Performance of the Courts of Appeal

Fiscal Year 2015 - 2016

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 during FY 2015-2016 to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals.

QuestionIdQuestionStatementResponse
1010682511What actions, if any, did your court take during the reporting period to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals?Actions taken during FY 2015-2016 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 during FY 2015-2016 to provide a reasonable opportunity for multi-judge review of decisions made by lower tribunals.
Additional actions taken by the courts to address this objective
1st Circuit
The First Circuit 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 an en banc panel).
2nd Circuit
With post-argument conferences and written reading memoranda, the Second Circuit continued to achieve multi-judge review of decisions made by lower courts.
3rd Circuit
Through its random allotment of assigning appeal panels, the Third Circuit tried to ensure that each judge sat with each of the other judges at least once, and no more than twice with any judge in a calendar year. The court also provided 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 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 recusation4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Did not address this objective0
Improved random allotment through better manual procedures2 courts (1st Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Improved random allotment through programmed electronic devices2 courts (3rd Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Initiated or maintained systems for tracking appeals and writs by type and comparing the numbers year-by-year4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Maintained sufficient staff to support greater opportunities for multi-judge review4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Scheduled five-judge hearing days to provide greater multi-judge review4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)

© 2019 - Louisiana Supreme Court, 400 Royal St., New Orleans, LA 70130