Over the past 30 years, Nevada
.
A new study compiled by the Nevada Supreme Court at the
behest of the Nevada Legislature demonstrates that the time is right to
establish the new court level.
Nevada
.
.
View
this Report
REPORT TO THE 74th
REGULAR SESSION OF
THE NEVADA
REGARDING THE CREATION
OF
THE NEVADA
Pursuant to Senate Bill
234, 73rd Legislative Session, 2005
REPORT TO THE 74TH
REGULAR SESSION OF
THE NEVADA
REGARDING THE CREATION
OF
THE NEVADA
Pursuant to Senate Bill
234, 73rd Legislative Session, 2005
Submitted by Supreme
Court of Nevada
201 South Carson Street
Carson City
, Nevada
89701
March 2007
Supreme Court of Nevada
Chief Justice A.
Justice Mark Gibbons
Justice James W.
Justice Ron Parraguirre
Justice Michael Douglas
Justice Michael Cherry
Justice Nancy Saitta
Prepared by
Joan E.
Staff Counsel
Administrative Office of
the Courts
AB 234 Study Committee
All Justices
Janette Bloom, Clerk of
the Court
Ron Titus, Director
& State Court Administrator
Robin Sweet, Deputy
Director
www.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Table
of Contents - Page i
REPORT TO THE 74TH REGULAR SESSION OF
THE NEVADA
SENATE BILL 234
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
A.
1.
2.
B.
Nevada
Perspective
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
C.
Jurisdictions; A Comparison
1.
Nevada
a.
Figure 1.
7
2.
in the United States
a.
Table 1.
10
3.
Nevada
a.
1.
Figure 2.
11
b.
1.
Figure 3.
12
2.
Table 2.
13
4.
5.
Court; Comparison 15
a.
Table 3.
16
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Table
of Contents - Page ii
6.
Appellate Court; Comparison 16
a.
Table 4.
17
D.
Nevada
1.
2.
Nevada
Intermediate Appellate Courts 18
a.
b.
c.
1.
Table 5.
22
2.
Table 6.
22
3.
Table 7.
23
4.
Table 8.
24
d.
e.
3.
Nevada
Effect on the Courts 28
a.
Nevada
1.
Table 10.
29
b.
1.
Table 11.
30
c.
1.
Table 12.
31
E.
Nevada
1.
2.
3.
a.
b.
New Mexico
c.
Nevada
1.
2.
3.
4.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Table
of Contents - Page iii
d.
Nevada
1.
2.
4.
5.
Nevada
a.
1.
2.
3.
b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
c.
d.
1.
2.
e.
1.
Table 13.
42
f.
6.
Nevada
a.
b.
F.
1.
APPENDIX
1.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 1
REPORT TO THE 74TH
REGULAR SESSION OF
THE NEVADA
REGARDING THE CREATION
OF
THE NEVADA
A.
1.
Over the past 30 years, members of the
Judicial Branch have proposed legislation
required for the creation of an
intermediate appellate court in Nevada
.
acknowledging the efforts of the Judicial
Branch, the Nevada State Legislature has
approved and passed seven joint
resolutions toward the goal of establishing the new
court.
After successful passage of AJR 2 in 1977
and 1979, Question Seven was placed on
the ballot in 1980.
Question Seven was subsequently rejected by nearly 53 percent of
the voters.
Question Seven, members of the Judicial Branch and
the Nevada State Legislature worked
together to pass SJR 12 in 1989, and again in
1991, sending the measure to the voters
for a second time in 1992.
Question Six was also defeated with 54 percent of the
votes against.
During the 73rd Legislative Session in
2005, Assembly Bill 234 was passed to evaluate
the need for the new court.
Nevada
population growth, the increase in the
number of cases filed statewide, and the
extraordinary workload before the Supreme
Court.
concern.
Court, representing a 3 percent increase
from the previous year.
In response to passage of AB 234, a study
committee was formed by the Justices of the
Nevada Supreme Court, joined by the Clerk
of the Court, the Director, Deputy Director
and Staff Counsel from the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AB 234 Study
Committee).
compiled by the U.
.
National
Center
discussed appellate standards proposed by
the American Bar Association and the
NCSC, and compared documentation and
statistics gathered by AOC and the Clerk's
Office for the Annual Report of the
Nevada Judiciary for fiscal year 2006.
Committee agreed that discussion of
proposed standards for appellate courts was
appropriate in assessing our state's
current structure, and to determine what
improvements are necessary to accomplish
the work of the Court.
Results of the AB 234 Study reveal that
our state court system would clearly benefit
from the addition of an intermediate
appellate court.
ensure that the citizens of Nevada
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 2
Committee members believe the new court
will provide critical support services, and will
join with the Nevada Supreme Court in
seeking to:
• Maintain high quality in the judicial
process
• Efficiently manage all appeals
• Minimize delay in processing appeals
• Ensure appellate decisions are rendered
in a timely manner
• Establish a traditional error correction
court
• Increase the number of authored opinions
for those cases that establish
our state's common law
Review of the legislative history reveals
some opposition for the concept of the new
court by lawmakers and their constituents.
and expense, and expressed fear that a
new court would create "another step to the
process of litigation.
.
with the completion of the Regional Justice
Center
be shared, thereby reducing overall
expense.
The Nevada Court of Appeals will provide
a much needed alternative for those seeking
review of trial court decisions, and will
provide a more efficient appellate process for all
litigants.
Nevada
will soon become an essential and
integral part of our state court system.
Those who have been working toward the
goal of establishing a new court will
undoubtedly agree that the biggest hurdle
in the process is obtaining the support of the
voters.
relevant information to the voting public
in a timely manner.
2.
The Committee is optimistic that the
Legislature will continue to be a supportive partner
during the next two legislative sessions.
must be provided with information
necessary to make an informed decision in 2010.
that end, the Committee provides this
data, costs analysis, and plan for a court of
appeals that will ultimately improve the
efficiency of the entire judicial system of our
state.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 3
B.
Nevada
The Nevada State Legislature has
recognized and acknowledged the need for an
intermediate appellate court for over 30
years.
remained supportive of efforts by the
judiciary to propose and pass legislation
necessary for the creation of an
intermediate appellate court.
Article 16 of the Nevada State
Constitution provides the authority and process for the
establishment of the new court.
resolution must be proposed and approved
by lawmakers in two consecutive legislative
sessions.
majority of the electors in the next
election.
1 This discussion will focus on the
legislative
history leading up to the elections in
1980 and 1992, and the most recent legislation in
2005 in the form of Senate Bill 234.
1.
Developing a working knowledge of the
legislative history in connection with efforts to
establish an intermediate appellate court
is a necessary part of the process.
members reviewed all joint resolutions
submitted from both the Senate and the
Assembly, resolution summaries, testimony
recorded from committee meetings, reports,
exhibits, and ballot information and
records.
a.
In response to a directive 2 from the Nevada Legislature in 1975, the
Legislative
Commission Subcommittee prepared Bulletin
No.
Training,
Qualifications,
Workloads and Leave Policies of the
Judiciary and District Attorneys .
3 The 1976 study
revealed that an intermediate appellate
court was necessary in light of the Supreme
Court's increasing workload.
4
1 Nevada
Const.
.
.
2 A.
.
.
.
.
Nevada
.
3 Bulletin No.
was prepared in September 1976 and submitted
during the 59th State Legislature in
1977.
4 Id.
Bulletin, at 7-8
provides, " .
.
.
The
subcommittee is fully persuaded that over the long term the
creation of an
intermediate appellate court will be a more satisfactory method of relieving
congestion of
the supreme court than
enlargement of the latter and division into panels .
.
.
an intermediate
appellate court is to keep both its size and its jurisdiction flexible, so that
those categories
of cases which at a
particular time are overloading the supreme court may be sifted through the
intermediate appellate
court without depriving any litigant of the right to one appeal, and the number
of
judges be increased or
diminished as these categories and the number of cases in them change.
The
[legislature] should .
.
.
workload .
.
.
[Emphasis added.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 4
As a result of the 1976 study, Assembly
Joint Resolution 2 (AJR 2) was drafted and
submitted during the 59th Legislative
Session in 1977.
5 Supreme Court Justice Elmer
Millard (E.
.
Two years ago our case load went up 28%,
last year it went up 45% and it is
going up again this year.
judge case load of the 9th circuit and
the 5th circuit courts, which are considered
to be among the busiest appelate (sic)
courts in the country.
6
The Nevada State Legislature subsequently
passed AJR 2, sending it on to the second
phase of approval by state lawmakers.
2.
.
was submitted indicating a net expense
for the new court of approximately $382,686
annually.
7 AJR 2 subsequently passed, allowing the
measure to go to the voters the
following year.
In 1980, Question Seven was
defeated by almost 53 percent of the voters.
8 Legislation
for the intermediate appellate court was
not proposed again until 1989.
b.
During the 65th Legislative Session in
1989, Senate Joint Resolution 12 (SJR 12) was
approved, which provided for the creation
of an intermediate appellate court.
resolution passed again during the 66th
Legislative Session in 1991, sending the
measure on to a second vote of the people.
In 1992, Question Six was placed
on the ballot.
Question Six contained
a more detailed
explanation of the amendment, along with
a fact-based argument in support of passage.
A fiscal note was included on the ballot
with an estimated cost for the new court of
approximately $2.
.
included the complete amendment
consisting of six full pages of text.
Question Six was defeated with 54 percent of the votes
against.
9
5 A.
.
.
.
.
6 Hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, 3-30-1977, 59th Leg.
.
Justice Gunderson, p.
.
7 A.
.
.
associated with separate
facilities for the intermediate appellate court.
8 The 1980 Ballot
provided, ".
.
.
Question
No.
.
amend the State
constitution to create an intermediate court of appeals be approved?" From a total
number of 225,064 votes,
106,131 votes were in favor and 118,933 votes were against the measure.
See Ballot for 1980.
Question No.
, pg.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 5
c.
During the 67th Legislative Session in
1993, lawmakers again considered legislation
for the appellate court in the form of
Senate Joint Resolution 25 (SJR 25).
Robert Rose testified in support of the
resolution and expressed his belief that Question
Six failed due to anticipated costs associated with a new court,
conflict between
members of the Court, and the lack of
adequate explanation of the measure to the
voters.
10 Chief Justice Rose also testified that
the Supreme Court's caseload doubled
since 1968.
11 SJR 25 was passed and held for the
following session.
During the 68th Legislative Session in
1995, SJR 25 12
was considered for the
second
phase of the approval process.
solution to reduce the backlog of cases
by increasing the number of Supreme Court
Justices from five to seven, and allowing
the Court to utilize a panel system.
the Court was unified in their support
for SJR 25, two members did not agree that
expansion of the Court was appropriate.
was killed in Assembly committee.
.
During the 69th Legislative Session in
1997, efforts for the appellate court were revived
in Senate Joint Resolution 14 (SJR 14).
being filed each year, the average
disposition for each case would be two to three
years.
13 Lawmakers also considered Assembly Bill
343, which allowed for the
expansion of the Court from five to seven
Justices beginning in 1999.
also authorized the high court to sit,
hear, and decide cases in panels of three.
Both measures passed.
14
During the 70th Legislative Session in
1999, lawmakers considered a new version of
SJR 14, renamed Assembly Joint Resolution
22 (AJR 22).
at the request of the Supreme Court,
considered a "first" resolution in the process.
9 From a total number of
466,356 votes, 213,407 votes were in favor and 252,950 votes were against the
measure.
Nevada
Question No.
7 pgs.
10 Hearing before the
Senate Committee on Judiciary, 4-23-1993, 67th Leg.
.
of Chief Justice Rose, p.
.
11 Id.
12 S.
.
.
.
.
Committee on Judiciary.
13 Hearing before the
Senate Committee on Judiciary, 4-30-1997, 69th Leg.
.
of Chief Justice Rose, p.
.
14 AB 343 amended NRS 2.
"effective
until the date on which the
voters approve a
constitutional amendment establishing the intermediate court of appeals.
Once the
voters approve the new
court, the "sunset" provisions would require the number of Supreme
Court
Justices to be reduced
from seven back to five.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 6
In 2001, Assembly Joint Resolution 12
(AJR 12) was proposed to replace AJR 22 and
to be treated as a "first"
resolution in the process during the 71st Legislative Session.
At that time, and as a result of
implementation of AB 343 in 1999, the backlog of cases
had been reduced.
pending cases by 262.
15 AJR 12
was subsequently approved and passed.
d.
During the 72nd Legislative Session in
2003, Senate Joint Resolution 5 (SJR 5) was
submitted as a replacement of AJR 12, and
treated as a "first" resolution in the process.
SJR 5 represented a significant change
from prior resolutions, in that it contained
language which made the creation of the
intermediate appellate court permissive rather
than mandatory.
16 Chief Justice Deborah Agosti testified,
The language of the current bill is
discretionary and says the Legislature "may"
construct an intermediate appellate court.
because we don't think one is necessary
now; we do.
will go for a vote, we are not assured,
given the financial climate that the state
finds itself in now, that the public
would be of a mind to vote for something that
would tie the hands of the Legislature
and require them to expend funds.
will be a financial impact if an
intermediate appellate court is constructed.
impact will be minimized because the
Supreme Court was increased from five
members to seven, five years ago - with
the idea that the Court would go back
down to five, and two of those positions
would become intermediate appellate
court positions.
17
SJR 5 passed without objection and held
for the 73rd Legislature for consideration in
2005.
fact been reduced, and because the number
of case filings in the Supreme Court had
stabilized, the resolution was withdrawn
from consideration.
Senate Bill 234 was proposed and approved.
15 See Annual Report of the
Nevada Judiciary, Fiscal Year 2000-2001, Table 2, showing the number of
cases pending for fiscal
year 2000-2001 was 1,628 as compared to 1,890 pending cases in fiscal year
1999-2000.
"The Justices
continued to make every effort to reduce the backlog of
cases.
.
This effort reduced the
Supreme Court backlog to 1,628 cases pending.
cases pending at the end
of 1997 - a reduction of 893 cases.
Id.
at 8.
16 Senate Joint Resolution
5 provides: Sec 3A.
.
Court of Appeals.
.
.
.
.
17 Hearing before the
Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 3-28-2003, 72nd Leg.
.
(NV 2003) (statement of
Chief Justice Agosti, p.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 7
Senate Bill 234 called for the Court to
conduct an analysis of whether Nevada
benefit from the establishment of an
intermediate appellate court.
18 Accordingly, an
analysis and discussion of the benefits
of the new court follows.
C.
1.
Nevada
The Nevada Supreme Court serves as our state's final appellate
court.
Court hears all appeals from final
decisions in the District Courts.
functions as both an error correction
court and a court of last resort in the development
of the state's common law.
cases in three-judge panels and with a
full court (En Banc.
Figure 1.
Nevada
Nevada's District Courts serve as trial courts of general
jurisdiction.
Courts preside over criminal felony and
gross misdemeanor, family, juvenile, and civil
cases with a stated value in excess of
$10,000.
District Court judges.
.
Justice Courts handle criminal misdemeanor filings, and
preside over preliminary
hearings for gross misdemeanor and felony
crimes.
filings, landlord/tenant, and civil
disputes.
Justices of the Peace.
appellate jurisdiction.
18 Senate Bill 234 includes an acknowledgement
of the challenges facing our state due to the continuous
increase in population, "
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nevada
continues to have the
highest rate of population growth in the country; .
.
.
.
Nevada
Supreme Court
District Court
Justice
Court
Municipal
Court
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 8
Municipal Courts resolve criminal misdemeanor and traffic
filings in local jurisdictions.
There are 18 Municipal Courts with 31
Municipal Court Judges.
the District Court, which has final
appellate jurisdiction.
Presently, ten lower court judges serve
as both a Justice of the Peace and as a
Municipal Court Judge.
2.
United States
In order to understand the need for an
intermediate appellate court in Nevada
is important to become familiar with our
court system and existing resources.
comparison with other states that have
intermediate appellate courts is helpful
in the analysis of the benefits of such a
court in our state.
19
Presently, 39 states have established an
intermediate court of appeals.
20 As of July 1,
2006, Nevada
.
21 Five states that have lower
population and growth rates than Nevada
namely New Mexico
Nebraska
Idaho
Hawaii
Alaska
.
Utah
has an intermediate appellate court and
is included in this comparison.
summary of the court structure for each
of these six "comparison" states follows.
Utah
, with a slightly higher population than Nevada
.
Utah
is also increasing at a rapid rate
showing a 2.
.
Utah
system includes a Supreme Court with five
justices, and a Court of Appeals with seven
judges who sit in panels of three.
Utah
domestic court commissioners, and a
Juvenile Court with 27 judges and 1
commissioner.
Utah
.
New
Mexico
, ranked at
36th in population, has one Court of Appeals with ten judges
who sit in panels of three.
.
Mexico
's court system includes 13 District
Courts with 78 judges, and four other lower
courts of limited jurisdiction, including
53 Magistrate Courts with 65 judges, 83 Municipal
Courts with 85 judges, a Metropolitan Court
33 judges.
New Mexico
.
Nevada
's rate for the same period.
19 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
Court structure and statistical information was
obtained from
the National
Center
http://www.
.
2006 Annual Report.
20 Eleven states, including
Nevada
Delaware
Maine
Montana, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wyoming
.
Washington
,
D
.
C
.
comparison.
See
National
Center
.
.
.
21 U.
.
.
.
.
Table 1 , U
.
S
.
.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page 9
New
Mexico
's appellate system may also provide a framework for discussion
regarding
appropriate jurisdiction for Nevada
.
22
Nebraska
is ranked at 38th in population, with a growth rate of only
0.
.
Nebraska
has a Supreme Court consisting of seven
justices, and a Court of Appeals
with six judges.
Nebraska
judges, a Juvenile Court with 10 judges,
93 County Courts with 59 judges, and a
Worker's Compensation Court
.
Idaho
is the third fastest growing state in the nation, with an
increase in population of
2.
.
Idaho
justices, and a Court of Appeals with
three judges.
Idaho
District Courts with 39 judges, and a
Magistrates Division with 83 magistrate judges.
Both Hawaii
and Alaska
have fewer citizens and less than one-third the population
growth of Nevada
.
Hawaii
ranks 42nd in total
population, has a Supreme Court with five
justices and an Intermediate Court of
Appeals with six judges.
four District Courts with 36 judges.
Alaska
has the lowest population of the states with an intermediate
appellate court and
is ranked 47th in population.
Alaska
of Appeals with three judges.
Alaska
judges and 9 masters, and 58 District
Courts with 21 judges and 52 magistrates.
According to the most recent data from
the U.
.
Nevada
increased by 3.
2006.
23 For the previous 19 years, Nevada
growth.
Table 1 below reflects current population
rankings and growth in the United
States
between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006.
Arizona
Nevada
states have been highlighted.
Table 1.
U
.
S
.
22 See infra p.
.
23 U.
.
Census Bureau News
Release, December 22, 2006, Louisiana
Arizona
Nevada
as Fastest Growing State, pg.
".
.
.
Arizona
over the period,
breaking Nevada
.
.
Nevada
second this time, as its
population climbed by 3.
Idaho
.
Georgia
.
percent) and Texas
.
.
.
.
Website
address: http:// www.
.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
10
RELEASED: 12:01 A.
.
Table 1: Estimates of
Population Change for the United States
Puerto Rico
July 1, 2005 to July 1,
2006
National rankings of
regions and of states
Population estimates
Change, 2005 to 2006 Population
estimates
Change, 2005 to
Geographic Area 2006
July 1, 2006 July 1, 2005
Number Percent July 1,
2006
July 1,
2005 Number Percent
United States
299,398,484 296,507,061
2,891,423 1.
Northeast 54,741,353 54,679,292
62,061 0.
Midwest
66,217,736 65,936,397
281,339 0.
South 109,083,752 107,552,100
1,531,652 1.
West 69,355,643 68,339,272
1,016,371 1.
Alabama
4,599,030 4,548,327
50,703 1.
Alaska
670,053 663,253 6,800 1.
Arizona
6,166,318 5,953,007
213,311 3.
Arkansas
2,810,872 2,775,708
35,164 1.
California
36,457,549 36,154,147
303,402 0.
Colorado
4,753,377 4,663,295
90,082 1.
Connecticut
3,504,809 3,500,701 4,108
0.
Delaware
853,476 841,741 11,735 1.
District of Columbia
581,530 582,049 -519 -0.
Florida
18,089,888 17,768,191
321,697 1.
Georgia
9,363,941 9,132,553
231,388 2.
Hawaii
1,285,498 1,273,278
12,220 1.
Idaho
1,466,465 1,429,367
37,098 2.
Illinois
12,831,970 12,765,427
66,543 0.
Indiana
6,313,520 6,266,019
47,501 0.
Iowa
2,982,085 2,965,524
16,561 0.
Kansas
2,764,075 2,748,172
15,903 0.
Kentucky
4,206,074 4,172,608
33,466 0.
Louisiana
4,287,768 4,507,331
-219,563 -4.
Maine
1,321,574 1,318,220 3,354
0.
Maryland
5,615,727 5,589,599
26,128 0.
Massachusetts
6,437,193 6,433,367 3,826
0.
Michigan
10,095,643 10,100,833
-5,190 -0.
Minnesota
5,167,101 5,126,739
40,362 0.
Mississippi
2,910,540 2,908,496 2,044
0.
Missouri
5,842,713 5,797,703
45,010 0.
Montana
944,632 934,737 9,895 1.
Nebraska
1,768,331 1,758,163
10,168 0.
Nevada
2,495,529 2,412,301
83,228 3.
New Hampshire
1,314,895 1,306,819 8,076
0.
New Jersey
8,724,560 8,703,150
21,410 0.
New Mexico
1,954,599 1,925,985
28,614 1.
New York
19,306,183 19,315,721
-9,538 0.
North Carolina
8,856,505 8,672,459
184,046 2.
North Dakota
635,867 634,605 1,262 0.
Ohio
11,478,006 11,470,685
7,321 0.
Oklahoma
3,579,212 3,543,442
35,770 1.
Oregon
3,700,758 3,638,871
61,887 1.
Pennsylvania
12,440,621 12,405,348
35,273 0.
Rhode Island
1,067,610 1,073,579
-5,969 -0.
South Carolina
4,321,249 4,246,933
74,316 1.
South Dakota
781,919 774,883 7,036 0.
Tennessee
6,038,803 5,955,745
83,058 1.
Texas
23,507,783 22,928,508
579,275 2.
Utah
2,550,063 2,490,334
59,729 2.
Vermont
623,908 622,387 1,521 0.
Virginia
7,642,884 7,564,327
78,557 1.
Washington
6,395,798 6,291,899
103,899 1.
West Virginia
1,818,470 1,814,083 4,387
0.
Wisconsin
5,556,506 5,527,644
28,862 0.
Wyoming
515,004 508,798 6,206 1.
Puerto
Rico
3,927,776 3,911,810 15,966 0.
(X) Not Applicable.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
11
3.
Nevada
Over the last 19 years, Nevada
with an increase in the number of court
cases filed and appeals from decisions of the
lower courts.
increase in the number of appeals filed
in the Supreme Court, it is reasonable to expect
current trends will continue.
support legislative efforts to provide
court services accessible to all citizens.
a.
Figure 2 was created using data compiled by Jeff
Hardcastle, Nevada
State
Demographer.
24 As indicated, Nevada
in recent years.
next ten years.
Figure 2.
Nevada
24 Source: Jeff Hardcastle,
Nevada State Demographer's Office, website address: http://www.
.
.
Nevada
Population (in
thousands)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Year
Population
(in thousands)
Population (in
thousands) Population Projections (in thousands)
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
12
b.
Figure 3 was created from data obtained from the
Nevada Supreme Court Clerk's
Office.
40 years.
number of cases filed in the Supreme
Court has increased rapidly, followed by a
"leveling off" period.
For purposes of this report, the
Committee has utilized a simple linear forecasting
method to estimate the number of new case
filings.
cases filed in the Nevada Supreme Court
in 2013 is expected to be almost 2,900.
the year 2016, that number will increase
to nearly 3,100.
Figure 3.
Cases Filed in the
Supreme Court
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Calendar Year
Cases Filed
Cases filed Projected
Case Filings
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
13
The actual number and rate of increase of
appellate filings should also be considered in
the analysis.
25 During fiscal year 2002, the Nevada
Supreme Court processed 1,752
new appeals.
Table 2 26 below.
Table 2.
Nevada
Fiscal Years 2002 - 2006
Cases Filed
Bar Matters 29 29 50 40
28
Appeals 1,478 1,519
1,541 1,646 1,735
Original Proceedings 226
282 248 317 305
Other 4 1 7 8 6
Reinstated 15 10 6 11 12
Total Cases Filed 1,752
1,841 1,852 2,022 2,086
Cases Disposed
By Opinions 81 87 83 93
122
By Order 1,825 1,802
1,667 1,887 2,007
Total Cases Disposed
1,906 1,889 1,750 1,980 2,129
Cases Pending 1,474
1,426 1,528 1,570 1,464
Number of Opinions
Written* 77 85 78 91 106
* Includes opinions that
do not dispose of cases.
Source: Nevada
.
Fiscal
Year
2003
Fiscal
Year
2002
Fiscal
Year
2006
Fiscal
Year
2005
Fiscal
Year
2004
Table 2 shows that during the last fiscal year, a
total of 2,086 new cases were filed in
the Supreme Court, representing an
increase of 3 percent from the previous year.
is a staggering caseload even for our
expanded Court.
During that same fiscal year, the Nevada
Supreme Court successfully disposed of 2,129
cases, up by 8 percent from the previous
year.
dedication and commitment of all seven
members, implementation of the new case
management system, the efficient use of
the panel system, a hardworking Central Legal
Staff, and a smoothly running Clerk's
Office.
the "fast track" program for
criminal appeals and the new court rule requiring settlement
conferences have played a part in keeping
the high court's caseload from spinning out
of control.
27
25 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
26 Annual Report of the Nevada
.
27 See NRAP 3C, Fast
Track Criminal Appeals, added 9-1-1996; NRAP 16, Settlement Conferences
in
Civil Appeals, added
2-26-1997.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
14
4.
During the 65th Legislative Session in
1989, the Nevada Supreme Court formed a
committee to study the impact of Senate
Joint Resolution 12 (SJR 12).
of the committee's work, the Report of
the Nevada
Intermediate Court of Appeals was prepared and submitted on the
Administrative
Docket, ADKT 123, on September 28, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as the 1990 Report).
Information from the 1990 Report has been
useful in this study.
28
The 1990 Report included a discussion
regarding the "optimum relative workload" for
appellate courts, and provides,
The relative workload of a court may be
determined by taking the total
number of cases decided by the court and
dividing that number by the number of
justices sitting on the court.
number of cases that experts consider to
be the optimum for an appellate judge
to decide in a year.
omitted] experts suggest that an
appellate court with the "usual mix" of cases,
like the Nevada
100 cases per judge per year .
.
.
.
29
In this context, the optimum relative
workload number of 100 is based upon the number
of cases in which each Justice must
prepare a written decision, and does not include
decisions rendered following oral
argument.
Table 2 indicates
that the Nevada
Supreme Court has exceeded, and continues
to exceed, the optimum relative workload
of 100 dispositions per Justice per year.
Justice on Appeal, Professor
Paul
D.
It is possible that some courts may be
able to decide more than 100 cases per
judgeship per year consistently with the
imperatives of appellate justice.
is unlikely .
.
.
.
accumulate a heavier load than 100
dispositions per judge per year, without such
a showing of unusual circumstance, is
neglecting its responsibility for appellate
justice and for the general quality of
government.
30
In considering our state's rising
population, current trends and projections, and the
present number of cases per Justice each
year, continuing efforts to establish the new
court is the only responsible approach.
28 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
29 1990 Report, p.
Publishing (1976).
30 Carrington, Meador, and
Rosenberg, Justice on Appeal 146 West Publishing (1976) (hereinafter
Carrington).
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
15
not continue to function at an acceptable
level.
Nevada
system and an administration that not
only addresses existing needs, but that can
anticipate future challenges as well.
5.
Presently, ten other states, including
the District of Columbia
intermediate appellate court.
Table 3 was compiled with information
obtained by the
National
Center
for State Courts.
Table 3 compares Nevada
using a "disposition per
justice" ratio for fiscal or calendar year 2004.
31 During that year,
our Supreme Court Justices were handling
approximately 278 cases each - the highest
number for all states compared.
By June 30, 2006, the Court's
"disposition per justice" ratio increased to 289.
32 Using
Figure 3 33 projections for a seven-member Court, by
2013, each Justice would be
expected to dispose of over 400 cases
each year.
31 Source: National
Center
.
address: http://www.
.
.
32 Annual Report of the Nevada
.
Office reported 2,171
new cases were filed and 2,387 cases were disposed, or approximately 341 cases
per justice.
33 See supra Table 2.
p.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
16
Table 3.
Appellate Court (CY or FY 2004 data)
Number of
Justices
Total
Cases
Filed
Percent
Mandatory
Filings per
100,000
population
Total
Dispositions
Dispositions
per Justice
Nevada
7 1,896 100 81 1,949
278
West
Virginia
5 2,433 0 134 1,167 233
District of
Columbia
9 1,762 99 318 1,755 195
New
Hampshire 5 906 0 70 721
144
Delaware
5 564 100 68 586 117
Vermont
5 554 95 89 576 115
Montana
7 882 79 95 800 114
Maine
7 679 77 52 672 96
South
Dakota 5 405 88 53 455
91
North
Dakota 5 379 96 60 397
79
Rhode
Island 5 394 68 36 386
77
Wyoming
5 272 100 54 299 60
Median 92 69 629 115
6.
As previously discussed, other states
which have comparable or lower population and
growth rates than Nevada
.
Table 4
was created using statistics gathered
from the comparison states' most recent annual
reports available online and/or
information compiled by the National
Center
Courts for 2004.
34
Table 4 compares Nevada
per justice" ratio.
35 It
appears that other states that have integrated an intermediate
appellate court have established workable
caseloads closer to the ideal.
36 It is
reasonable to expect that creation of an
intermediate appellate court in Nevada
provide similar positive results.
34 Court Statistics
Project, State Court Caseload Statistics, 2005 (National
Center
website address:
http://ncsconline.
Utah
State
Courts 2006 Annual
Report.
35 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
36 See Carrington, 145.
Report to the 74th Regular
Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
17
Table 4.
Intermediate Appellate Court (using 2004-2006 data)
State New Cases Total
Dispo Per
Filings Disposed
Justice/Judge
Utah
(2006)
Supreme Court (5) 635
616 123.
Court of Appeals (7) 939
1035 147.
New Mexico
(2004)
Supreme Court (5) 691
628 125.
Court of Appeals (10)
897 884 88.
Nebraska
(2005)
Supreme Court (7) 543
257 36.
Court of Appeals (6)
1496 1330 221.
Idaho
(2004)
Supreme Court (5) 762
745 149
Court of Appeals (3) 547
552 78.
Hawaii
(2004)
Supreme Court (5) 806
952 190.
Int.
.
Alaska
(2004)
Supreme Court (5) 415
395 79
Court of Appeals (3) 219
285 95
D.
Nevada
1.
Based upon a "disposition per
justice" ratio, the Nevada Supreme Court has a
substantially higher caseload than all
other states without intermediate appellate courts.
Unreasonable caseloads and limited
resources often result in a less than desirable
standard of service for those who use our
courts.
case may have to wait for months, or even
years, before a decision is rendered.
overloaded court may have no choice but
to reduce the number of written opinions
and/or use "short form" orders
which provide a summary of the decision.
orders are inadequate when they do not
provide the parties with a clear explanation of
the reasoning for a decision.
The Court remains committed to providing
and maintaining access to justice for all
citizens of Nevada
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
18
appropriate standards for appellate
courts is helpful in realizing the benefits of an
intermediate court of appeals in our
state.
37
2.
Nevada
In 1999, The Appellate Court Performance
Standards Commission (Commission)
was formed to establish performance
standards for our nation’s appellate courts.
The Commission created Standards
complementary to the American Bar Association’s
(ABA
.
38 Standards proposed by both the ACPS
Commission and the ABA
.
This discussion will focus upon
appropriate standards for our state appellate courts: the
Nevada Supreme Court and the future
Nevada Court of Appeals.
this analysis include quality of the
judicial process, reduction of delay, timeliness,
recognizing error correction as a primary
function of an intermediate appellate court,
and the manner in which an appellate
court should render its opinions.
a.
Subject to jurisdictional limitations, Nevada
workload with the Supreme Court.
level will allow additional time in the
decision making process.
2.
Standard 2.
Appellate court systems should ensure
adequate consideration of each case and
decisions based on legally relevant
factors, thereby affording every litigant the full
benefit of the judicial process.
39
Standard 2.
“.
.
.
measured by the amount of time devoted to
each case, but rather that each case is
managed – from beginning to end – in a
manner consistent with the principles of
fairness and justice.
40
Justices of the Supreme Court have a duty
and obligation to hear and decide cases
before them.
perform administrative tasks that are
necessary to accomplish the work of the Court.
In his book, Justice on Appeal, Professor
Carrington explains,
37 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
38 Standards Relating to
App.
.
.
39 Appellate Court
Performance Standards and Measures, National
Center
.
.
40 Id.
at 6.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
19
The appellate court must maintain a
supervisory relationship to its own staff.
must also oversee the discipline of the
bar and sometimes of the lower courts.
These responsibilities generate a
significant volume of business in the form of
motions or administrative actions.
time.
.
the maintenance of a network of personal
relationships and attendance at a
variety of meetings, as well as many individual
encounters.
essential to the very nature of this
deliberative act of judging that the job not
be performed at a frenetic pace.
.
is mental and physical health.
judge not be compelled to devote every
waking minute to his judicial duties.
should be expected to maintain healthy
non-legal affairs to a reasonable
degree.
41
The Court's "disposition per
justice" ratio has steadily increased since 1975.
Subsequent to the submission of the 1990
Report, the Nevada Legislature provided
much needed relief in the passage of AB
343, which allowed two additional Justices to
join the Court in 1999.
per justice" ratio is far from the
ideal.
42
In considering all the options, the best
approach is to establish a second appellate court
that can share the workload.
cases are managed appropriately, and that
those cases which require more time and
attention will get proper consideration.
b.
Appropriate caseload management is
critical to the long term success of Nevada
entire court system.
.
Standard 4.
Appellate court systems should manage
their caseload effectively and use
available resources efficiently and
productively.
43
Standard 4.
“.
.
.
case complexity with more complex cases
receiving greater resources.
be monitored throughout their processing
to ensure the efficient use of resources
assigned to them.
41 Carrington, 145.
42 In CY 1975, each Justice
disposed of 126.
.
.
.
June 30, 2006 (fiscal
year 2006), the "disposition per justice" ratio had climbed to 289.
43 Appellate Court Performance Standards and
Measures, National
Center
.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
20
that can be processed and resolved
expeditiously so that court staff and judges can
spend more time on complex appeals.
44
The Nevada Supreme Court already performs
a screening process to facilitate panel
assignments.
structure the intermediate appellate
court so that the workload can be shared and any
delay can be minimized and/or managed.
been established, existing resources can
be allocated based upon the number and
types of cases being heard by each court.
the new judges would be assigned as
necessary.
A Nevada Court of Appeals will provide a
critical resource to our existing appellate
system.
"dispute deciding" function and
ultimately develop expertise for its own docket.
assistance of additional judges, the Supreme
Court could focus on matters on direct
review and other precedent setting cases
that serve to develop our state's unique
common law.
c.
The Nevada Supreme Court has demonstrated
its commitment to the timely disposition
of all appeals.
approximately 2,500 cases.
provided two new justices to the high
court, and which authorized the use of panels.
Commission Standard 2.
Standard 2.
Appellate court systems should resolve
cases expeditiously.
45
Standard 2.
“.
.
.
appellate court cases should be
responsive, when appropriate, to the special needs of
individual cases when doing so does not
sacrifice the quality of appellate justice.
46
The ABA
.
47 § 3.
part,
44 Id.
at 15.
45 Appellate Court
Performance Standards and Measures, National
Center
.
.
46 Id.
at 9.
47 Standards Relating to
App.
.
.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
21
§ 3.
.
.
.
.
(c) Reference Model: Time Standards for
Supreme Courts.
(i) 50% of all cases should be resolved
within 290 days from the time
of the petition for certiorari from the
intermediate court of appeals or from
filing of the notice of appeal.
(ii) 90% of all cases should be resolved
within one year of the
petition for certiorari from the
intermediate court of appeals or from
the filing of the notice of appeal.
(iii) The remaining ten percent should be
resolved as expeditiously as
possible, given the length of the record,
the complexity of the issues, or
other unusual circumstances.
(d) Reference Model: Time Standards for
Intermediate Courts of
Appeals.
(i) 75% of all cases should be resolved
within 290 days from filing of
the notice of appeal.
(ii) 95% of all cases should be resolved
within one year of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
(iii) The remaining five percent of the
caseload of an intermediate court
of appeals should be resolved as
expeditiously as possible, given the
length of the record, the complexity of
the issues, or other unusual
circumstances.
[Emphasis added.
In reviewing ABA
the Supreme Court between calendar years
2001 through 2006.
Tables 5
through 8
were prepared using information compiled
by the Clerk's Office.
48
Table 5 indicates that in calendar year 2001, 77
percent of civil appeals were decided in
less than 30 months; 23 percent took 30
months or more.
results were better.
months.
.
For the same period, Table 6 shows
that from a total of 1,094 cases decided on the
merits, 856 cases were resolved in less
than 2 years.
48 The Clerk's Office
compiled "time to disposition" information for all cases filed in the
Supreme Court
during calendar years
2001 to 2006.
years.
.
include the number of
civil and criminal appeals decided "on the merits" and do not include
those cases
that were filed and
subsequently dismissed by stipulation or due to lack of jurisdiction or other
technical
bases.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
22
Table 5.
Disposition; Graph and Chart Showing
Percentages of Cases in Each Time Period
9.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 6.
Disposition; Graph Showing Number of
Cases in Each Time Period
Civil Appeal Criminal
Appeal
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
23
Table 7 indicates that in calendar year 2006, almost
78 percent of civil appeals were
decided in less than 30 months; 22
percent were resolved within 30 months or more.
For criminal cases, 99 percent were
resolved in less than 30 months.
percent of the cases exceeded 30 months.
For the same period, Table 8 shows
that from a total of 1,280 cases decided on the
merits, 1,088 cases were resolved in less
than 2 years.
Table 7.
Disposition; Graph and Chart Showing Percentages
of Cases in Each Time Period
5.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Civil Appeal Criminal
Appeal
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
24
Table 8.
Disposition; Graph Showing Number of
Cases in Each Time Period
Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 indicate that over the last five calendar
years, the total number of
civil and criminal appeals filed and
decided on the merits has increased by 186; from
1,094 to 1,280.
time to disposition periods for most
criminal appeals continue to improve.
The ABA
filing of the notice of appeal.
49 Information
reflected in the preceding tables show that
for calendar year 2001, 50 the Court fell far short of this goal
with only 38 percent of
those cases decided within one year.
decided almost 60 percent of the cases
represented within one year, with criminal
appeals making up 91 percent of the total.
to the successful implementation of the
fast track criminal appeal program pursuant to
NRAP 3C.
49 See Standards Relating
to App.
.
.
.
50 Please note Tables 5,
6, 7 and 8 represent the number of civil and criminal cases decided on the
merits - not the total
number of cases filed per calendar year.
Period
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
25
Prior to the passage of AB 343, the
average disposition for all cases filed in the
Supreme Court was estimated to be between
two to three years.
51 The expansion
of the Court in 1999 resulted in a slight
reduction of the number of pending cases for
subsequent years.
improve.
the fast track program, the Court has
been unable to achieve and maintain ABA
standards as set forth in § 3.
.
Due in part to the successful reduction
of pending cases, some have suggested that the
Court be expanded again to accommodate
the increasing workload.
expansion of the Supreme Court is not a
viable option at the present time.
68th Legislative Session in1995, Chief
Justice Thomas L.
opposition to expanding the high court
and questioned whether simply adding new
Justices was the best solution.
52 The
issue was also addressed in the 1990 Report, as
follows:
Even if we were to disregard the
complications and counterproductive aspects of
court expansion, it does not appear that
increasing the number of judges would
solve existing problems of volume for
long .
.
.
.
court therefore merely buys time.
Nevada
purchase a theoretical amount of relief
for no more than five years, at a high
price in terms of dispositions per
justice.
53
Ensuring timeliness is dependent upon
maintaining manageable caseloads for both the
Nevada
Supreme Court and the Nevada
.
not feasible, the only practical solution
is the creation of an intermediate appellate court.
Establishment of the Nevada Court of
Appeals can provide the resources necessary to
ensure that all appeals are handled in a
timely manner.
d.
The Nevada Supreme Court presently serves
as an "error correction" court and the
court of last resort in the development
of our state’s common law.
Nevada
Court of Appeals would assume the primary
duty of error correction.
.
provides guidance:
51 See supra p.
.
52 Hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, 1-31-1995, 68th Leg.
.
Chief Justice Steffen, p.
.
53 1990 Report, p.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
26
Standard 1.
Appellate court systems should provide
review sufficient to correct prejudicial
errors made by lower tribunals.
54
Standard 1.
courts,
A key function of appellate courts is the
correction of prejudicial errors in fact or
law made by lower tribunals .
.
.
resort is fundamentally different from
the error-correcting function for an
intermediate appellate court.
A court of last resort is a court of precedent
whose primary function is to interpret
and to develop case law, rather than
to correct errors in individual cases.
[Emphasis added.
On the other hand, an intermediate
appellate court serves primarily as a court
of error correction, following precedent
created by the courts of last resort.
course, in the absence of binding
precedent, an intermediate appellate court
must also interpret and develop the law.
discretionary in courts of last resort,
these intermediate appellate court decisions
may serve an important function in the
development of law.
The ability of appellate court systems to
correct errors protects the rule of law
and improves the manner in which lower
tribunals decide cases and dispense
justice.
.
The result is increased confidence in the
entire judicial process.
55
Establishment of an intermediate
appellate court is critical to the successful growth
and natural development of Nevada
.
Nevada Court of Appeals should be
designated as an "error correction" court.
Supreme Court can then focus on its
precedent setting function; to hear and decide
those matters which have widespread
impact, such as death penalty cases,
interpretation of our state constitution
and issues of first impression.
e.
The number of written opinions produced
by the Court has increased over the last five
years.
Table 2 56 indicates
that at the end of fiscal year 2002, the Court prepared 77
written opinions, averaging 11 opinions
per year per Justice.
Court had issued 106 opinions for an
average of 15 per Justice.
54 Appellate Court
Performance Standards and Measures, National
Center
.
.
55 Id.
at 3-4.
56 See supra Table 2.
, p.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
27
Clerk's Office, for calendar year ending
2006, the number increased to 121, resulting in
an average of 17 written opinions per
Justice.
Although the number of published opinions
has increased, the Court is committed to
providing more authored opinions focusing
on decisions that establish and define
Nevada
's common law.
essential in light of the increasing
complexity of appellate issues brought before the
Court.
The standard suggested by Professor
Carrington is for each Justice to prepare a full
opinion in one of every four cases, or
approximately 25 full opinions per Justice per
year.
57 It is suggested that a reduction in the
Court's caseload will allow more time for
authored opinions and/or per curiam opinions,
as compared to those issued by
unpublished orders (sometimes referred to
as a memorandum opinions).
58 Section 3.
of the ABA Standards provides guidance in
the manner and method of rendering judicial
decisions as follows,
§ 3.
(a) Conferences by the Court.
confer after argument is completed and
before a decision is formulated.
process by which an opinion is prepared
may appropriately vary, but all
participating judges should join in its
formulation.
the judges who participated in it.
(b) .
.
.
analysis of pertinent authorities and
principles, should be rendered in cases
involving new or unsettled questions of
general importance.
such questions should be decided my
memorandum opinion.
59
The commentary to § 3.
provides,
An appellate court may appropriately
render oral opinions from the bench in
cases that are orally argued, but such a
procedure should be used with great
caution.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The public's interest is served by the
court's ability to allocate its efforts according
to the complexity and importance of the
questions it must decide.
.
.
.
57 See Carrington, 144.
58 A memorandum order is
an appellate decision that briefly reports the court's conclusion without
elaboration because the
decision follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any
point
of law.
per curiam opinion is an opinion handed
down by an appellate court without identifying the
individual judge who
wrote the opinion.
p.
.
59 Standards Relating to App.
.
.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
28
substantial difficulty, however, should
be decided through opinions that deal with
them adequately and candidly; memorandum
opinions should not be used to
avoid responsibility for reasoned,
legally supported resolution of difficult cases.
Litigants are entitled to assurance that
their cases have been thoughtfully
considered.
performing its duty.
60
The need for an intermediate appellate
court in Nevada
.
addition of a second appellate court is
essential to ensure quality of the judicial process,
to provide that decisions are rendered in
a timely manner, and ultimately to protect the
rule of law.
2.
Nevada
a.
Nevada
According to current United States Census
Bureau data, Nevada
50 states, with a population of nearly 2.
.
61 Statistical trends indicate that by the
year 2016, Nevada
.
.
62
Table 10 indicates that all Nevada
annual caseloads.
63
60 Id.
at 66-67.
61 U.
.
Census Bureau News
2006, Website address: http:// www.
.
.
62 See supra Figure 2.
,
p.
.
63 See Senate Bill 234 Subsection 1.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
29
Table 10.
64
Court
Fiscal
Year Criminal 1 Civil 2 Family 2 Juvenile
Total
Nontraffic
caseload
District 2006 14,863
29,088 59,571 15,093 118,615
2005 14,056 29,447
58,111 15,177 r 116,791
2004 13,203 29,013 r 54,961 r 15,799 r 112,976 r
2003 12,001 28,077
52,258 14,319 r 106,655
2002 12,191 25,303 r 47,676 14,149 r 99,319 r
Justice 2006 80,407
125,994 NJ NJ 206,401
2005 80,996 123,716 NJ
NJ 204,712
2004 77,748 r 116,551 NJ NJ 194,299 r
2003 76,078 106,593 NJ
NJ 182,671
2002 76,928 r 101,204 NJ NJ 178,132 r
Municipal 2006 58,208 7
NJ NJ 58,215
2005 58,521 0 NJ NJ
58,521
2004 58,235 20 NJ NJ
58,255
2003 59,074 r 3 NJ NJ 59,077 r
2002 56,796 r 125 NJ NJ 56,921 r
TOTAL 2006 153,478 155,089
59,571 15,093 383,231
2005 153,573 153,163
58,111 15,177 r 380,024 r
2004 149,186 r 145,584 r 54,961 r 15,799 r 365,530 r
2003 147,153 r 134,673 52,258 14,319 r 348,403 r
2002 145,915 r 126,632 r 47,676 14,149 r 334,372 r
NJ Not within court
jurisdiction.
r Data totals revised from
previous annual reports owing to improved data
collection.
1 Criminal includes
felony, gross misdemeanor, and nontraffic misdemeanor
filings and are counted
by defendant.
2 Reopened cases (see
glossary) are included in totals.
As our population has increased, so have
the number of cases filed in Nevada
trial courts overall.
Table 10.
The most dramatic increases have occurred in the
Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas
Reno
.
64 Source: Uniform System for Judicial Records, Nevada
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
30
b.
Clark
County
Las Vegas
North
Las Vegas
Henderson
surrounding cities, is the most populous
county in Nevada.
65 The Eighth Judicial
District Court (Eighth JD) serves this
area.
the population in Clark
County
.
66 The Clark
County system has felt the effects:
overcrowded courtrooms and dockets, lack of
space and existing resources that are
stretched to the limit.
Table 11 was created using information obtained
from the Clerk's Office for calendar
years 1990 through 2006.
Table 11 indicates steady growth in the
number of appeals
filed in the Eighth JD over a
sixteen-year period.
from the District Court was 499.
twice the amount in 1990.
recorded an 8 percent increase in the
number of appeals of District Court decisions
filed compared to the previous fiscal
year.
67
Additionally, and as a result of the
passage of Senate Bill 195 in 2005, four new District
Court Judges have been added to the Clark
County
.
number of cases being heard and decided
will undoubtedly result in an increase in the
number of decisions appealed to the
Nevada Supreme Court.
68
Table 11.
Clark
County
Number of Appeals from CY 1990 to CY 2006
Number of Appeals from
Clark County/Eighth Judicial District Court, CY 1990-2006
Year Civil
Appeals
Criminal
Appeals
Total
Appeals
Year Civil
Appeals
Criminal
Appeals
Total
Appeals
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
197
232
203
225
288
302
279
240
318
389
499
511
443
543
677
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
491
484
454
523
486
419
408
426
469
541
910
892
880
992
1,027
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
267
396
465
509
545
347
484
436
448
477
614
880
901
957
1,022
2005
2006
470
509
614
644
1,084
1,153
65 For the past two years, Lyon
County
Nevada
.
66 Source: Jeff Hardcastle,
Nevada State Demographer’s Office.
.
.
67 Annual Report of the Nevada
.
68 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
31
c.
The Second Judicial District Court
provides services to Washoe
County
comprised of Reno
Sparks
.
Washoe
County
experienced steady growth both in
population and caseloads.
and June 30, 2005, the population in Washoe
County
.
69
Table 12 was created using information obtained
from the Clerk's Office for calendar
years 1990 through 2006.
Table 12 indicates steady growth in the
total number of
appeals filed from the District Court in Washoe
County
.
the total number of appeals filed nearly
doubled.
Table 12.
Washoe
County
Number of Appeals from CY 1990 to CY 2006
Number of Appeals from
Washoe County/Second Judicial District Court, CY 1990-2006
Year Civil
Appeals
Criminal
Appeals
Total
Appeals
Year Civil
Appeals
Criminal
Appeals
Total
Appeals
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
103
88
121
104
103
82
70
101
132
144
185
158
222
236
247
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
122
124
140
145
136
249
243
207
199
178
371
367
347
344
314
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
98
125
128
115
124
167
241
244
264
227
265
366
372
379
351
2005
2006
143
120
264
251
407
371
Table 12 also indicates a "leveling off"
period between 1999 and 2006.
in the total number of appeals filed in
2006 compared to the previous year may be
attributed, in part, to the closing of
the Second Judicial District Court for a three-week
period as a result of the unfortunate
events of June 12, 2006, involving the Honorable
Judge Charles E.
.
from decisions in the Second Judicial
District for calendar year 2007 will be in excess
of 400.
The passage of implementation of AB 343
in 1999 was critical; expansion of the Court
and the utilization of the panel system
helped to stem the tide and maintain some
control of the appellate process.
population in Clark and Washoe
Counties
69 Source: Jeff Hardcastle,
Nevada State Demographer’s Office.
.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
32
appeals from the District Courts since
that time, our existing appellate court process and
structure remains at risk.
Our appellate court system must be
maintained and afforded appropriate relief.
Creation of the intermediate appellate
court is an essential step toward improving and
preserving our existing court system and
maintaining quality in the appellate process.
E.
Nevada
Judicial power for our state court system
is derived from Article 6 of the Nevada
State Constitution.
Nevada
Supreme Court and other courts which
comprise the Judicial Branch.
provides:
The Judicial Power of this State is
vested in a court system, comprising a
Supreme Court, District Courts and
Justices of the Peace.
may also establish, as part of the
system, Courts for municipal purposes
only in incorporated cities and towns.
1.
A Bill Draft Request for a joint
resolution in support of establishing an intermediate
appellate court, having been timely
submitted, will be presented during the 74th
Legislative Session in 2007.
Joint Resolution 5, which was approved,
but later withdrawn, during the 73rd Legislative
Session in 2005.
under our state constitution to establish
the new court.
70
BDR C-661 proposes in part,
Resolved, by the Senate and Assembly of
the State of Nevada
new section be added to article 6 and
sections 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 20 and 21
of article 6 of the constitution of the
State of Nevada
respectively as follows:
Sec.
.
.
The legislature
may provide by law for the creation of a court of
appeals.
70 BDR C-661 is subject to
revision and will be properly designated and numbered as a joint resolution.
During the revision
process, the stakeholders will request that the final resolution reflect
appropriate
provisions addressing
the selection and initial terms of the new judges, and that the Supreme Court
exercise its rule making
authority in fixing appropriate jurisdiction for the court of appeals.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
33
2.
The name of the new court should be The
Nevada Court of Appeals, 71 consistent
with
the intent and the language of BDR C-661
in its present form.
3.
a.
BDR C-661, in its final form, will
propose jurisdiction for the new court of appeals be
established by the Supreme Court as
follows:
RESOLVED, That Section 4 of Article 6 of
the Nevada
to read as follows:
Sec.
.
.
The supreme court
and the court of appeals, if established by the
legislature, have appellate jurisdiction
in all civil cases arising in district courts,
and also on questions of law alone in all
criminal cases in which the offense
charged is within the original jurisdiction
of the district courts.
If the
Legislature
establishes a court of appeals, the
Supreme Court shall fix the jurisdiction
of the court of appeals and provide for
the review, where appropriate, of
appeals decided by the court of appeals.
The supreme court and the court of
appeals also have power to issue writs of
mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo
warranto and habeas corpus and also al
writs necessary or proper to the
complete exercise of their jurisdiction.
judge of the court of appeals may issue
writs of habeas corpus to any part of the
state, upon petition by, or on behalf of,
any person held in actual custody in this
state and may make such writs returnable
before the issuing justice or judge or
the court of which the justice or judge
is a member, or before any district court
in the state or any judge of a district
court.
b.
New Mexico
In considering the appropriate
jurisdiction for the new court, the Committee reviewed
several other state systems and methods.
72 Jurisdiction
may be established by
constitutional amendment, through the
legislative process and/or by court rule.
In determining appropriate jurisdictional
limits, the New Mexico
.
Authority for establishment of the New
Mexico Court of Appeals is provided in Article VI,
§§ 1, 3 and 28 of the New Mexico
State
.
New Mexico
has ten judges who sit in panels of three.
71 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
72 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
34
Section 1.
.
The
judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate
when sitting as a court
of impeachment, a supreme court, a court of appeals, district courts;
probate courts,
magistrate courts and other such courts inferior to the district courts as may
be
established from time to
time .
.
.
.
[Emphasis
added.
Jurisdiction of the New Mexico Court of
Appeals is established by statute.
Article 5 of the New Mexico Statutes
provides that the Court of Appeals may review:
(1) any civil action not
specifically reserved to the jurisdiction of the supreme court by the
constitution or by law;
(2) all actions under
the Workmen's Compensation Act [Workers' Compensation Act], the
New Mexico
Occupational Disease
Disablement Law [ 52-3-1 NMSA 1978], the Subsequent
Injury Act and the
federal Employers' Liability Act[s];
(3) criminal actions,
except those in which a judgment of the district court imposes a
sentence of death or
life imprisonment;
(4) post conviction
remedy proceedings, except where the sentence involved is death or
life imprisonment;
(5) actions for
violation of municipal or county ordinances where a fine or imprisonment is
imposed;
(6) decisions of
administrative agencies of the state; and
(7) decisions in any
other action as may be provided by law.
B.
section from the court
of appeals to the supreme court in addition to the transfers provided for in
Section 34-5-10 and
Subsection C of Section 34-5-14 NMSA 1978.
In fixing jurisdiction for the Nevada
New Mexico
utilized to include amendatory language
providing the Supreme Court with authority to
decide cases that raise issues of first
impression.
(6) may include language or words to the
effect, "excepting cases which raise issues of
first impression or constitutional law.
Further discussion of the New
Mexico
follows.
c.
Nevada
1.
The Nevada Supreme Court should retain
exclusive jurisdiction in certain cases.
example, using the New Mexico
criminal cases where the penalty is
either death or a life sentence.
constitutional claims should always be
heard and decided by our Supreme Court.
Supreme Court should also retain
jurisdiction to hear original petitions for all
extraordinary writs necessary or proper
in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
35
Cases which involve "issues of first
impression" and/or matters that will ultimately lead
to new legal precedent should be accepted
by and/or transferred to the Supreme Court.
This can be accomplished by using a
modified New Mexico
which provide the Supreme Court with
appropriate authority.
2.
The Supreme Court should also be
empowered with discretionary review; to accept or
deny review of appeals from the Court of
Appeals.
litigant would file a petition for a writ
of certiorari ("cert"), which is a request that the
court accept review of a decision of the
Nevada Court of Appeals or the District Court.
Using its discretion, the Supreme Court
would choose to grant review based upon the
type of case and/or the issues involved.
Excepting those cases properly filed via
direct review, the Court's discretionary power
would essentially eliminate appeals
"as of right" from decisions of the District Courts.
Appropriate use of the Court's
discretionary power will serve to equalize the caseload,
minimize the number of "double
appeals" 73
and keep the Supreme Court's
focus on
those cases which ultimately define and
shape our state's common law.
3.
The Supreme Court presently screens all
appeals for purposes of making panel
assignments.
a case-by-case basis between itself and
the Nevada Court of Appeals.
of screening and allocating cases between
courts is referred to as "pour over
jurisdiction.
74
4.
The Nevada Supreme Court should also
adopt rules and procedures that will facilitate
transfers of cases between both courts.
Subsection (7)(b) of the New Mexico
intermediate appellate court to the
Supreme Court.
New Mexico
73 The 1990 Report provides
in part, " .
.
.
delay on appeal because
supreme court backlog is diminished and access to review is facilitated.
other hand, a two-tiered
system presents the possibility of double appeals, to the intermediate court
and
then to the supreme
court.
delay resolution of the
litigants' dispute and may delay resolution of important legal questions.
increase litigant
expense, and they drain judicial resources through some duplication of effort
by the two
appellate courts.
.
appeals cannot and ought
not to be entirely eliminated, however; review by the intermediate appellate
court can serve to
winnow and clarify issues for incisive consideration by the supreme court.
1990
Report, p.
.
74 Id.
at 32.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
36
be a good fit considering the Court's
existing structure, screening and case assignment
processes.
Similarly, the Nevada Supreme Court could
utilize "push down" authority to transfer a
case originally filed in the Supreme
Court to the court of appeals.
majority of civil appeals filed in the
Supreme Court are subject to the mandatory
settlement program pursuant to NRAP 16.
settled, briefing is required.
the case raises constitutional issues or
issues of first impression.
assign the case to the court of appeals.
NRAP 3C specifies which criminal appeals
may be resolved through the fast track
program.
issues, a constitutional claim or issues
of first impression.
appropriately assigned to the court of
appeals.
d.
Nevada
1.
The Committee recommends that the
jurisdiction of the Nevada Court of Appeals
ultimately reflect its primary function
as an "error correcting" court.
With some exceptions, the New Mexico
determining the appropriate jurisdiction
of the Nevada Court of Appeals.
outset, the Court should be empowered to
hear most civil and criminal appeals,
including post conviction relief actions
which do not impose a sentence of death or life
imprisonment.
writs which are necessary or proper in
the exercise of its jurisdiction.
2.
The Nevada Court of Appeals should also
be empowered to establish jurisdiction to
hear and decide other cases through local
court rules adopted by the Supreme Court.
For example, the Court may establish a
rule which allows consideration of a broad
category of appeals in order to equalize
the workload between both appellate courts.
Court rules may also be established to
effect screening processes, "pour over
jurisdiction" and the Supreme
Court's "push down" authority.
4.
An important consideration in the
discussion of jurisdiction is the types of cases which
will be assigned to each court.
a more efficient process and a better
result for our appellate system.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
37
Types of cases appropriately assigned to
the court of appeals would include appeals
from petitions for judicial review of
administrative agency decisions, appeals from
petitions for post conviction relief
except in cases involving a death sentence, and fast
track criminal appeals.
challenging a ruling in a criminal case,
except in cases in which the death sentence is
sought.
75 These types of cases currently make up
the majority of those filed.
these cases involve error correction,
record review, and application of existing law.
Typically, these cases are less complex
and time consuming.
could conceivably dispose of a large
number of cases in a shorter period of time.
Appeals reserved for the Supreme Court
would be limited to matters involving novel
issues of first impression and
constitutional interpretation, and would necessarily require
more time and attention to detail.
number of published opinions, which would
provide guidance for the lower courts and
protect the rule of law.
5.
Nevada
As previously discussed, legislative
approval is only the first step in the process of
creating an intermediate appellate court.
the Legislature and the Judicial Branch
must coordinate efforts in organizing the new
court.
determining a suitable location,
transferring existing staff where appropriate, hiring
new employees and initiating the
appointment process for the new judges.
a.
The number, terms, qualifications and
salaries for the new judges of the Nevada Court
of Appeals should be considered during
the early stages of the process.
76 BDR C-661
proposes in Sec 3A.
.
The Court of
Appeals must consist of three judges or such
greater number as the Legislature may
provide by law.
.
.
.
[Emphasis added.
1.
Terms for a judge serving on the Nevada
Court of Appeals should be the same as those
for a Nevada Supreme Court Justice.
NRS 2.
provides:
1.
the qualified electors of this State .
.
.
.
6 years from and including the first
Monday of January next after his election.
75 A large majority of
criminal appeals filed in calendar year 2006 could have been appropriately
assigned
to an intermediate
appellate court using "push down" authority as described herein.
Court has indicated that
during that year, the Court accepted 169 writ petitions, 300 direct appeals not
involving death or life
sentences, 400 post conviction appeals not involving death sentences, and 220
other types of appeals,
including probation revocation and pretrial appeals, for a total of 1,089 cases.
76 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
38
BDR C-661 proposes that following the
initial terms, the new judges be elected at the
first general election following the
creation of the court of appeals.
new judges would then serve six-year
terms.
Sec 3A.
.
except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c):
(1) After the initial terms, each judge
of the court of appeals must be
elected by the qualified electors of this
state at the general election for a term of
6 years beginning on the first Monday of
January next after the election.
(2) The initial judges must be elected by
the qualified electors of this state at
the first general election following the
creation of the court of appeals.
2 .
Qualifications
Professional qualifications for a judge
on the Nevada Court of Appeals should be the
same as those for a Nevada Supreme Court
Justice.
Court Justice are set forth in NRS 2.
which provides,
1.
the Supreme Court:
(a) Unless he has attained the age of 25
years.
(b) Unless he is an attorney licensed and
admitted to practice law in the
courts of this State at the time of his
election or appointment.
(c) Unless he has been an attorney
licensed and admitted to practice law in
the courts of this State, another state
or the District of Columbia
less than 15 years at any time preceding
his election or appointment, at
least 2 years of which has been in this
State.
(d) Unless he is a qualified elector and
has been a bona fide resident of this
State for 2 years next preceding the
election or appointment.
(e) If he has ever been removed from any judicial
office by the Legislature or
removed or retired from any judicial
office by the Commission on Judicial
Discipline.
2.
the office of justice of the Supreme
Court if a decision to remove or retire him
from a judicial office is pending appeal
before the Supreme Court or has been
overturned by the Supreme Court.
Requiring the new judges to adhere to the
same standards as those on the high court
will serve to attract and retain talented
and experienced jurists.
the Nevada Court of Appeals will be
expected to perform duties similar to those of the
Justices, and will likely have a higher
caseload.
undoubtedly face unique challenges during
the first several years of operation.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
39
3.
Compensation for a judge on the Nevada
Court of Appeals should reflect the
challenging and complex nature of the
tasks required, as well as the person's
qualifications.
The base salary for a Nevada Supreme
Court Justice is set by statute.
77 Salaries for
the new judges should also be established
by law, taking into consideration the current
compensation for new Supreme Court
Justices and District Court Judges.
Presently, the annual base/starting
salary for a Nevada Supreme Court Justice is
$140,000.
compensation is $171,500.
78 A new
District Court Judge is given an annual salary of
$130,000.
compensation is $159,250.
It is suggested that salary and benefits
for a judge for the Nevada Court of Appeals
should be set at an amount higher than
that for a District Court Judge and slightly below
that of a Justice.
b.
The Nevada Court of Appeals should be
properly staffed with law clerks and a sufficient
number of administrative support staff.
79 Based
on current and projected caseloads,
some additional staff will be required
for the new court.
Each new judge should have two law clerks
and one judicial secretary.
Office should hire three new deputy
clerks.
one additional person to join the
existing security staff in Las Vegas
.
1.
Law clerks provide valuable research and
support for our judges.
work for one to two years.
.
fringe benefits at approximately $11,577
per year, the total annual compensation is
$70,199.
77 See NRS 2.
.
.
78 Calculations for 2007
salaries and benefits for members of the judiciary and staff were obtained from
the Administrative
Office of the Courts Personnel Division.
79 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
40
2.
Judicial executive assistants comprise
most of the support staff for our judges and are
typically long term hires.
.
With fringe benefits at approximately
$13,794 per year, the total annual compensation is
$83,637.
3.
Additional deputy clerks will be needed
to join the staff of the Clerk's Office in Las
Vegas.
.
approximately $7,802 per year, the total
annual compensation is $47,307.
4.
The Capitol Police provide security
services for the Nevada Supreme Court.
salary for our security personnel is
presently $66,753.
approximately $13,183 per year, the total
annual compensation is $79,937.
80
c.
During the 72nd Legislative Session in
2003, Chief Justice Agosti testified in support of
SJR 5, stating,
The Legislature also approved and
appropriated money to give the Supreme
Court a generous amount of space on the
top floor of the Regional Justice
Center .
.
.
Las Vegas
in place for the intermediate appellate
court when it's constructed.
81
Consistent with Chief Justice Agosti's
testimony, the new court should be located in Las
Vegas.
initially housed in the Regional Justice
Center
.
82 Presently, the Court
leases space on the 17th floor from Clark
County
.
November 20, 2025.
Existing space on the 17th floor will
accommodate three new judges and all legal and
secretarial support staff.
the construction of "build
outs" in areas on the 17th floor to provide office space for new
law clerks and support staff.
80 This is an estimated
amount.
for Capitol Police.
81 Hearing before the
Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 3-28-2003, 72nd Leg.
.
(NV 2003) (statement of
Chief Justice Agosti, p.
.
82 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
41
d.
Presently, the Nevada Supreme Court is
located in Carson City
space in the Regional
Justice
Center
Las Vegas
.
Nevada
Appeals in the Regional Justice
Center
resources.
83
1.
Both courts should share a central
Clerk's Office.
with the Clerk's Office in Carson City
Las
Vegas
.
accepting appeals may be facilitated
through the use of an electronic filing system,
which will be implemented by the Clerk's
Office in 2007.
The number of appeals filed and processed
will not increase based solely on the
addition of a new court.
restructuring and reallocation of
personnel in order to accommodate changes necessary
to integrate the new court.
developed consistent with the
jurisdictional authority of both courts, and to ensure
efficient handling of all appeals.
Presently, the Clerk's Office has 23
staff, 6 of which are attorneys.
2.
The Central Legal Staff consists of 21
attorneys and 4 judicial assistants.
maintains 9 attorneys in the Civil
Division and 12 attorneys in the Criminal Division.
The Committee anticipates that the duties
of Central Staff attorneys will be reallocated
in order to accommodate the new judges.
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
will ultimately determine what changes will be
necessary and appropriate for our Central
Legal Staff.
d.
Costs associated with the new court will
primarily involve salaries for the new judges,
law clerks and support staff.
84 There
will also be costs associated with constructing
additional workspace within the confines
of the 17th floor.
should be calculated based upon the
actual number of new staff on a date closer in time
to opening day.
83 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
84 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
42
Using today's dollars, the estimated
costs for the new judges, law clerks, and support
staff are reflected in Table 13 below.
using the current salary for a Supreme
Court Justice.
Table 13.
Law Jud.
.
Judges Clerks Assistants Clerks Personnel
(3) (6) (3) (3) (1)
$514,500 $210,597 $250,913 $141,921
$79,937
Total Annual Estimated Costs: $1,197,868
e.
The Committee is optimistic that a joint
resolution for the court of appeals will pass
during the 74th Legislative Session in
2007, and again in 2009.
acknowledges and accepts the challenge of
presenting the measure to the voters
to ensure approval in 2010.
The Committee anticipates that the 2011
Legislature will provide by law for the
creation of the new court, and will take
into consideration the recommendations of
the Committee pursuant to this study and
from others who have supported the project.
Upon formal establishment of the
jurisdictional authority of the Nevada Court of Appeals
and the creation and adoption of
appropriate court rules, the Administrative Office of the
Courts will initiate the hiring process
for support staff.
If judges for the court of appeals are
elected for their initial terms, the new court could
open its doors during the first week of
January 2013.
85 However, if the Legislature
adopts a judicial selection method that
allows for the appointment of judges, the new
court could begin operations at least one
year earlier and directly following the 76th
Legislative Session in 2011.
Nevada Court of Appeals could begin its
work during the first week of January 2012.
6.
Nevada
Establishing the Nevada Court of Appeals
will require time, money and the concerted
efforts of members of all three branches
of government.
creation of the new court will, over
time, have an overall positive effect on our entire
state court system and judicial process.
85 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 2.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
43
a.
The most important impact on the Judicial
Branch and our state court system will be
absorbing the cost for the new court.
86 Accordingly,
funding for the new court is a
primary consideration.
87
The Judicial Branch and the Legislature
should work together to obtain the necessary
funding essential to provide access to
justice for all citizens.
vested with inherent power and broad
authority to administer justice.
these duties, the Judicial Branch should
actively seek funding for reasonable and
necessary expenditures for the operation
of the court system.
88 Lawmakers also have
a duty to propose laws that ensure
sufficient funding of the courts for its citizens.
89
Creation of the Nevada Court of Appeals
is a reasonable and necessary expense
deserving of sufficient funding.
general fund dollars and administrative
assessments collected by the courts pursuant
to NRS 176.
.
90
The budget for the Nevada Court of
Appeals should be funded with both general fund
dollars and from administrative
assessments.
analysis, along with a forecast for
future expenses should be prepared and submitted to
the Committee on Judiciary during the
75th Legislative Session in 2009.
b.
The Committee agrees that the most
dramatic impact will be the reorganization of
the current workload of the Nevada
Supreme Court.
91 Considering the increasing
population and corresponding number of
appeals filed each year, the Committee
recommends that a seven-member Court
remain intact and that the "sunset" provisions
of NRS 2.
.
86 See Senate Bill 234
Subsections 1.
.
87 See Senate Bill 234
Subsection 1.
.
88 See Young v.
91 Nev.
State ex rel.
.
Davis, 26 Nev
.
Nevada
.
.
.
89 See Marshall
v.
Holland
168 Ark
.
.
.
Cook v.
287 Ark
.
699 S.
.
.
90 Assembly Bill 166 will
be considered during the 74th Legislative Session in 2007.
courts retain all funds
collected as administrative assessments pursuant to NRS 176.
.
91 See SB 234 Subsection 1.
.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
44
The existing workload of the Supreme
Court will be equalized by the addition of three
new appellate judges.
to eliminate most appeals "as of
right," thereby reducing the Supreme Court's caseload.
The Nevada Court of Appeals will focus
its efforts on the task of error correction so that
the Supreme Court can hear and decide
cases on direct appeal and those accepted
through discretionary review.
Both the Supreme Court and the Nevada
Court of Appeals must develop appropriate
court rules that address jurisdictional
issues, screening processes, and filing
procedures.
Nevada
's District Courts may also be impacted.
Supreme Court will be redirected to the
Court of Appeals.
developed to advise appellants of their
rights on appeal.
experience shorter periods between the
filing of the appeal and the return of the case
on remand.
adopted by both courts.
Appeals filed from decisions of the
Justice Courts and the Municipal Courts will continue
to be routed to the District Courts.
courts.
F.
1.
Increasing population and rising
caseloads in Nevada
Court mandate the establishment of the
Nevada Court of Appeals.
The creation of the Nevada Court of
Appeals is essential to the successful growth and
development of our state appellate court
system.
new court will provide the resources
necessary to maintain quality services to those who
find themselves involved in the appellate
process.
support efficiency, minimize delay, and
ensure timeliness of decisions.
Nevada
Court of Appeals will serve a vital
function in correcting errors of the lower courts,
thereby allowing the Supreme Court to
focus on its primary role as our state's court
of last resort.
The Committee recommends that a task
force be organized to discuss methods
and provide a means to educate the
public, so that we can obtain their support and
confidence.
projected costs and expenses associated
with opening the new court in 2013.
Upon approval by the voters in 2010, the
Judicial Branch and the Legislature must work
together to determine appropriate
jurisdiction for the new court.
New
Mexico
model serve as a starting point in these discussions.
Report to the 74th
Regular Session of
The Nevada
State
Senate Bill 234 - Page
45
The Committee suggests that existing
facilities in the Regional
Justice
Center
Vegas serve as the location for the new
court.
clerks and support staff must be hired.
existing resources, including office
space, the Clerk's Office, and Central Legal Staff, so
that expenses can be minimized.
should be set aside in the General Fund
and from the total amount collected by the
courts through administrative assessments.
The Committee requests your support in
passage of legislation required to establish
the new court during the 74th Legislative
Session in 2007 and again in 2009.
combined efforts of all involved, the Nevada
.
Senate Bill No.
CHAPTER.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AN ACT relating to the Judicial
Department; revising the
qualifications for justices of the Supreme
Court, district
judges and justices of the peace; urging
the Supreme Court to
conduct a study of the need for the
establishment of an
intermediate appellate court in this
State; and providing other
matters properly relating thereto.
Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
Existing law requires, in addition to other
qualifications, that to be a candidate
for or qualify for the office of justice of
the Supreme Court, district judge or justice
of the peace in certain townships a person
must be an attorney licensed and
admitted to practice law in the courts of
this State.
.
.
.
This bill provides an additional
qualification for those judicial offices that a
person must have been licensed and admitted
to practice law in the courts of this
State, another state or the District of Columbia
election or appointment of the person to
the office.
have been licensed and admitted to practice
law to qualify for the office of justice
of the Supreme Court is at least 15 years,
at least 2 years of which must have been
in this State.
practice law to qualify for the office of
district judge is at least 10 years, at least 2
years of which must have been in this State.
been licensed and admitted to practice law
to qualify for the office of justice of the
peace in a township in which a justice of
the peace is required to be a licensed
attorney is 5 years.
peace does not apply to any person who held
the office of justice of the peace on
June 30, 2001.
This bill does not affect the current term
of any justice of the Supreme Court,
district judge or justice of the peace who is
serving in that office on October 1,
2005.
This bill also urges the Nevada Supreme
Court to conduct a study of and make
recommendations concerning whether the
State of Nevada
establishment of an intermediate appellate
court.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
NRS 2.
2.
.
[ shall] may
not be a candidate
for or be
eligible to the office of justice of the
Supreme Court:
(a) Unless he has attained the age of 25
years.
(b) Unless he is an attorney licensed and
admitted to practice
law in the courts of this State [ .
] at the time of his election or
appointment.
(c) Unless he has been an attorney licensed and admitted to
practice law in the courts of this State,
another state or the District
of Columbia
– 2 –
election or appointment, at least 2 years
of which has been in this
State.
(d) Unless he is a qualified elector and has been a bona fide
resident of this State for 2 years next
preceding the election or
appointment.
[( d)] (e)
If he has ever been
removed from any judicial office by
the Legislature or removed or retired from
any judicial office by the
Commission on Judicial Discipline.
2.
[ shall
not be
ineligible] is eligible to be a candidate for the office of
justice of the
Supreme Court if a decision to remove or
retire him from a judicial
office is pending appeal before the
Supreme Court or has been
overturned by the Supreme Court.
Sec.
.
NRS 3.
3.
.
[ shall] may
not be a candidate
for or be
eligible to the office of district judge:
(a) Unless he has attained the age of 25
years.
(b) Unless he is an attorney licensed and
admitted to practice
law in the courts of this State [ .
] at the time of his election or
appointment.
(c) Unless he has been an attorney licensed and admitted to
practice law in the courts of this State,
another state or the District
of Columbia
preceding his election or appointment, at
least 2 years of which
has been in this State.
(d) Unless he is a qualified elector and has been a bona fide
resident of this State for 2 years next
preceding the election or
appointment.
[( d)] (e)
If he has ever been
removed from any judicial office by
the Legislature or removed or retired from
any judicial office by the
Commission on Judicial Discipline.
2.
[ shall
not be
ineligible] is eligible to be a candidate for the office of
district judge
if a decision to remove or retire him from
a judicial office is pending
appeal before the Supreme Court or has
been overturned by the
Supreme Court.
Sec.
.
NRS 4.
4.
.
[ shall] may
not be a candidate
for or be
eligible to the office of justice of the
peace unless he is a qualified
elector and has never been removed or
retired from any judicial
office by the Commission on Judicial
Discipline.
of this subsection, a person [ shall not be ineligible] is eligible to be a
candidate for the office of justice of the
peace if a decision to
remove or retire him from a judicial
office is pending appeal before
the Supreme Court or has been overturned
by the Supreme Court.
– 3 –
2.
equivalent as determined by the State
Board of Education and:
(a) In a county whose population is
400,000 or more, a justice of
the peace in a township whose population
is 100,000 or more must
be an attorney who is licensed and
admitted to practice law in the
courts of this State [ .
] at the time of his election or appointment
and has been licensed and admitted to
practice law in the courts of
this State, another state or the District of Columbia
than 5 years at any time preceding his
election or appointment.
(b) In a county whose population is less
than 400,000, a justice
of the peace in a township whose
population is 250,000 or more
must be an attorney who is licensed and
admitted to practice law in
the courts of this State [ .
] at the time of his election or appointment
and has been licensed and admitted to
practice law in the courts of
this State, another state or the District of Columbia
than 5 years at any time preceding his
election or appointment.
3.
office of justice of the peace on June 30,
[ 1999.
]
2001.
Sec.
.
1.
(a) The State of Nevada
population growth in the country;
(b) The growth in population has also
caused the volume of
cases filed in the courts of this State to
grow exponentially;
(c) This increased caseload has placed a
large burden on the
Nevada Supreme Court to review and decide
appeals from the lower
courts;
(d) The burden on the judiciary has caused
concern about the
adequacy of the current judicial
structure;
(e) The Legislature has a duty to provide
for the funding of the
State, including for a portion of the
funding for the courts in this
State; and
(f) To ensure its ability to appropriately
budget and provide for
the needs of the Judicial Branch of State
Government, it would be
beneficial to the Legislature if the
Nevada Supreme Court would
conduct a study and submit a report of the
study with
recommendations to the 74th Session of the
Nevada Legislature
analyzing whether the State of Nevada
establishment of an intermediate appellate
court which includes
consideration of:
(1) The increase in the number of cases
submitted to each
level of court in this State during the
last 5 years;
(2) The effect that the establishment of
an intermediate
appellate court would have on the other
courts in this State;
(3) The impact that the establishment of
an intermediate
appellate court would have on the judicial
process in this State; and
– 4 –
(4) Any other matter relevant to the
consideration of the
establishment of an intermediate appellate
court in this State.
2.
of an intermediate appellate court in this
State, it would be
beneficial for the study and report to
include an analysis of:
(a) The appropriate number, qualifications
and terms of judges
who would serve on such a court;
(b) The facilities and staff that would be
necessary for such a
court;
(c) The jurisdiction to be assigned to
such a court;
(d) The manner in which such a court would
be integrated into
the Judicial Branch of State Government;
and
(e) The cost of establishing an
intermediate appellate court and
the fiscal impact that creating such a
court would have on the other
courts in this State.
Sec.
.
The amendatory provisions of this act do
not abrogate
or affect the current term of office of
any justice of the Supreme
Court, district judge or justice of the
peace who is serving in that
office on October 1, 2005.
tate court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States
This article is part of the series: Politics and government of
| Tel: (702) 631-5650 | Fax: (702)
631-5603
CPSC Publications
(Publicaciones en Español)
Order Neighborhood Safety Library Publications, Handbooks, and Reports by E-mail: [email protected]
Disclaimer
McKinsey & Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
McKinsey )
McKinsey & Company is a global management consulting
firm that focuses on solving issues of concern to senior management.
McKinsey serves as an advisor to the world’s leading businesses,
governments, and institutions. It is widely recognized as a leader and
one of the most prestigious firms in the management consulting industry.[1] Vault.com list of top consulting firms,[2] [3]
[edit ] Organization McKinsey is formally organized as a corporation, but functions as a
partnership in all important respects. (It dropped the "Inc." from its
company name in 2001.) Its managing director is elected for a limited
term of three years by the firm's senior shareholders, titled
directors. Each managing director can only serve for three terms.
Several committees develop policies and make critical decisions.
McKinsey operates under a practice of "up or out," in which consultants
must advance in their consulting careers within a time frame, or else
are asked to leave the company.
McKinsey has over 7,500 consultants in 90 offices across 51
countries. Clients include three of the world's five largest companies,
two-thirds of the Fortune 1000 ,
governments and other non-profit institutions. McKinsey's clients
represent more than 70 percent of Fortune magazine’s most-admired list,
more than 90 of the 100 leading global corporations, and governments in
more than 35 countries. Forbes [4]
A controversial aspect of McKinsey's practice is that it is
non-exclusive, and thus a conflict of interest could arise as different
teams of consultants might work for direct competitors in an industry.
This works to the company's advantage, as it does not require it to
rule out working for potential clients; furthermore, knowing that a
competitor has hired McKinsey has historically been a strong impetus
for companies to seek McKinsey's assistance themselves. The policy also
means McKinsey can keep its list of clients confidential. However,
because of this there is great emphasis placed on client
confidentiality within the firm, and consultants are forbidden to
discuss details of their work with members of other teams. Consultants
are also prohibited from serving direct competitors unless they wait 3
or more years between the date they cease serving one competitor and
begin serving the next. In some cases, consultants are forbidden from
ever serving a competitor.
The firm competes primarily with other large management consulting firms, such as Bain & Company , Booz & Company and Boston Consulting Group .
[edit ] History James O. McKinsey & Company was founded in Chicago in 1926 by James O. ("Mac") McKinsey , a professor at the University of Chicago who pioneered budgeting as a management tool. Marshall Field's
became a client in 1935, and soon convinced McKinsey to leave the firm
and become its CEO; however, he died unexpectedly in 1937.
Marvin Bower ,
who had joined the firm in 1933, succeeding McKinsey when he left,
oversaw the firm's rise to global prominence and established many of
its guiding principles. When McKinsey died, the Chicago and New York
branches of the firm split up. In 1939, with the help of the New York
partners, Bower resurrected the New York office and renamed it McKinsey
& Company. One of the first partners at McKinsey, Andrew T.
Kearney, retained the Chicago office and renamed the branch after
himself, marking the start of the competing management consulting firm A.T. Kearney .
[edit ] Recruiting Marvin Bower broke with current industry practice by hiring recent
graduates from the best business schools rather than among experienced
managers.[5] Rhodes Scholars it is able to recruit.[6]
[edit ] Notable current and former employees
McKinsey has produced more CEOs than any other company and is referred to by Fortune magazine as "the best CEO launch pad".[7] Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. - former chairman and CEO of IBM and chairman of The Carlyle Group , James McNerney - chairman and CEO of Boeing , Helmut Panke - former chairman and CEO of BMW AG , Christopher A. Sinclair - former chairman and CEO of PepsiCo , James P. Gorman - Co-President of Morgan Stanley , Peter Wuffli - former CEO of UBS AG , Stephen Green - chairman of HSBC , Jeffrey Skilling , former (now incarcerated) CEO of Enron , Marius Kloppers - CEO of BHP Billiton , and Bobby Jindal , current Governor of Louisiana .
[edit ] Publishing McKinsey publishes several publications, including The McKinsey Quarterly [8] McKinsey on Business Technology McKinsey on Finance Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies The Alchemy of Growth , Creative Destruction , The War for Talent , and most notably In Search of Excellence .
[edit ] Knowledge management system McKinsey invests significantly in its knowledge management system
to support field consultants. The system includes generalist
researchers, industry (and function)-specific experts and librarians,
and access to journals and databases.[citation needed
[edit ] Criticism
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed . Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page . (March 2008)
Some criticism against McKinsey can be applied to management
consulting as a whole. The firm itself will not discuss specific client
situations and maintains a carefully crafted and low-profile external
image, which also protects it from public scrutiny of the results of
its involvement, making an assessment of its client base, its success
rate, and its profitability difficult. This secrecy also helps conceal
McKinsey's prices, which often far exceed $ 10,000 per day for a consulting team.[citation needed
Client confidentiality is maintained even among former employees,
and as a result, journalists and writers have had difficulty developing
fully informed accounts of mistakes McKinsey consultants may have made,
such as with Enron , which was headed by McKinsey alumni and was one of the firm's biggest clients before its collapse.[9] [10] Swissair , which entered bankruptcy.[11] [12] [13]
Other distrust toward McKinsey includes:
Misguided analysis, such as its recommendation in 1980 to AT&T that cellular phones would be a niche market [14]
Overemphasis on shareholder value , often at the price of investment and long-term strategy. For example, this may have doomed the British railway company Railtrack ,
which collapsed after a series of accidents, allegedly after following
McKinsey's advice to reduce spending on infrastructure and return cash
to shareholders instead.[15] [16]
Concerns from teachers and parents regarding their consultation for public school districts. Recently, McKinsey worked for the Minneapolis Public Schools ,
where the firm recommended that the district cut "high costs," such as
teacher health care, and recommended converting the 25 percent of
schools that scored the lowest on standardized tests to privatized
charter-school status (a plan under which schools receiving public
funds are run by independent charter associations, or for-profit
entities, and operate outside the authority of local school boards).
Teachers in Seattle passed a resolution of non-compliance with
McKinsey's study of the Seattle Public Schools in protest of their record of favoring privatization, high-stakes testing, and other tactics associated with the No Child Left Behind Act .[17] Among other books and articles, The Witch Doctors The Economist John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge , presents a series of blunders and disasters alleged to have been McKinsey's consultants' fault. Similarly, Dangerous Company: The Consulting Powerhouses and the Businesses They Save and Ruin James O'Shea and Charles Madigan critically examines McKinsey's work within the context of the consulting industry.
McKinsey is cited in a February 2007 CNN article with developing controversial car insurance company practices used by State Farm and Allstate in the mid-1990's to avoid paying claims involving a soft tissue injury .
This is done, the article alleges, because these types of injuries are
hard to verify by X-ray or other common examination methods other than
surgery.[18]
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced criticism in the Financial Times Cabinet Office . A top civil servant described McKinsey as "people who come in and use PowerPoint to state the bleeding obvious."[19]
McKinsey is a named defendant in Hurricane Katrina litigation. Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti 's
suit accuses McKinsey of being the "architect" of sweeping changes in
the insurance industry, starting in the 1980s. McKinsey advised insurers to "stop 'premium leakage' by undervaluing claims using the tactics of deny, delay, and defend," the suit alleges. [20]
[edit ] References
^ Huey, John. "How McKinsey Does It," Forbes, November 1, 1993 ^ Vault Top 50 consulting firms list ^ Fisher, Anne. "For new MBAs, a California lifestyle beats big bucks" Fortune, May 3, 2007 ^ http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/largest-private-companies-biz-privates07-cx_sr_1108private_land.html "List of largest private companies"]^ McKinsey’s Marvin Bower: Vision, Leadership and the Creation of Management Consulting , 2004, John Wiley & Sons. [1] ^ Rhodes Scholars, Oxford, and the Creation of an American Elite , page 300, 2004, Berghahn Books. [2] ^ Jones, Del. "Some firms' fertile soil grows crop of future CEOs" USA Today, Jan 1, 2008 ^ [3] ^ The New Yorker, July 22, 2002 [4] ^ The Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2002 [5] ^ Business Week, July 8, 2002 [6] ^ Institutional Investor Magazine, February, 2002 [7] ^ [8] ^ [9] ^ The Independent, January 20, 2002 [10] ^ Property Week, May 25, 2001 [11] ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004078970_hagopian18.html ^ Auto insurers play hardball in minor-crash claims - CNN.com ^ Financial Times, November 25, 2005 [12] ^ Foti
files lawsuit against insurance companies, alleges price-fixing | News
for New Orleans, Louisiana | Local News | News for New Orleans,
Louisiana | wwltv.com
[edit ] External links
October 6, 2009 September 21, 2009 September 20, 2009 September 18, 2009 September 17, 2009 September 15, 2009 September 4, 2009 November 15, 2008 November 5, 2008 November 4, 2008
More...
October 4, 2009 - October 10, 2009 September 20, 2009 - September 26, 2009 September 13, 2009 - September 19, 2009 August 30, 2009 - September 5, 2009 November 9, 2008 - November 15, 2008 November 2, 2008 - November 8, 2008 October 26, 2008 - November 1, 2008 October 19, 2008 - October 25, 2008 October 12, 2008 - October 18, 2008 October 5, 2008 - October 11, 2008
情趣味用品店,情色系影片,情色素圖,情深深雨濛濛,麗的情小遊戲,情比金堅,情色情狂片,談情說案,孺慕之情,情越雙白線's blog 勸君把定心莫虛,勸君耐守舊生涯,勸君莫惜金縷衣,勸敗,勸世,勸buy,勸君更進一杯酒,八十原來是太公 看看晚景遇文王 目下緊事休相問 勸君且守待運通,選出牡丹第一枝 勸君折取莫遲's blog 三心兩意,煙花意冷歌詞,意亂情迷,三心二意的時候,意仁水,意珠,沒有便意,浮雲遊子意,意棧,意有所指's blog SOHH.com Universal-sunnah's blog LiFe {unscripted} James Massengill's blog Shane Diamond's blog Namesplace.net's blog emma lieson's blog
Wilmington, Delaware, USA
