PACER turns 25

December 10, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

PACER is celebrating its 25th anniversary. The service, Public Access to Court Electronic Records, was approved in September 1988 by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Goodbye paper, hello computer.

PACER, coupled with the Case Management/Electronic Case Files management system that started in the 1990s, has made life easier for attorneys, judges and clerks. Lawyers now could file a document after the courthouse closed and still make the deadline. Paper was no longer king in clerk’s offices, thanks to the online access and case management.

Reporters also appreciate the ability to access court records and activity at all hours of the day.

“PACER was one of the most significant progressive steps in the implementation of technologies in the courts,” said Michael Kunz, clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a release from the United States Courts. “It brought information from the clerk’s office to desktop computers located in law offices, government agencies, business entities and the news media. Stakeholders in the justice system overwhelmingly endorsed it as an efficient system.”

Kuntz’s court became one of the first sites for PACER.

He also said if it weren’t for PACER and the Case Management/Electronic Case Files management system that started in the 1990s, court staff would have been quickly overwhelmed by the caseloads of the last 25 years.

Back in the day, users had to use dial-in telephone modems to receive docket information and see thumbnail case summaries on their computer screens. Case documents were still only available at the courthouse. How times have changed. Now attorneys can pull up this information on smartphones and tablets from anywhere with an Internet connection. In the beginning, only a handful of courts used these services. Now, every federal court does.

Administrators are working on modernizing the CM/ECF system and PACER service to make it more user-friendly as well as preserving electronic dockets and opinions for posterity.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT