- Quickdraw McLaw
- 35 Comments
- 312 Views
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument about whether feds can resurrect their case against Cliven Bundy. [RJ]
- Here’s the latest on the Sun v. the RJ. [Las Vegas Sun; RJ]
- The Supreme Court of Nevada officially released its Annual Report today. Here is an article about it from TNI with Chief Justice Mark Gibbons suggesting we might need to increase the size of the Court of Appeals to address the backlog of cases. What do you think? Will more judges make a difference or is it perhaps a problem with the way the current system works?
- The press release:
20th Annual Report of the Nevada Judiciary Released
CARSON CITY, Nev., Dec. 5, 2019 – The Nevada Judiciary has released its 2019 Annual Report, marking the 20th annual report detailing comparative statistics for the Nevada Appellate Courts, according to Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons.
This fiscal year, Nevada’s Judiciary received more than 854,000 cases: the trial courts received 391,469 non-traffic cases and 463,383 traffic and parking cases, both increasing over last year. Statewide, 147,008 criminal cases, 156,383 civil cases, 78,474 family cases, and 9,604 juvenile cases were filed.
The Annual Report highlights the work of Nevada’s courts, including technological achievements, court improvements, and judicial education. Summaries of judicial programs and commissions that highlight efforts to improve the efficiency and openness of the courts are also included.
The Supreme Court resolved 1,852 cases, and the Court of Appeals resolved 1,301 cases in 2019 from a total of 2,982 cases filed. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals disposed of 106 percent of all cases filed, with an inventory of 2,042 pending cases.
“With this report, the Nevada Judiciary shows it continues to make progress in the pending backlog even as cases become more complex and challenging,” Chief Justice Gibbons said. “This is a historic year for the Nevada Judiciary with a female majority in the Supreme Court for the first time in history, a record number of cases, and 20 years of providing comprehensive statistics of our workload.”
The Annual Report has statistics the trial courts have provided since 1999, at the direction of the Supreme Court. The 54-page document is available to the public as a printed document at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in Carson City or Las Vegas. It also can be download at https://nvcourts.link/2019-
As someone who practices in appellate law, I will say that after the COA was created, I advised my clients that response times would be faster, making appellate filings a more viable option. Thus, I've used some of that increased bandwidth. I think another panel would be very useful.
I personally wish we had three COA panels and converted to an intermediate court of appeals system. But that's very expensive and impractical right now. So for the time being an additional panel for the push-down court is critically needed.
I would second this and ultimately would prefer a real intermediate court of appeals rather than the 'push-down' system that is in place. But in the meantime I absolutely believe that another panel would be helpful.
I don't do appellate work. It may very well be true that the COA and NVSC are working more efficiently, but I think an additional panel will be a hard sell to the public. NVSC isn't publishing opinions at a higher rate, which I believe they promised. There is still a backlog, although, as noted above that may be because parties are taking advantage of the increased bandwidth. If they are going to ask for additional changes, they have to do a better job informing the public of the benefits that have been realized from the COA.
Funny how quickly people forget. When the COA was adopted, part of the deal sold to the public was that the NVSC would lose 2 seats (reducing from 7 to 5 justices) in exchange for the new 3 COA seats. As the time approached for the loss of the 2 NVSC seats approached, they went to the legislature to save those seats, effectively adding 2 seats to the NVSC. Now, they want to add another panel to the COA (3 more seats, or more).
While I don't necessarily oppose giving the judiciary more resources when needed, I agree that at least to date it hasn't done an effective job of establishing the need for more appellate resources as opposed to lower levels. Looking at their own statistics (we all know what is said about statistics), last year there was a net reduction of the pending caseload of 171 cases greater than the number of new filings. They also report a pending inventory of 2042 cases. Assuming a continuation of the current trends with no alterations, there would be a zero backlog in less than 12 years with current resources.
If a significant improvement of the appellate process is the goal, a better change would be to convert the COA to a true intermediate appellate court system rather than a push down system, add 3 judges to the COA system while simultaneously reducing the NVSC from 7 to 5 justices and eliminating the automatic appeal to the NVSC except as to death penalty cases, adopting a writ of cert system rather than petition for review COA decision.
Under this revised system, the COA decisions would be the end of the road for all but a very small percentage of cases, doubling the number of COA judges increases their ability to handle the error correction role of the appellate process, the NVSC could then focus on just the big issues of establishing/modifying case law with published opinions rather than unpublished dispositions.
Financially, there would be a net gain of 1 judicial seat. The cost of that seat to the state would be partially offset by the slight reduction in salary between a NVSC justice and a COA judge so actual cost is slightly less than 1 seat.
I don't practice appellate law, but I am not sympathetic to either the COA or the NVSC. What's needed is additional departments in both the EJDC and LVJC in both seats and additional physical space. The county has outgrown the Regional justice Center. The additional space made available by the Municipal Court moving to its own building will not free up enough space.
I would consider supporting it, if Hardesty and NSC stopped discriminating against smaller law firms, and made rulings based on the facts and law.
Yay! "Judges should follow the law" guy is back. It's been a while.
12:18 is correct. CoA was a net increase of appellate judges by 42% from 7 Supremes to 10 between the Supremes/COA. Has efficiency gone up 42% No. Have the number of cases decided gone up 42%? No. Is the backlog reduced by 42% now years later? No. Efficiency has gone down. The decisions are no better reasoned. We are not getting more published opinions. The entire basis upon which the CoA was sold was a lie. Quelle surprise everyone– Jim Hardesty lies.
9:04, I agree that the judges should apply the law and not ignore the facts.
The decision-making capacity of an appellate judge isn't a one-to-one proposition, since no single appellate judge has the authority to decide an appeal. At best you'd say the number of appellate panels went up by 25 percent (counting the two 3-judge panels and the en banc court at the Supreme Court level as three and now the new 3-judge panel at the COA and the fourth). So making comparisons from the numbers is a bit more complex than 10:33 implies.
We were originally sold the COA on a promise that they would reduce the Supreme Court from 7 to 5 justices. That was a lie. It's hard to believe anything they say. They should also spend more time on resolving cases and less time on committees, rule revisions, community events, meddling in lower court matters, and designing insanely expensive yet hideously ugly buildings.
I still can get over the fact that they put a rounded sans serif font on a building with classic architecture. It isn't comic sans, but it almost is. I am the last person on earth to care about style, but damn, that bugs the hell out of me every time I drive by. It's like a doofus that wears black shoes with a brown belt.
Agree with 11:57,
It looks like it was intended to look like a serious appellate court building but turned out like a Las Vegas Strip caricature of a court house.
Since you mention style, the same black shoe / brown belt metaphor applies to Calibri fonts in legal briefs.
No you are talking about wearing a blue power blazer with gold buttons and having a intricate eat works in your ear.
Ear
No, it is like eating off of paper plates at the Downton Eglet party.
There was a comment yesterday about changes to the EJDC Local Rules.
Here's the ADKT: https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/ADKT-0545-Eighth-District.pdf
Notable Changes:
Must file a Motion with “Hearing Requested” or “Hearing Not Requested.” If a hearing is not requested, one can be requested in the Opposition.
Joinder to a Motion – 7 days from service of Motion
Opposition to a Motion – 14 days from service of Motion
Reply – 7 days before the hearing. If hearing was not requested, then 7 days from service of Opposition
Motion for Reconsideration – 14 days after service of notice of entry
The section “All male attorneys must wear full length trousers, coat and tie; female attorneys must wear suitable dresses or pantsuits” has been removed. Go crazy.
Effective January 1, 2020.
You can have my pantsuits when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Was the last part drafted by Earl or Doug Smith?
The "hearing requested" procedure is already in effect, given interim procedural amendments that were adopted to effectuate instant e-service upon e-filing.
I am scared. I have opposing counsel making up lies about me in his motion. There is no ulterior motive to do that. Judge is not going to see through that shit.
Your bar number must be above 15000.
1:00 is opposing counsel asshole who pulls that crap.
So, 1:00p.m, you condone such behavior? Courts don't like that, attorneys insulting another attorney. I work for a judge now. It is a distraction and a poor litigation tactic.
1:00 PM here. I certainly do not condone such behavior. I also don't condone worrying about it ever or responding to it 19 times out of 20. 1:08 is correct. Judges see through it. The Judge will appreciate you, 12:50 PM, if you just keep focused on the relevant issues and keep things on track. I just dealt with a notorious, prolific liar a few days ago. I didn't need to go out of my way to brow beat the liar in front of the Judge. I know that the Judge knows and that the Judge recognizes O.C. as the giant piece of shit that he is. So I just keep focused. The Judge liked it and I got a favorable outcome for my client, which is why I am here.
This happens all the time. I usually ignore it. Only the desperate pull that crap. However, if you are lying on the record, you have a right to be called out on it. I think you also have an ethical obligation to address a lie on the record.
Some liars lie for strategic advantage. Lies muddy the waters, which can be an effective tactic for weaker positions or less skilled attorneys. It's a pigs and mud situation. I disagree with 1:41 that you have an ethical obligations to always wrestle in the mud with pigs. It's always going to be situational based upon the liar and the Judge. Discretion and discernment are required.
At least this (probably) isn't your opposing counsel: https://twitter.com/associatesmind/status/1202684341454823425
There is no incentive except economic to live with a decision from the COA since its decisions have not precendential value. IMO, the Supremes should legitimize the COA by recognizing decisions are being binding. That could also cut down on number of appeals.
The COA orders have no precedential value in future cases involving other parties. COA may issue opinions of law that do have precedential power. And a COA ruling is certainly binding as "law of the case" and res judicata/collateral estoppel (or issue/claim preclusion).
When is the metro hearing against Chelini and Tobiasson?
The Judicial Discipline Commission hearing? It's December 16-17, 2019, at the moot courtroom at the Boyd School of Law. http://judicial.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/judicialnvgov/content/Hearings/Order%20Setting%20Consolidated%20Public%20Hearing%20and%20Notice%20of%20Panel%20Members,%20Order%20Regarding%20Media%20Access.pdf
Ugh. That feeling when you're reviewing an argument you wrote yesterday, which seemed brilliant at the time, and realize that's it's actually a really stupid argument.
At this time it's before I filed the brief.
*sigh* back to work.
At *least…