Source: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/11/chapters/9/
Timestamp: 2019-11-16 01:48:57
Document Index: 54186067

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 111', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 11', '§ 111', '§ 2', '§ 138', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 11', '§ 111', '§ 16', '§ 1', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 1', '§ 11', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 11', '§ 111', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 111', '§ 1', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§\u20021', '§\u20021', '§\u20021', '§ 3', '§ 406', '§ 4', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 111', '§ 1', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 111', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§\u2002199', '§ 11', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§\u2002199', '§ 11', '§ 3', '§\u200211', '§\u200211', '§ 1', '§ 11', '§\u200211']

D.C. Law Library - Chapter 9. Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
§§ 11-901 – 11-911
§§ 11-921 – 11-925
§§ 11-941 – 11-947
§ 11–901. Continuation of courts; court of record; seal.
The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court are consolidated in a single court to be known as the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (hereafter in this title referred to as the “Superior Court”). The Superior Court shall be a court of record in the District of Columbia and shall have a single seal.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 482, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111.)
1981 Ed., § 11-901.
1973 Ed., § 11-901.
This section is referenced in § 7-201.
Continuation of District of Columbia court system, see § 1-207.18.
§ 11–902. Organization of the court.
(a) In general. — The Superior Court shall consist of the following:
(b) Branches. — The divisions of the Superior Court may be divided into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule prescribe.
(c) Designation of presiding judge of Family Court. — The chief judge of the Superior Court shall designate one of the judges assigned to the Family Court of the Superior Court to serve as the presiding judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court.
(d) Jurisdiction described. — The Family Court shall have original jurisdiction over the actions, applications, determinations, adjudications, and proceedings described in § 11-1101. Actions, applications, determinations, adjudications, and proceedings being assigned to cross-jurisdictional units established by the Superior Court, including the Domestic Violence Unit, on the date of enactment of this section [January 8, 2002], may continue to be so assigned after the date of enactment of this section [Jan. 8, 2002].
1981 Ed., § 11-902.
1973 Ed., § 11-902.
“The Superior Court shall consist of the following divisions: Civil Division, Criminal Division, Family Division, Probate Division, and Tax Division. The divisions of the Superior Court may be divided into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule prescribe.”
§ 11–903. Composition.
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall consist of a chief judge and 61 associate judges.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 482, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111; Mar. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 65, Pub. L. 98-235, § 2; Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1283, Pub. L. 101-168, § 138; Dec. 13, 1989, 103 Stat. 1967, Pub. L. 101-232,§ 1; Apr. 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 696, Pub. L. 110-201, § 1.)
1981 Ed., § 11-903.
1973 Ed., § 11-903.
Pub. Law 110-201 substituted “61” for “fifty-eight”.
§ 11–904. Judges; service; compensation.
(a) The chief judge and the judges of the Superior Court shall serve as provided in Chapter 15 of this title.
(b) Judges of the Superior Court shall be compensated at the rate prescribed by law for judges of United States district courts. The chief judge, while serving in that position, shall receive an additional $500 per annum.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 482, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111; Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3228, Pub. L. 99-573, § 16(b); June 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-266, § 1(b)(9), 108 Stat. 713.)
1981 Ed., § 11-904.
1973 Ed., § 11-904.
This section is referenced in § 1-207.18.
§ 11–905. Oath of judges.
Each judge of the Superior Court, when appointed shall take the oath prescribed for judges of courts of the United States.
1981 Ed., § 11-905.
1973 Ed., § 11-905.
§ 11–906. Administration by chief judge; discharge of duties.
(a) The chief judge shall administer and superintend the business of the Superior Court, as provided in Chapter 17 of this title. The chief judge shall attend to the discharge of the duties pertaining to the office of chief judge and perform such additional judicial work as the chief judge is able to perform.
(b) The chief judge shall, insofar as is consistent with this title, arrange and divide the business of the Superior Court and fix the time of sessions of the Family Court and the various divisions and branches of the Superior Court.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 483, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111; June 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-266, §§ 1(b)(10), (11), 108 Stat. 713; Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2100, Pub. L. 107-114, § 2(b).)
1981 Ed., § 11-906.
1973 Ed., § 11-906.
Pub. L. 107-114, in subsec. (b), inserted “the Family Court and” before “the various divisions”.
(a) When the chief judge of the court is absent or disabled, the chief judge’s duties shall devolve upon and be performed by such associate judge as the chief judge may designate in writing. In the event that the chief judge is (1) disqualified or suspended, or (2) unable or fails to make such a designation, the chief judge’s duties shall devolve upon and be performed by the associate judges of the court according to the seniority of their original commissions.
(b) A chief judge whose term as chief judge has expired shall continue to serve until redesignated or until a successor has been designated. When there is a vacancy in the position of chief judge, the position shall be filled temporarily as provided in subsection (a).
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 483, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111; June 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-266, §§ 1(b)(12), (13), 108 Stat. 713.)
1981 Ed., § 11-907.
1973 Ed., § 11-907.
This section is referenced in § 11-911 and § 11-947.
(a) Number of judges. —
(1) In general. — The number of judges serving on the Family Court of the Superior Court shall be not more than 15.
(2) Emergency reassignment. — If the chief judge determines that, in order to carry out the intent and purposes of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, an emergency exists such that the number of judges needed on the Family Court of the Superior Court at any time is more than 15—
(B) the chief judge shall, within 30 days of emergency temporary reassignment pursuant to subparagraph (A), submit a report to the President and Congress describing—
(3) Composition. — The total number of judges on the Superior Court may exceed the limit on such judges specified in § 11-903 to the extent necessary to maintain the requirements of this subsection if—
(B) the Chief Judge of the Superior Court—
(b) Qualifications. — The chief judge may not assign an individual to serve on the Family Court of the Superior Court or handle a Family Court case unless—
(2) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the individual intends to serve the full term of service, except that this paragraph shall not apply with respect to individuals serving as senior judges under § 11-1504, individuals serving as temporary judges under § 11-908, and any other judge serving in another division of the Superior Court who is reassigned on an emergency temporary basis pursuant to subsection (a)(2);
(3) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the individual will participate in the ongoing training programs carried out for judges of the Family Court under § 11-1104(c); and
(4) the individual meets the requirements of section 433 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act [D.C. Official Code § 1-204.33].
(c) Term of service. —
(1) In general. — Except as provided in paragraph (2), an individual assigned to serve as a judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court shall serve for a term of 3 years.
(2) Special rule for judges serving on Superior Court the date of the enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 [January 8, 2002]. —
(A) In general. — An individual assigned to serve as a judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is serving as a judge of the Superior Court on the date of the enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 [January 8, 2002], shall serve for a term of not fewer than 3 years.
(B) Reduction of period for judges serving in Family Division. — In the case of a judge of the Superior Court who is serving as a judge in the Family Division of the Court on the date of the enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 [January 8, 2002], the 3-year term applicable under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be reduced by the length of any period of consecutive service as a judge in such Division immediately preceding the date of the enactment of such Act [January 8, 2002].
(3) Assignment for additional service. — After the term of service of a judge of the Family Court (as described in paragraph (1)) expires, at the judge’s request and with the approval of the chief judge, the judge may be assigned for additional service on the Family Court for a period of such duration (consistent with section 431(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act [§ 1-204.31(c)]) as the chief judge may provide.
(4) Permitting service on Family Court for entire term. — At the request of the judge and with the approval of the chief judge, a judge may serve as a judge of the Family Court for the judge’s entire term of service as a judge of the Superior Court under section 431(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act [§ 1-204.31(c)].
(d) Reassignment to other divisions. — The chief judge may reassign a judge of the Family Court to any division of the Superior Court if the chief judge determines that in the interest of justice the judge is unable to continue serving in the Family Court.
(Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2101, Pub. L. 107-114, § 3(a); Aug. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 847, Pub. L. 107-206, § 406; Dec. 12, 2012, 126 Stat. 1611, Pub. L. 112-229, § 4(a).)
This section is referenced in § 11-908.
Pub. L. 107-206, in subsec. (b)(4), substituted “section 433 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act” for “ section 11-1501(b)”.
The 2012 amendment by Pub. L. 112-229 substituted “3 years” for “5 years” in (c)(1).
Section 2(b) to (d) of Pub. L. 107-114 provided: (b) “PLAN FOR FAMILY COURT TRANSITION.— (1) “IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act Jan. 8, 2002, the chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress a transition plan for the Family Court of the Superior Court, and shall include in the plan the following: (A) “The chief judge’s determination of the role and function of the presiding judge of the Family Court. (B) “The chief judge’s determination of the number of judges needed to serve on the Family Court. (C) “The chief judge’s determination of the number of magistrate judges of the Family Court needed for appointment under section 11-1732, District of Columbia Code. (D) “The chief judge’s determination of the appropriate functions of such magistrate judges, together with the compensation of and other personnel matters pertaining to such magistrate judges. (E) “A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing needs (including the needs for both judicial and nonjudicial personnel) for the Family Court, including a description of how the Superior Court will handle the one family, one judge requirement pursuant to section 11-1104(a) for all cases and proceedings assigned to the Family Court. (F) “A plan for space, equipment, and other physical plant needs and requirements during the transition, as determined in consultation with the Administrator of General Services. (G) “An analysis of the number of magistrate judges needed under the expedited appointment procedures established under section 6(d) in reducing the number of pending actions and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Family Court (as described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia, as amended by subsection (a)). (H) “Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (2), a proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court of child abuse and neglect actions pending as of the date of enactment of this Act (which were initiated in the Family Division but remain pending before judges serving in other Divisions of the Superior Court as of such date) in a manner consistent with applicable Federal and District of Columbia law and best practices, including best practices developed by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (I) “An estimate of the number of cases for which the deadline for disposition or transfer to the Family Court, specified in paragraph (2)(B), cannot be met and the reasons why such deadline cannot be met.
“(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN FOR TRANSFER OR DISPOSITION OF ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS TO FAMILY COURT.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the chief judge of the Superior Court and the presiding judge of the Family Court shall take such steps as may be required as provided in the proposal for disposition of actions and proceedings under paragraph (1)(H) to ensure that each child abuse and neglect action of the Superior Court (as described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia Code, as amended by subsection (a)) is transferred to the Family Court or otherwise disposed of as provided in the proposal for disposition of actions and proceedings under paragraph (1)(H) to ensure that each child abuse and neglect action of the Superior Court (as described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia Code, as amended by subsection (a)) is transferred to the Family Court or otherwise disposed of as provided in subparagraph (B).
“(B) DEADLINE.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.— Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act and except as provided in subparagraph (C), no child abuse or neglect action shall remain pending with a judge not serving on the Family Court upon the expiration of 18 months after the filing of the transition plan required under paragraph (1).
“(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.— The chief judge of the Superior Court should make every effort to provide for the earliest practicable disposition of actions. Nothing in this subparagraph shall preclude the immediate transfer of cases to the Family Court, particularly cases which have been filed with the court for less than 6 months prior to the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 8, 2002].
“(C) RETAINED CASES.—
“Child abuse and neglect cases that were initiated in the Family Division but remain pending before judges, including senior judges as defined in section 11-1504, District of Columbia Code, in other Divisions of the Superior Court as of the date of enactment of this Act may remain before judges, including senior judges, in such other Divisions when—
“(i) the case remains at all times in full compliance with Public Law 105-89, if applicable; and
“(ii) the chief judge determines, in consultation with the presiding judge of the Family Court, based on the record in the case and any unique expertise, training, or knowledge of the case that the judge might have, that permitting the judge to retain the case would lead to permanent placement of the child more quickly than reassignment to a judge in the Family Court.
“(D) PRIORITY FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS.—
“The chief judge of the Superior Court, in consultation with the presiding judge of the Family Court, shall give priority consideration to the disposition or transfer of the following actions and proceedings:
“(i) The action or proceeding involves an allegation of abuse or neglect.
“(ii) The action or proceeding was initiated in the family division prior to the 2-year period which ends on the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 8, 2002].
“(iii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is assigned as of the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 8, 2002] is not assigned to the Family Division.
“(E) PROGRESS REPORTS.—
“The chief judge of the Superior Court shall submit reports to the President, to the Committee on Appropriations of each House, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives at 6-month intervals for a period of 2 years after the date of submission of the transition plan required under paragraph (1) on the progress made towards disposing of actions or proceedings described in subparagraph (B).
“(F) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—
“Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the chief judge, in consultation with the presiding judge of the Family Court, from transferring actions or proceedings pending before judges outside the Family Court at the enactment of this Act which do not involve allegations of abuse and neglect but which would otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of the Family Court to judges in the Family Court prior to the deadline as defined in subparagraph 2(B), particularly if such transfer would result in more efficient resolution of such actions or proceedings.
“(3) EFFECTIVE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.—
“The chief judge of the Superior Court may not take any action to implement the transition plan under this subsection until the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date the chief judge submits the plan to the President and Congress under paragraph (1).
“(c) TRANSITION TO REQUIRED NUMBER OF JUDGES.—
“(1) ANALYSIS BY CHIEF JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT.—
The chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall include in the transition plan prepared under subsection (b)—
“(A) the chief judge’s determination of the number of individuals serving as judges of the Superior Court who—
“(i) meet the qualifications for judges of the Family Court of the Superior Court under section 11-908A, District of Columbia Code (as added by subsection (a)); and
“(ii) are willing and able to serve on the Family Court; and
“(B) if the chief judge determines that the number of individuals described in subparagraph (A) is less than 15, a request that he Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the President nominate (in accordance with section 433 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act) such additional number of individuals to serve on the Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of the Family Court under section 11-908A, District of Columbia Code, as may be required to enable the chief judge to make the required number of assignments.
“(2) ROLE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION.—
“For purposes of section 434(d)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the submission of a request from the chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under paragraph (1)(B) shall be deemed to create a number of vacancies in the position of judge of the Superior Court equal to the number of additional appointments so requested by the chief judge, except that the deadline for the submission by the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission of nominees to fill such vacancies shall be 90 days after the creation of such vacancies. In carrying out this paragraph, the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission shall recruit individuals for possible nomination and appointment to the Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of the Family Court of the Superior Court.
“(d) REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—
“Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit to Congress and the chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia a report on the implementation of this Act (including the implementation of the transition plan under subsection (b)), and shall include in the report the following:
“(A) An analysis of the procedures used to make the initial appointments of judges of the Family Court under this Act and the amendments made by this Act, including an analysis of the time required to make such appointments and the effect of the qualification requirements for judges of the Court (including requirements relating to the length of service on the Court) on the time required to make such appointments.
“(B) An analysis of the impact of magistrate judges for the Family Court (including the expedited initial appointment of magistrate judges for the Court under section 6(d)) on the workload of judges and other personnel of the Court.
“(C) An analysis of the number of judges needed for the Family Court, including an analysis of how the number may be affected by the qualification requirements for judges, the availability of magistrate judges, and other provisions of this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
“(D) An analysis of the timeliness of the resolution and disposition of pending actions and proceedings required under the transition plan (as described in paragraphs (1)(I) and (2) of subsection (b)), including an analysis of the effect of the availability of magistrate judges on the time required to resolve and dispose of such actions and proceedings.
“(2) SUBMISSION TO CHIEF JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT.—
“Prior to submitting the report under paragraph (1) to Congress, the Comptroller General shall provide a preliminary version of the report to the chief judge of the Superior Court and shall take any comments and recommendations of the chief judge into consideration in preparing the final version of the report.”
Section 4(b) of Pub. L. 112-229 provided that the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any individual serving as a judge on the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on or after the date of the enactment of the Act [Dec. 12, 2012].
§ 11–909. Meetings and reports.
(a) The judges of the Superior Court shall meet upon the call of the chief judge, but not less than once each month, to consider matters relating to the business and operations of the court. The court may by rule require additional meetings.
(b) Each associate judge shall submit to the chief judge such reports and data as the chief judge may request. Each judge shall submit a monthly written report to the chief judge and the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure which shall be in a form prescribed by the chief judge after consultation with the Commission and which shall set forth the duties performed by the reporting judge as follows:
(1) The number of days’ attendance in court of the judge during the month covered.
(2) The division and branch (if any) of the court which the judge attended.
(3) The number of hours per day of the judge’s attendance.
(4) The number and type of matters disposed of by the judge during the months covered.
(5) Such other data as the chief judge may require.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 483, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111; June 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-266, §§ 1(b)(15), (16), 108 Stat. 713.)
1981 Ed., § 11-909.
1973 Ed., § 11-909.
Each judge of the Superior Court may appoint and remove a personal law clerk and a personal secretary.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 484, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 111.)
1981 Ed., § 11-910.
1973 Ed., § 11-910.
(b) In a civil action begun in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia during the thirty-month period beginning on the effective date of the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970, the court may certify the action to the Superior Court if it appears to the satisfaction of the United States District Court at or subsequent to any pretrial hearing, but before the trial thereof, that —
1981 Ed., § 11-922.
1973 Ed., § 11-922.
“The effective date of the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970” referred to throughout this section, means, as set forth in § 199(c) of the Act, the first day of the seventh month which began after the enactment of the Act.
§ 11–923. Criminal jurisdiction; commitment.
(2) The Superior Court shall not have jurisdiction of any criminal case under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia begun in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under section 11-502(2) by the return of an indictment or the filing of an information during the eighteen-month period beginning on such effective date.
(c)(1) With respect to any criminal case over which the Superior Court has jurisdiction, that court may make preliminary examinations and commit offenders, either for trial or for further examination, and may release or detain offenders in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 23.
(2) With respect to any criminal case over which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction, the Superior Court (A) may make preliminary examinations and commit offenders, either for trial or for further examination, but only during the eighteen-month period beginning on the effective date of the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970, and (B) may release or detain offenders in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 23.
1981 Ed., § 11-923.
1973 Ed., § 11-923.
“The effective date of the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970,” referred to throughout this section, means, as set forth in § 199(c) of the Act, the first day of the seventh month which began after the enactment of the Act.
§ 11–924. Jurisdiction with respect to violations of the Rules and Regulations of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
The Superior Court has jurisdiction with respect to any violation, committed in the District of Columbia, of the rules and regulations adopted by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority under section 76(e) of title III of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact.
(June 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 674, Pub. L. 94-306, § 3(a).)
1981 Ed., § 11-924.
1973 Ed., § 11-924.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact, referred to at the end of this section, is codified in § 1-2431.
§ 11–925. Rules regarding certain pending child custody cases.
(a) In any pending case involving custody over a minor child or the visitation rights of a parent of a minor child in the Superior Court which is described in subsection (b) [of this section]—
(1) at anytime after the child attains 13 years of age, the party to the case who is described in subsection (b)(1) [of this section] may not have custody over, or visitation rights with, the child without the child’s consent; and
(b) A case described in this subsection is a case in which—
1981 Ed., § 11-925.
Elizabeth Morgan Act: Legislation that prohibited noncustodial parent from obtaining visitation with daughter against her wishes, and in face of unproven allegations of sexual abuse, after she had turned thirteen, thereby effectively stigmatizing parent as child abuser and unfit parent, was enacted for punitive purpose and had to be held unconstitutional as impermissible bill of attainder, where narrowness with which statute applied, only to this particular noncustodial parent and his daughter, belied any nonpunitive purpose to deal with alleged child sexual abuse generally, and where fact that Congress would not have enacted this legislation if parent had agreed to voluntarily give up his visitation rights, showed that it was Congress’ purpose in enacting law to assume role of judicial tribunal and to impose its own determination of who was or was not fit parent.