| 135322859 | What 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 2017-2018 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 2017-2018 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 court continued to schedule necessary hearings to abide by its internal rule which requires additional hearings on cases when a majority of the assigned panel does 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 | By using post-argument conferences and written reading memoranda, this court continued to achieve multi-judge review of decisions made by lower courts. |
3rd Circuit | The court continued random allotment of assigning appeal panels and tried to ensure that each judge sits with each of the other judges at least once, and no more than twice, in a calendar year. The court also provided for the random allotment of assigning supervisory writ panels. The court developed a plan to improve random allotment by computerizing the entire process. |
4th Circuit | The court continued a docket management committee to better manage court docketing procedures. |
|
| Response | Response_Court |
| Additional actions taken by the courts to address this objective | 4 courts (1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th 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 hearings | 1 court (5th Circuit) |
| Controlled recusation | 2 courts (3rd Circuit, 5th Circuit) |
| Did not address this objective | 0 |
| Improved random allotment through better manual procedures | 1 court (3rd Circuit) |
| Improved random allotment through programmed electronic devices | 1 court (5th Circuit) |
| Initiated or maintained systems for tracking appeals and writs by type and comparing the numbers year-by-year | 3 courts (3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit) |
| Maintained sufficient staff to support greater opportunities for multi-judge review | 4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit) |
| Scheduled five-judge hearing days to provide greater multi-judge review | 4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit) |
|
|