- Quickdraw McLaw
- 15 Comments
- 203 Views
Yesterday, Nevada Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty officially launched the public relations campaign to encourage voters to vote yes this fall on creating a Court of Appeals. The RJ has an article here discussing Hardesty’s views on Ballot Question No. 1 (the comments section is already filling up with public reaction). Justice Hardesty also appeared on Ralston Reports last night (August 12, 2014) if you want to listen to what he has to say on the topic.
Ballot Question Number 1 says,
“Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to create a Court of Appeals that would decide appeals of District Court decisions in certain civil and criminal cases?”
The ballot asks voters to simply vote “Yes” or “No.” If you want to see the question along with the explanation and arguments for and against as will be seen on the ballot, visit nvsos.org here.
In a nutshell, the proposed creation of Court of Appeals will give us a push-down model. All appeals will go to the Nevada Supreme Court, but a set of rules (which are presently in draft form according to Hardesty on Ralston Reports last night) will determine which cases are automatically pushed down to the Court of Appeals. In theory, the Court of Appeals would handle mostly non-high profile, error-correction cases that are unlikely to set precedent, freeing up our top jurists to issue more published written decisions. The Court of Appeals will start as a three judge panel and will be housed in the existing Supreme Court facilities at the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas. A budget has already been proposed and the Court of Appeals is expected to cost about $1.5 million a year–an amount which the Supreme Court says is partially (if not fully) paid for by money it reverts to the general budget each year.
Here’s your chance to weigh in on the topic. Let Nevadans know where lawyers stand on this proposal. Does Nevada really need a Court of Appeals? Detractors think this is all a ploy by lawyers to create more billable hours? Do you stand to benefit from this financially? Is there a downside that no one is seeing? Are our justices working hard to pass this just so they have more time to work on their golf swings or this truly a case of advancing the interests of justice?
Doesn't this effectively just expand the NVSC by a 3 justice panel?
Two things that will change the Nevada judiciary for the better: 1) An appellate court, and 2) a judicial appointment system instead of an election system.
if we had an appt system we would have less appeals. and it would cost … nothing.
Actually it might be cheaper because the taxpayers would not have to spend money getting rid of the Halversons of the world.
12:03, really? If this gets enacted it will likely be staffed by appointed judges first. They will probably need the same time requirements as the current Supremes. Just imagine the three most power hungry control freak judges you can, any three you really would NOT want making appellate decisions, and that is probably EXACTLY who gets appointed. Maybe you don't understand the usual appointment system but the most common way is that if they get over 50 percent approval they stay. Either system sucks, but with elections the judges flaws can be pointed out. Appointed judges who stay in the good graces of the power brokers can flaunt their positions with relative impunity.
This format is just bizarre….it essentially sets aside a panel of judges to act as law clerks for the Supremes
Not quite, as I understand it, the Appeals Court judges will have the ability to publish opinions as well–not just unpublished opinions–giving us another judicial body creating precedent.
The push down model is not bizarre and it's not that unusual. There are a number of states successfully utilizing the model. There are administrative benefits to the model because all appeals are handled by the same clerk's office. An intermediate appellate court is a long needed improvement to Nevada's appellate system. For what it is worth, as I understand it, published decisions from the Court of Appeals are also precedential.
Plaintiffs attorney Bob Eglet already wrote a five thousand dollar contribution check to further the promotion of the appellate court. What does that say?
It means he has more discretionary funds than I do.
@ 12:51 –that Eglet doesn't really support creating an intermediate appellate court because he only contributed $5,000, but then again, maybe he did take a huge hit when he got defensed in the Actos case.
@12.27…thank you, Justice Hardesty
Spot on. While I agree that we need an appeals court, our good friend Justice Hardesty , like always, missed the key issue. The reason why the push-down method is superior to a bottom up approach is that it is more cost-effective (and sharing the same clerk is not the reason why it is more cost-effective). An intermediate appellate court that saw all of the cases would have to be as large, if not larger than the Nevada Supreme Court in order to gain cost and time savings. A push-down method allows the Nevada Supreme Court to funnel out the cases that are more routine and appropriate for the new appeals court. Because most of those cases pushed to the appellate court are not likely going to be heard by the Nevada Supreme Court, all of the time that would have been spent on those cases is now saved.
Wonder if the voters will approve the Court of Appeals proposition. An elective system is so far superior to an appointed system. In an appointed system you never know about the backroom deals that are made to get someone on the bench. You wind up with unqualified candidates who have never tried a case. At least with an elective system, you can get rid of them if they really suck. Politics is never out of the legal system–it is either transparent or hidden. Follow the money and you follow the influence. In an appointed system, it is hard to follow but when you find out you have already been burned in a case by a biased jurist.
That's such a cute view of the world. Horribly naive, but cute.
Look, you don't get rid of judges in an election system., at least, not in Southern Nevada. Have we got a lot of shitty judges? Yup. Do most of those shitty judges run unopposed? Yup. For the most part, judges get elected on the basis of name recognition, not judicial ability, temperament, or fitness for the job. Those on the bench have name recognition.