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."
