Performance of the Courts of Appeal

Fiscal Year 2014 - 2015

Back

GOAL 1: TO PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW


Objective

1.1 To provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals.

Intent of the Objective

Our judicial system recognizes that decisions made by lower tribunals may require modification. American jurisprudence generally requires that litigants be afforded a reasonable opportunity to have such decisions reviewed by an intermediate appellate court and then by a court of last resort. Louisiana’s courts of appeal, as intermediate appellate courts, provide such opportunities through a system of review by a panel of judges.

Responses To Objective

  1. Actions taken in FY 2014-2015 to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals.

✖
QuestionIdQuestionStatementResponse
857700262What actions, if any, did your court take in FY 2014-2015 to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals?Actions taken in FY 2014-2015 to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals.
(Hover on the chart for more information and click on the chart to see which courts chose that response.)
Actions taken in FY 2014-2015 to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals.
Refresh Charts
Additional actions taken by the courts to address this objective
1st Circuit
The court maintained an internal rule that provides for increasing the number of panel members when a majority of the assigned panel do not agree on a result (i.e., a three-judge panel goes to a five-judge panel; a five-judge panel goes to a seven-judge panel; a seven-judge panel goes to an en banc panel.
2nd Circuit
The court continued to achieve multi-judge review of decisions made by lower courts via post-argument conferences and written reading memoranda.
3rd Circuit
The Third Circuit, in its random allotment of assigning appeal panels, worked to ensure that each judge sits with each of the other judges at least once, and no more than twice, with any judge in a calendar year. The court also continued to provide for the random allotment of assigning supervisory writ panels.
ResponseResponse_Court
Additional actions taken by the courts to address this objective3 courts (1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit)
Continued to address this objective through the actions indicated below, or implemented the following new actions in FY 2014-2015 to address this objective as indicated below:5 courts (1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Controlled absences of judges from docketed hearings2 courts (4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Controlled recusation3 courts (1st Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Did not address in FY 2014-20150
Improved random allotment through better manual procedures1 court (1st Circuit)
Improved random allotment through programmed electronic devices2 courts (4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Initiated or maintained systems for tracking appeals and writs by type and comparing the numbers year-by-year3 courts (1st Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Maintained sufficient staff to support greater opportunities for multi-judge review3 courts (1st Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Scheduled five-judge hearing days to provide greater multi-judge review3 courts (1st Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)

© 2024 - Louisiana Supreme Court, 400 Royal St., New Orleans, LA 70130