repository. Some similarity to PACER mentioned in the article exists, however. I'm leaving eventual update of the article for someone with better knowledge of English language. --Sivullinen (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about "docket" as used by courts in the judicial branch.

Administrative agencies are in the executive branch. Several agencies use the term "docket" to describe a series of filings under a particular case number, regardless of whether the agency is acting in an investigative or adjudicative capacity or both with respect to the case. But "docket" in that context is somewhat different from what's described here in this article.

Please read up on Separation of powers under the United States Constitution.--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand the 'wrong place' argument but I don't know what would be a better way to solve the issue that the 'executive branch' usage of "docket" seems to explained nowhere in Wikipedia. A new article of its own is hardly justified and I doubt there's any existing article that could be linked from the Docket disambiguation page. --Sivullinen (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What you're getting at is the larger problem of how in American law, executive branch administrative agencies include legislative and judicial functions in the same agency, which is already adequately explained in other articles in Wikipedia. That in turn seriously complicates the mastery of other administrative law concepts like what the term "docket" means in an administrative context, but Wikipedia is ill-suited to address that because Wikipedia is also not a textbook. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

So I put the issue on the Wiktionary tea room table (Wiktionary has an entry for 'docket' and explanations of meanings in law but no coverage of the different meaning in executive branch administrative agencies). --Sivullinen (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Docket (court). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718231232/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/calendar.htm to http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/calendar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222230922/http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/courtcal/calstat.php to http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/courtcal/calstat.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719193931/http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/webcal/calhome.htm to http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/webcal/calhome.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806231414/http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/calendar.php to http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/calendar.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121153745/http://www.ianb.uscourts.gov/content/ to http://www.ianb.uscourts.gov/content/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718054720/http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/judgecal.nsf/main/page to http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/judgecal.nsf/main/page
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iasb.uscourts.gov/calendars/courtroom.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)