Home > Opinion > Full Court Press — Justices push for intermediate appellate court

Full Court Press — Justices push for intermediate appellate court

Posted on | February 15, 2010 | No Comments

By DOUG McMURDO — Some of the most interesting comments during last week’s three-day marathon of Supreme Court oral arguments came before and after the hearings.

Chief Justice Ron Parraguirre and his colleagues took time to advocate for an intermediate appellate court while the high court, in one incarnation or another, heard roughly 10 cases at three locations.

Attorneys who might possibly ever be involved in a case that deserves a thorough appellate review would be wise to at least consider the high court’s proposal.

The reasons in support of the so-called pushdown court are many and varied, Parraguirre said as much to high school students on Tuesday and to law students on Wednesday.

The statistics bear him out. Nevada is one of the busiest supreme courts in the nation, with more than 2,200 appeals filed each year. Every single one of them receives attention and each of the seven justices average about 320 cases per year, give or take a brief or two.

The cases are vetted, but not all appeals are created equal. As Parraguirre told a very bright student body at Bishop Gorman High School on Tuesday, “We hear everything from death penalty cases to driver license revocations.”

While it is important for such revocations to be heard, it is unlikely a precedent would be set in the fairly settled law of the DMV. Clearly, this is the type of case a three-judge appeals court could decide fairly and by the rule of law, leaving the Supreme Court time to ponder those cases that do create or amend public policy.

By comparison, Arizona’s highest court averages about 210 cases per judge per year; California, 190; and Utah, 110. And those states have intermediate appellate courts.

Justice Jim Hardesty noted the U.S. Supreme Court receives roughly 15,000 appeals per year, but hears on average between 70 and 80 — less than 10 per judge.

Of course, some would argue it is poor form to discuss the creation of another layer to the bureaucracy when the economy is shakier than an alcoholic in the first hours of detox.

Fortunately, this is not another level of government in the strictest sense. The proposed intermediate court would not put an undue burden on its taxpayers.

Here is the best way to explain how it would work: Appeals would continue to go to the Supreme Court, where justices would cherry-pick those cases that raise compelling questions of law for the high court’s consideration. Those that merit a review but won’t make new law would be “pushed down” to the three-judge appellate court.

Brick and mortar costs won’t factor in because the new judges would be housed in existing Supreme Court facilities at the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas or the Supreme Court building in Carson City.

Salaries would be less than $2 million. This is money that has been socked away.

The Supreme Court, in anticipation of voters deciding the fate of the appellate court in November 2010, has remitted more than $3 million to state coffers over the last four years.

While attorneys don’t have to be told Nevada is more than ready for an intermediate appellate court, the average Nevadan, already shell-shocked by the worst economy since the Great Depression, might not be in a giving mood when they head to their polling places at the end of the year.

Truth be told, who could blame them?

This is why advocates for an appellate court need to organize now and educate the public. This isn’t a partisan issue. Anyone who tries to make it one should be forced to watch every episode of “Matlock” that ever aired.

Comments