Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Case Closed Statistically
1,169 views
Skip to first unread message
micky
Mar 30, 2014, 2:29:26 PM3/30/14
to
I was reading some miscellaneous case information on one of Maryland's
court webpages and came across a line I didn't understand. The case is
almost 20 years old, and has something to do with child support.
Case Description DSS OBO NAME1 VS NAME2
Case Status:Case Closed Statistically
I think DSS stands for Department of Social Services.
I think OBO stands for On behalf of.
But the last line really gets me. Case closed statistically??
They had hearings or whatever for 3 years, then I think it was closed
statistically, followed by a hiatus for 6 years, a little more activity
over 2 years, and then closed statistically again.
Do they just run statistics on cases like this and figure out the odds
the case will do any good and close the ones that are unlikely to? :-)
That doesn't seem right!!!
I found references in google but no explanation.
(For example, here's why one shouldn't expect much from a general
interest webpage, like answers.yahoo.com (not really worth looking at) :
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120911101733AAgGseQ )
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
court webpages and came across a line I didn't understand. The case is
almost 20 years old, and has something to do with child support.
Case Description DSS OBO NAME1 VS NAME2
Case Status:Case Closed Statistically
I think DSS stands for Department of Social Services.
I think OBO stands for On behalf of.
But the last line really gets me. Case closed statistically??
They had hearings or whatever for 3 years, then I think it was closed
statistically, followed by a hiatus for 6 years, a little more activity
over 2 years, and then closed statistically again.
Do they just run statistics on cases like this and figure out the odds
the case will do any good and close the ones that are unlikely to? :-)
That doesn't seem right!!!
I found references in google but no explanation.
(For example, here's why one shouldn't expect much from a general
interest webpage, like answers.yahoo.com (not really worth looking at) :
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120911101733AAgGseQ )
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
Mike Jacobs
Apr 1, 2014, 12:07:45 AM4/1/14
to
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:29:26 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> I was reading some miscellaneous case information on one of Maryland's
> court webpages and came across a line I didn't understand. The case is
> almost 20 years old, and has something to do with child support.
> Case Description DSS OBO NAME1 VS NAME2
> Case Status:Case Closed Statistically
> I think DSS stands for Department of Social Services.
> I think OBO stands for On behalf of.
Good guesses.
> I was reading some miscellaneous case information on one of Maryland's
> court webpages and came across a line I didn't understand. The case is
> almost 20 years old, and has something to do with child support.
> Case Description DSS OBO NAME1 VS NAME2
> Case Status:Case Closed Statistically
> I think DSS stands for Department of Social Services.
> I think OBO stands for On behalf of.
Many, many child support contested cases are brought by DSS (or whatever they
are called in other states) on behalf of the actual custodial parent (who we'll
call "Mom" even though it could be either sex), because if Mom is on welfare,
one of the conditions of signing up is to give the state the right to pursue
the deadbeat Dad for back-due child support, so that he (the person righfully
responsible for raising his child) reimburses the state for what the state pays
for the child's care via welfare.
> But the last line really gets me. Case closed statistically??
keep statistics on things such as the average length of time a case remains
open before a final judgment, which helps the state-level administrative judges
and/or legislature determine whether one county's court system or another needs
more judges, or a bigger courthouse, or such. "Equity" cases such as domestic
matters, including child-support suits, can skew those statistics because they
can remain "on the docket" indefinitely, for years, even though nothing at all
is happening that uses court resources. So they came up with the "closed
statistically" status for such cases to more accurately reflect the periods of
time when they were simply tucked in a file storage drawer and were not
otherwise "taking up a place" on the court's active docket where it would skew
their performance statistics.
> Do they just run statistics on cases like this and figure out the odds
> the case will do any good and close the ones that are unlikely to? :-)
have ended...
> That doesn't seem right!!!
re-opened at any time by the parties if a new dispute arises. The court retains
ongoing jurisdiction over the matter and there is no need to open a new case.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685
D.F. Manno
Mar 31, 2014, 7:46:40 PM3/31/14
to
In article <sjogj9500a3thgk5l...@4ax.com>,
cases closed statistically include those that are settled without trial
or referred to ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).
<http://www.pgcba.com/pdfs/handbook.pdf>
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
micky <mis...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I was reading some miscellaneous case information on one of Maryland's
> court webpages and came across a line I didn't understand. The case is
> almost 20 years old, and has something to do with child support.
>
> Case Description DSS OBO NAME1 VS NAME2
> Case Status:Case Closed Statistically
>
> I think DSS stands for Department of Social Services.
> I think OBO stands for On behalf of.
>
> But the last line really gets me. Case closed statistically??
A circuit court handbook for Prince George's County, Md., indicates that
> I was reading some miscellaneous case information on one of Maryland's
> court webpages and came across a line I didn't understand. The case is
> almost 20 years old, and has something to do with child support.
>
> Case Description DSS OBO NAME1 VS NAME2
> Case Status:Case Closed Statistically
>
> I think DSS stands for Department of Social Services.
> I think OBO stands for On behalf of.
>
> But the last line really gets me. Case closed statistically??
cases closed statistically include those that are settled without trial
or referred to ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).
<http://www.pgcba.com/pdfs/handbook.pdf>
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
nos...@isp.com
Apr 1, 2014, 11:11:32 AM4/1/14
to
On 30 Mar 2014, micky <mis...@bigfoot.com> said in substance and
asked:
> [ A Maryland court's web page referred to an apparently
> almost 20 years old child support case in which there
> were] hearings or whatever for 3 years, then I think it
Procedural rules applicable to some kinds of judicial proceedings are
such that they terminate finally at some definable point. Call it
permanently terminated (closed) Case1. For the most part, so with
only rare exceptions, litigation between the same parties or their
privities about the same or basically the same subject matter
therefore would require a new/plenary law suit of some kind, i..e.,
separate Case2. HENCE: for record keeping purposes, two separate
judicial proceedings.
Procedural rules applicable to other kinds of judicial proceedings,
e.g., those relating to child support, allow for the reopening for
some purposes of what earlier may have seemed to have been a concluded
case. Call it: (seemingly concluded) Case1. Further proceedings in
what nominally is the same case in this second grouping (class) of
proceedings therefore may have the effect of being a new case even if
the same case in name. Or as the case(s) may be from time to time,
more than one case. FUNCTIONALLY: Case(s) 2 . . . # while in name
still Case1.
And, obviously, the docket of the case(s) to which you refer indicate
that, functionally, it was (were) several different proceedings years
apart even if all under the same case name.
> Do they just run statistics on cases like this and figure out
> the odds the case will do any good and close the ones that
> are unlikely to? :-)
No. }-) The word "statistically" refers to an exercise of, among
other things, analyzing likes that are members of some definable
numerical set compared with other more or less comparable likes that
are members of the same or of a comparable numerical set. ;-,
Further, even in the first grouping of judicial proceedings to which I
generally refer, defining certain kinds of dispositions (e.g., the
grant of a motion for summary judgment) as warranting the
"[statistically] closed" label may be appropriate for the below
summarized purposes. And so generally speaking:
To help evaluate judicial performance (e.g., How many cases did you
close today, Hey, Hey, Hey?!?) and analyze and help legislators and
court administrators and the public determine the allocation of
financial and other resources to the courts, it obviously can make
sense to refer to a proceeding as closed (for statistical purposes)
even if in name because of the nature of the case not necessarily
closed (terminated) for all purposes.
And surely this must have occurred to you? ;-P
asked:
> [ A Maryland court's web page referred to an apparently
> almost 20 years old child support case in which there
> were] hearings or whatever for 3 years, then I think it
> was closed statistically, followed by a hiatus for 6 years,
> a little more activity over 2 years, and then closed statistically
> again.
>
> Case closed statistically?? . . . . I didn't understand . . . .
> a little more activity over 2 years, and then closed statistically
> again.
>
Procedural rules applicable to some kinds of judicial proceedings are
such that they terminate finally at some definable point. Call it
permanently terminated (closed) Case1. For the most part, so with
only rare exceptions, litigation between the same parties or their
privities about the same or basically the same subject matter
therefore would require a new/plenary law suit of some kind, i..e.,
separate Case2. HENCE: for record keeping purposes, two separate
judicial proceedings.
Procedural rules applicable to other kinds of judicial proceedings,
e.g., those relating to child support, allow for the reopening for
some purposes of what earlier may have seemed to have been a concluded
case. Call it: (seemingly concluded) Case1. Further proceedings in
what nominally is the same case in this second grouping (class) of
proceedings therefore may have the effect of being a new case even if
the same case in name. Or as the case(s) may be from time to time,
more than one case. FUNCTIONALLY: Case(s) 2 . . . # while in name
still Case1.
And, obviously, the docket of the case(s) to which you refer indicate
that, functionally, it was (were) several different proceedings years
apart even if all under the same case name.
> Do they just run statistics on cases like this and figure out
> the odds the case will do any good and close the ones that
> are unlikely to? :-)
other things, analyzing likes that are members of some definable
numerical set compared with other more or less comparable likes that
are members of the same or of a comparable numerical set. ;-,
Further, even in the first grouping of judicial proceedings to which I
generally refer, defining certain kinds of dispositions (e.g., the
grant of a motion for summary judgment) as warranting the
"[statistically] closed" label may be appropriate for the below
summarized purposes. And so generally speaking:
To help evaluate judicial performance (e.g., How many cases did you
close today, Hey, Hey, Hey?!?) and analyze and help legislators and
court administrators and the public determine the allocation of
financial and other resources to the courts, it obviously can make
sense to refer to a proceeding as closed (for statistical purposes)
even if in name because of the nature of the case not necessarily
closed (terminated) for all purposes.
And surely this must have occurred to you? ;-P
0 new messages