Performance Report- Louisiana Supreme Court

Performance of the Courts of Appeal

Fiscal Year 2015 - 2016

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

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.

Response	Response_Court
Additional actions taken by the courts to address this objective	3 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 hearings	2 courts (4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Controlled recusation	4 courts (1st Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Did not address this objective	0
Improved random allotment through better manual procedures	2 courts (1st Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Improved random allotment through programmed electronic devices	2 courts (3rd Circuit, 5th Circuit)
Initiated or maintained systems for tracking appeals and writs by type and comparing the numbers year-by-year	4 courts (1st Circuit, 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)

Performance of the Courts of Appeal

Fiscal Year 2015 - 2016

GOAL 1: TO PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW

Objective

Intent of the Objective

Responses To Objective

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

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