There's a lot of buzz concerning the ballot initiative that would allegedly give the Nevada legal world what it so badly needs: an intermediate appellate court. Our local lawyer factory has directed students in a Community Law class to do some legwork and "educate" the public on the proposal. While we admit that an appellate court is definitely in the top five of things we feel this legal community needs, we're not so sure that this is the right way to do it after reading the available materials. Mostly, this graphic scares us:
Do you see anything wrong with that picture? Our main concern (and something that's not addressed in any of the UNLV materials) is what happens in "Star Land."
Why not set the court up like a "normal" court of appeals, with the Supreme Court only reviewing those cases whose parties petition for certiorari after going through the appellate "filter?" Seems to be a system that works in the majority of other jurisdictions, as well as our federal system.
If it's a budgetary matter, do we really want to half-ass an appellate court just so we can say we have one? Are the three proposed appellate judges really going to make that big of a dent in the Supremes' caseload, which is currently triple the ABA "recommend"case load? How is this system going to produce more published case law?
We're interested in your thoughts. We agree that we need an appellate court, badly. We're just wondering whether this is the correct way to do it. What do you think? And if you know, please explain to us what exactly happens when a case reaches "Star Land."
We do not need an appellate court. My two cents.
ReplyDeleteI think we need an intermediate court of appeals, but I am not sure this proposal is the best way to do it. I haven't fully read the proposed amendment but have done some research. Cases from District Court are still appealed directly to the Nevada Supreme Court and if it is an area of law that is well settled then the case would be assigned by the Supremes to the Court of Appeals. So if your case is complex or involves novel ideas it will still be handled by the NV Supreme Court. If you are sent to C.O.A. after they rule you can then peititon the NV Supreme court for further review.
ReplyDeleteIn WA state for instance there are three intermediate courts of appeals (they divide the state into thirds essentially) who handle direct appeals from the trial court level (other than election issues, death penalty appeals, etc. that go straight to the WA Supreme Court)and issue written opinions that can be used as precendent usually in the future for citation. Even after the court of appeals rules on one's case then you can always petition for cert to the state supreme court.
I will say I commend our Supremes for what they do with the volumes of family court appeals, criminal appeals, and civil appeals they recieve each year that in another state would ordinarily go to a C.O.A. and are handled quietly and never make it to a state's supreme court. I would love a C.O.A. here in Nevada that handles most appeals from Distict Court(other than some execeptions) and could issue opinions that can be used as precedent would speed things up I beleive. I'm just not sure this current proposal long term is what we need.
The way that the flowchart is laid out is a little confusing. The trial courts should be at the bottom, and the Appellate and Supreme courts should be side-by-side.
ReplyDeleteHow I understand it is that only certain cases would be shunted off to the appellate court -- things like traffic tickets, administrative agency litigation, driver' licenses -- while the normal cases would still go to the NVSC. That's what "star-land" represents.
I haven't read anything about this proposal but going strictly on what I've read here, my guess is that the Supremes don't want to give up any power or whomever wrote the proposal doesn't have any faith in the future appellate judges. Hence the supremes maintain all the power and I would assume more serious cases would get transferred to the appellate court as time went on and it became more established.
ReplyDeleteLook, there are some cases that should be appealed to the Nevada Supreme ourt directly (death penalty and elections cases immediatelt come to mind). The star doesn't represent some staf attorney looking at each case and deciding who should hear it; it represent a set of jurisdictional rules that have yet to be fully worked out. Get real guys!!!
ReplyDeleteLaw school types come up with funky solutions for everything because they sit around all day thinking too hard about this stuff.
ReplyDeleteJust get us a normal appeals court and get it over with.
Anyone remember that when the Court expanded to 7 members from 5, they promised that if a Court of Appeals was ever created they would go back to being a Supreme Court of 5 justices and the 2 new seats would go to the Court of Appeals (along with a 3rd seat). What the hell happened to that?
ReplyDeleteI think there's a better solution. We should have a Supreme Court of Civil Appeals and a Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals or something like that. There would be no duplication of review and the justices could specialize. They could sit en banc as a joint group for rare cases, such as where the Civil S.Ct. and Criminal S.Ct. issue conflicting opinions on rules of evidence. This would be a much better use of resources.
ReplyDelete9:05 - I believe that is still the expectation. Most likely the two newest NSC seats would be relegated to the NCoA and only one new judge would have to be added.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think 8:58 is correct that the split between the two courts will be based on rules specifying which cases will go where and not on the discretion of a screener.
None of this matters anyway. The efforts to publicize this amendment have been totally inadequate and there is no way the notoriously anti-government Nevadans are going to approve it. Especially if they perceive it as costing more when we're trying to cut government expenses.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it will cost a little but not too much. There is a lot of office space in the RJC that was developed for the foreclosure mediation program that could be used to house an appellate court, salary expenses would only increase for one new judge and his/her personal staff, and in light of the intended reduction in the Supreme Court's caseload, most of the central staff could be transferred to support the new appellate court.
But until someone puts some money into promoting it, the amendment is not going to have much support outside of the legal community.
9:20 - I think you're wrong on both counts. I don't think they intend to reduce the Supreme Court from 7 to 5, and I don't think the jurisdictional rules will change as the model being pushed is that all cases will go to the Supremes and then they will send cases down to the Court of Appeals.
ReplyDeleteThe voters have shown no appetite for a court of appeals for the past 30 years; there is no reason to expect that they will find the ideat any more palatable this time around.
ReplyDeleteThis means that after the measure is voed down by the people, it will not be taken up bu teh legislature for at least two years, and it will have to pass two consecutive sessions of the legislature before it is submitted to the people again. In short, don't hold your breath for the court to established any time soon.
This is nuts. We can't afford to provide a north and south entrance to the courthouse, we do not have enough courtrooms for judges but we do have enough dough for an intermediate appellate court??? What a bunch of crock. Until that south entrance re-opens, not a dime should go to anything, including studying fantasy charts.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, as you guys dream of something that never will nor should be, here's a poor schlepp who is going down right now. HIPPA is a crime in and of itself. Now some poor guy is going to get crucified for it.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know how much money has already been wasted getting that POS chart produced. Whatever amount it was, someone should be demanding a refund.
ReplyDeleteJustice Parraguirre gave me impression that a CoA would take over and occupy the NSC's south offices and courtroom (located on the top floor of the RJC) thereby limiting the costs of the CoA to, generally, salaries, because it would not require any new facilities and most the staff would remain the same.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, the CoA would be located and hold court almost exclusively in Las Vegas, and the NSC would be located and hold court almost exclusively in Carson City.
isn't the issue here that (1) NV can use a COA and (2) because the way the NV Constitution is drafted that a referendum is req'd to get a COA? So maybe this is the COA short cut using a similar process that got the business court up and runing without the voting hubaloo
ReplyDeleteFrom the pamphlet:
ReplyDeleteThe CoA would "be like the express check-out line at the grocery store; there for you when you don't need a lot of special attention and just want to get in-and-out, and the Supreme Court would hear cases that involve a “cart-full” of issues."
Just want to get in and out??? Okay here's a better idea. Have one new judge. His responsibility is to rubber stamp "affirmed" to all decisions that are appealed to the CoA. There. Are you happy now?
Nevada need an appellate court. It does not need this proposal, or this gawd-awful attempt to educate the public.
I am now more suspect than ever of Boyd grads. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteto 8:45 am. What are they teaching you at Boyd? Why would a traffic ticket or a driver's license issue ever make its way to district court, let alone be deserving of appellate review? And the district court is the last stop for adminstrative appeals. That flowchart is more troubling if this is Boyd's conclusion based on their "study." And, from the flowchart, it appears issues can be presented to the COA at first instance. What's so difficult to understand about having a district court, appellate review and Supreme Court discretion to hear a case? The flowchart is an embarassment not only to UNLV but the legal community in general.
ReplyDeleteSeriously...law students need to understand that you are to be seen and not to be heard (a step below a CD attorney). Until you've been in practice for at least five years, know your role and shut up.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Court of Appeals issue, anything that develops additional case law in Nevada will be a good thing. That way, we can stop looking to California all the time.
Gotta agree with 12:26 - that pamphlet is bad, bad, bad. The Nevada Supreme Court does not hear appeals in criminal cases and the analogy to a grocery store line is both demeaning and wrong. But if there's ever a self-check out line at the Supreme Court, I'll take that. Anything would be better than some of the crap that is produced by the staff attorneys, law clerks and justices.
ReplyDeleteI am terrified by the abject disconnect between the district court and either the purported Court of Appeals OR the Nevada Supreme Court - not even a dotted line to either or both of them... what do you suppose that means?
ReplyDelete@113
ReplyDeleteHell yeah ! When I came out of school, I was afraid to open my mouth and opine (unless asked) for fear of looking the fool.
Boyd grads of late have no such filter.
On another comment @1014:
"What a bunch of crock."
That's funny ! Not" crock of shit", not "bunch of bull", but a bunch of crock.
You're a communist if you don't find that funny!
Nevada does not need a CoA.
I would have used a circle instead of a star.
ReplyDelete@12:26--
ReplyDeleteThat was the way Justice Hardesty explained the initiative during an interview following oral argument held at Boyd. Taken from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
What's that? That's not good enough for you? Would you like a friggin' citation? Here you go: Interview with James W. Hardesty, Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, in Las Vegas, Nev. (Feb. 10, 2010). See also My Foot, in Your Ass.
@1:13 - you're completely right.
ReplyDeleteI would have gone to another law school instead of Boyd
ReplyDeleteBoyd Grad should be spending more time studying for the bar he's 40% likely to fail rather than talking smack to attorneys who are actually licensed to practice law.
ReplyDeleteLast year's Boyd pass rate was 86%. You want some, 3:05? I can go all day.
ReplyDeleteSoon-to-be Boyd Grad, for all his/her effort, while laudable, still failed to correctly Blue Book the Hardesty interview citation. It's Rule 17.1.4, for those who care.
ReplyDeleteOh, and before Boyd Grad comments on how I should spend less time combing through the Blue Book and more time billing my clients or slitting my wrists, it took me a whole 0.10 (of course I'm rounding up).
Is the flow chart a joke? Are you kidding me? If this is the proposal, I would rather wait the three to four years to get a decision then to have this half-ass/full-ass system that is proposed.
ReplyDeleteCreate an intermediate court of appeals (“IOAC”) that has three judge panels that will hear the cases. The ICOA could consist of: three panels for the Reno area, four to five panels for the Las Vegas area, and two or three panels for the rest of the state.
In addition, the ICOA is an “error correcting court”, while the Nevada Supreme Court should be a “doctrinal” court. In other words, if there is an error of law, the ICOA corrects it, and the case can end there, but if the matter involves issues where the Nevada Supreme Court needs to set forth a doctrine, for example Miranda Warnings, the Nevada Supreme Court could hear the case, after the ICOA decides issues of law.
This seems to work well for the rest of the states and the Federal courts, so why in the hell does Nevada what to reinvent the wheel?
Nevada's Supreme Court has never been perceived as a top notch Court for brain power. Obviously with this proposal, the Court's general organizational skills are bottom tier as well. Unfortunately it's simply not suprising that our SC could FUBAR this too.
ReplyDeleteSo, 3:18, did you have anything in particular to add to the argument, or are you just here for the dickery?
ReplyDeleteIf we get a Court of Appeals, will the Supreme Court promise to actually read the briefs instead of just reviewing bench memos and hearing oral presentations by staff?
ReplyDeleteI'm tired of entrusting my well-researched, legitimate arguments to people who just graduated from law school and loser attorneys who could never make it in the real world and instead become permanent staff members.
8:45 is right. Here is essentially what Justice Hardesty said following the oral arguments a month ago or so at Boyd:
ReplyDeleteAll cases continue to be filed with the Supreme Court, as it is now. That saves costs because that infrastructure is already in place. The Supreme Court will decide which cases to keep, and which to push down to the intermediate court. The Supreme Court would ideally be able to push the routine, "error correcting" type cases to the intermediate court, and the Supremes would then be able to devote their attention to major issues, issues of first impression, etc. And yes, I was as surprised as anyone to learn that the Nevada Supreme Court hears appeals from driver license revocations. That is an example of a type of case that the Supremes hope to offload to the intermediate court.
No, I don't go to Boyd, and didn't go to Boyd.
If the Nevada Supreme Court wasn't so busy throwing a bunch of dicta into their opinions, they might actually get through their case load.
ReplyDeleteIntermediate Court unnecessary.
Even if there were an Intermediate Court, it wouldn't make the justices read your opinions, or address their own questions, any more carefully.
What are you people talking about? We don't have 7 S. Ct. justices, we only have 6. Nancy Saitta(BUTTHEAD) does whatever Mike Cherry(BEAVIS) does.
ReplyDeleteSoon-to-be Boyd Grad:
ReplyDeleteThe post on which we're commenting not only asks for opinions on the need for an appellate court in Nevada, but not-so-subtly pokes fun at the institution which has undertaken (albeit not singlehandedly) the task to educate the public on the issue and the graph it's created to do the job. Rather than waste my time stating the obvious--that Nevada desperately needs an appellate court, and this is not the way to do it-- I have chosen to direct my arguments at the "explanatory" graph and the institution that created it. As, by the way, have other commenters.
My point is this--in your previous posts you vehemently defend the graph and corresponding explanation which, in my opinion, appear to have been created by kindergardeners. When your arguments are attacked you cite to "My Foot Up Your Ass."
Now you're questioning why I called out your poor Blue Book skills? Now you wonder why we all question Boyd's place in this important debate?
The dickery is just to get a rise out of you. (That's called a double entendre.)
-3:18
Perhaps Soon-to-be Boyd Grad should cite to:
ReplyDeleteFoot-In-Mouth, ___ Nev. ___ (2010)
You are all wrong. It's:
ReplyDeleteIn re My Foot Up Your Ass, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 13 (Apr. 29, 2010).
Does anyone else see the irony behind electing judges to the court of appeals, where they will review decisions by elected district court judges, because the district judges screw things up so badly because they were better campaigners than attorneys? And doing so in the hopes that the CoA will provide more/clearer case law than we already get from elected judges who were elected because they were better campaigners than attorneys?
ReplyDelete5:31 PM - yep
ReplyDeleteIf it's a budgetary matter, do we really want to half-ass an appellate court just so we can say we have one?
ReplyDelete- The proposed court of appeals is not "half-assed"; it's merely starting out with a smaller number of judges and staff because (1) it's more cost efficient and (2) Nevadans are notoriously against anything that involves government spending, even if it's for something completely necessary like a court of appeals. Furthermore, if you actually read the amendment, you'd see that it provides for "at least three" judges. This means that the CoA would be able to expand in the future if the legislature determines that we have the necessary funds.
Are the three proposed appellate judges really going to make that big of a dent in the Supremes' caseload, which is currently triple the ABA "recommend"case load?
- Again, the proposed amendment provides for "at least three judges." You try telling Nevada citizens that we're going to allow for nine new appellate judges right off the bat and see if they're more willing to vote for the ballot question.
How is this system going to produce more published case law?
- Reducing the SC caseload gives justices more time to write longer, higher quality opinions. Summary opinions do not accomplish this. More published NV case law=less reliance on CA law.
The "star."
- This is a legitimate concern. The Boyd students did not have specific details about the screening process when creating the pamphlet. Generally speaking, the more "important" cases will still go to the SC. "Important" hasn't really been defined other than major issues of constitutional law, important criminal matters, but NOT driver's license revocation appeals (yes, the SC DOES currently hear these). Hopefully, the SC will release more details about the pre-determined set of criteria in the coming months.
The flow chart.
- There are prettier and more functional versions of the chart in the PowerPoint (look on the website); however, I'm sure most people can see that the court of appeals was intentionally raised in the flow chart on the pamphlet to ensure that people didn't think it was on the same level as the trial courts.
General concerns about the quality of the pamphlet.
- Lighten up people. This pamphlet was created by Boyd students primarily for dissemination at community service classes. The Supreme Court has their own ad agency working on this ballot question, which should provide the more polished marketing materials you are all so eager to view.
I am constantly astonished at how poorly trained our existing legal community is. Personally, I think the Boyd grads do a pretty good job as new graduates.
ReplyDeleteAs to the presumably seasoned attorneys who (1) fail to do any research before speaking (blogging?) or (2) think students are stupid so should be silent, I think your statements expose your own ignorance (or arrogance). Even students have meaningful insight at times. They should be encouraged to speak out - though possibly "Soon-to-be Boyd Grad" should not be their spokesman. Boyd consistently delivers good graduates to this community and we would do well to acknowledge it.
As to the COA, I think it's a good idea. Having seen how the New Mexico courts operate on a similar pattern to what is being proposed here, it can be a much more efficient process than the linear appeals process most are accustomed to. Again, do your research before blogging. You end up with less egg on your face.
As for the Boyd document, it seems to me that this is intended to introduce the topic rather than expound on it. Did any of you read the whole thing? Alas, those of you who so quickly bashed it probably only scanned it - just as the trial courts do with so many motions they see. Shame on you for doing the same.
If you read the article, you will notice that the presentations wear aimed at high school students and the general public attending community law classes. Audience is an important factor when designing presentations. The audience for these presentations does not care and/or understand the finer points you all are clamoring for. Instead of confusing the audience by drowning them in minutia they don't care about, perhaps it was aimed at talk to them in a manner they could understand. Just a thought...
ReplyDeleteGet 'em Soon-To-Be!
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of slouches!
3:18, Take your own advise and get back to work or slit your wrists.
We obviously need a COA to relieve the Supremes of their case-load. They should have the discretion to choose which cases they want to hear, and which cases to send down to the Appellate Court. This proposed system is perfectly fine. The real issue is the money...the proposed ballot question needs to point out to voters that this will not cost much considering the existing facilities. That's issue number one, not a damn flowchart. It was meant to dumb the issue down for voters, and obviously wasn't simple enough for some of you high and mighty attys.
We need an appellate court, not because it gives lawyers something to do, or so that we can stop citing Califorina law. We need an appellate court to generate additional case law. Individuals and businesses need to know how the courts will act in a certain situation and plan their activies accordingly. That is what case law is all about. With that said, would this so called appellate court create precedential written opinions? The proposal is not clear. We lawyers assume it will because that is what we are used to. But no guarantees on that one either. My questions are, what other jurisdiction(s) have a system like this? Where has it been tried? Was it a success or a failure? What do the attorneys that practice in that jurisdiction have to say about such a proposal? If you can't show me at least one jurisidiction where it has been tried and someone other than the appellate judge sitting on that bench likes it, I say no to the idea.
ReplyDelete