Loading…
Administrative Order #26-05, signed by Douglas Prouty, Presiding Judge, and William Abramson, Assistant Presiding Judge: effective this date and continuing until further order of the court, the Plumas County District Attorney’s Office, Contract Public Defenders, Plumas County Counsel, the Plumas County Department of Social Services/Child Protective Services, and Contract Counsel for Dependency and Juvenile Justice Matters exempted from Local Rule 1.7; all other attorneys, or litigants to request and be granted approval by the Presiding Judge for the use of electronic equipment as more fully described in Local Rule 1.7.
California > Third Appellate District > Plumas County > Superior Court of California, County of Plumas
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLUMAS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER #26-05 EXEMPTIONS TO LOCAL RULE 1.7 Effective this date and continuing until further order of the court, the following attorneys have been exempted from Local Rule 1.7: • Plumas County District Attorney’s Office • Contract Public Defenders • Plumas County Counsel • Plumas County Department of Social Services/Child Protective Services • Contract Counsel for Dependency and Juvenile Justice Matters All other attorneys, or litigants must request and be granted approval by the Presiding Judge for the use of electronic equipment as more fully described in Local Rule 1.7. This order remains in effect until modified or revoked. Dated: Douglas Prouty Presiding Judge William Abramson Assistant Presiding Judge
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLUMAS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER #26-05 EXEMPTIONS TO LOCAL RULE 1.7 Effective this date and continuing until further order of the court, the following attorneys have been exempted from Local Rule 1.7: • Plumas County District Attorney’s Office • Contract Public Defenders • Plumas County Counsel • Plumas County Department of Social Services/Child Protective Servic
Reviewer note: Transcribed 2026-10-12 (California T4 Plumas build 2026-10-12) by eye from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-plumas/docs/administrative-orders/auto-color0001.pdf (164703 bytes, sha256 464208b0b3fde9670066d7b051ba8f0a39b3ca212c34f2d656892d93afe3f2c9; 1 page; page images, no text layer): read on the page image rendered at 200 dpi; checked against RapidOCR on the page (the scan carries no text layer of its own), never published: every 6-word window looked up, and of the 1 span the reading does not hold, 1 split into pieces the reading holds (the date line and the first signature block read apart) (vision/check-log.txt). Not part of the text: the date written by hand on the date line (the page bears no filing stamp) and the two judges' handwritten signatures, which cross the printed names. The transcription's closing note, which describes the pages, is not published. Review note: Its relation to Rule 1.7 is the note on the Rule 1 card.
9 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-10.
6 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-13.