You are here

appellate law

CT Supreme Court Decides Cases in 136 Days On Average, Data Shows

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 15:37

A few weeks ago, an appellate attorney told me that the Connecticut Supreme Court has been taking longer to issue its decisions, but that the court's jurisprudence has become more scholarly. That conversation led me to look into the appellate-court process for the Connecticut Law Tribune, including examining the speed with which Connecticut Supreme Court handles its cases. You can look at the data behind the story here: 2013-2014SupremeCourtTerm.xlsx.

The story:

It may be the most comment lament of litigants when they appeal their cases: "When will the court decide my case?"

Often, appellate advocates wonder the same thing. "There is a general sense that opinions take too long to come out," says Linda Morkan, counsel at Robinson & Cole, who is cochairwoman of the Connecticut Bar Association's appellate advocacy section but emphasized she was speaking in her individual capacity.

At the same time, many appellate lawyers say they understand that the court is tasked with digging into difficult legal matters and coming up with decisions that set precedent. There is ample praise for the depth of scholarship among the current seven justices.

Chief Justice Chase Rogers said the court's goal is to work as efficiently as possible to give anxious parties a resolution to their disputes. But some cases take longer to resolve if there are multiple legal issues in need of examination. Sometimes decisions change, as what was initially the majority becomes the dissent. Moreover, decisions won't be released until all the justices are satisfied. "The bottom line is we're a court of last resort," Rogers says.

Given the interest in the matter among many Connecticut lawyers, the Law Tribune took an in-depth look at some statistics regarding the timing of decisions reached by the Supreme Court. Some may find it surprising that the current court isn't really any slower to release decisions than its recent predecessors.

Between 2005 and 2010, the average time between oral argument and the publication of decisions in the Supreme Court was 157 days, according to the Judicial Branch. Over the next three years, the average was 158 days.

During the 2013-14 term, which is officially drawing toward an end, the Supreme Court seems to have issued opinions faster than in the recent past, according to the Law Tribune's analysis. Of the 118 cases in which the justices have heard oral argument this term, 54 cases have been decided and it took 136 days on average for the court to issue decisions after oral argument. The shortest wait was 27 days and the longest 292 days.

There were still 64 cases pending as of Aug. 7, and it is unknown if any of those cases involve the type of factors that tend to delay the issuance of opinions.

At least three of those still-pending cases were heard last September—LaPointe v. Commission of Correction; Gilmore v. Pawn King; and Connecticut v. Carrion.

In contrast, the state Appellate Court took an average of 104 days after oral argument to release decisions between 2005 and 2010, according to the Judicial Branch. For the past three years, it has been 94 days.

In Connecticut, trial courts are required by law to issue their decisions within 120 days, and at least two Superior Court judges have been sanctioned in recent years for long-delayed decisions. Although some have suggested the Supreme Court adopt the same four-month deadline, Rogers said it's not workable. All sides deserve a full reading of the trial transcripts, which can be voluminous in cases with complex issues, she said. "You're not going to get a fair decision … covering all the issues in 120 days," Rogers said.

Pamela Meotti, the chief administrative officer for the Supreme Court, said the three staff offices that serve the appellate and the supreme courts are under the same imperative to be efficient. The clerk's office keeps the files and handles all communications with the parties and the public regarding cases. The staff attorney's office prepares summaries of pending cases, coordinates the court's preargument conference program that encourages settlement, and tracks issues that are coming before the court more frequently. The reporter's office checks the facts in cases, drafts the headnotes and publishes the cases when they are ready.

"Both courts aim to release the opinions as quickly as possible with the overarching goal that the opinions are decided in the right way," Meotti said.

Brendon Levesque, a partner at Horton, Shields & Knox whose practice includes appellate law, said that he tells clients it will typically take 18 months from filing their appeal to get to a decision, including taking three to six months for decisions to come out after oral argument. In fact, it takes a bit longer than that. Of the 54 cases decided so far in the term, it took 724 days on average—just shy of two years—between when the appeals were filed and the Supreme Court released its decision.

That time period can be affected by a number of factors. For example, some cases come to the Supreme Court after Appellate Court review. And some come straight from the trial courts. Chief Appellate Judge Alexandra DiPentima said the court has a panel of judges that looks for cases that should be sent straight to the Supreme Court for review.

The chief justice also receives petitions for cases involving urgent matters of public interest, such as election law cases that have to be decided quickly. Other expedited matters include child protection cases. Otherwise, cases get put on a list as they become ready for Supreme Court review, and "we just go down the list" and schedule arguments, Rogers said.

Attorneys noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit uses an informal process to issue "unpublished" decisions that come out a matter of weeks after oral arguments. The decisions serve to resolve the disputes between the parties. More in-depth published opinions are issued later. Those are the decisions that will be cited by lawyers in future cases.

In Connecticut, appellate court decisions seem to be lengthier of late, said Robinson & Cole's Morkan. In her opinion, that's a positive development for several reasons. The added depth often offers more thorough reasoning by the court, which is important for the development of the law and public policy. And the added heft helps a litigant "believe that you have been heard and the court has understood the issues."

James Streeto, a veteran assistant Connecticut public defender who regularly appears in the appellate courts, said that earlier in his career decisions seem to have come out a little more quickly. He said he thinks the quality of appellate lawyering has improved and that the courts have responded with more scholarly opinions. All that takes more time, he said. "I'd rather have a result that is careful and scholarly … than have a quick decision that's wrong."

Still, Streeto has mixed feelings. On one hand, well-crafted opinions develop the law and may help many more people down the road. On the other hand, he is representing clients who are doing very long stints in prison and "the only thing that matters to your client is if it is affirmed or reversed. The client doesn't care if 40 pages of scholarly" analysis follows their loss, he said.•

U.S. Supreme Court's Workload Might Reach New Low

The U.S. Supreme Court's workload might reach a new low because the court will consider only half the usual number of cases when it convenes in March, The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports. Yet the issues the court will consider are central to American society- whether corporations are entitled to religious expression, affirmative action and separation of powers between the presidency and Congress over the appointment of governmental officials, Barnes writes. “The court has had several cases implicating major issues of national debate each of the last few years. What that shows is that this is a court that’s not at all shy about tackling hot-button issues,” Supreme Court litigator Kannon Shanmugam told Barnes.

Opinion: Cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court Would Improve the Institution

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, writing in the Los Angeles Times, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should follow the lead of the 9th Circuit and add live streaming of court proceedings: "When Justice David H. Souter uttered his now-infamous declaration in 1996 that cameras would roll into the Supreme Court over his dead body, the Internet was relatively new and Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the iPhone were as real as Capt. Kirk's communicator. Today, there are few facets of daily life that are not available instantly online, including many criminal trials, which you can even watch on your mobile device at 30,000 feet. What this has done is create an expectation by the public that if something is truly important, it can be witnessed firsthand."

CT Supreme Court Mulls Retroactive Same-Sex Loss of Consortium in Med Mal Case

The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering whether petitioner Charlotte Stacey is entitled to loss of consortium even though she was not married to her female domestic partner, who allegedly died from medical malpractice, The Hartford Courtant reports. While Connecticut only allows loss of consortium for legally married spouses, Stacey argues that her constitutional rights were violated because she and her deceased partner wanted to be married but could not wed until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state law banning same-sex matrimony was unconstitutional, The Courant further reports. Oral arguments in the case were held this week.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Casino Case That Could Shape American Indian Tribal Rights

The Guardian reports on U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments today in a case in which the state of Michigan argues that the Bay Mills Indian Community inappropriately opened an off-reservation casino without authorization of the federal government and in violation of a state agreement. Some of the justices took a skeptical view of the position that tribal sovereignity gives extra protection against closing the casino or other action by Michigan. Justice Stephen Breyer, for one, said, "My belief is Indian tribes all over the country, operate businesses off the reservation, and businesses all over the country are regulated. And does the State, I guess, in your view not have the power to enforce the regulation against the Indian tribe?" The Guardian reported.

When You Don't Want Your Case to Go to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Washington Post's Robert Barnes writes about the litigants who don't want their cases to go the U.S. Supreme Court because they won below. Or because they are worried about how the general-knowledge justices might change legal doctrine in their particular area of law. "For every prayer sent up by a losing party appealing a case, there is a winner who hopes — and sometimes, works hard to ensure — that it goes unanswered," Barnes writes.

Onondaga Nation Land Claim Case Ends With Supreme Court Rejection

The Onondaga Nation's land-claim lawsuit ended after an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected. The circuit court had ruled the tribe had waited took long to seek redress for the loss of their territory in New York. The Syracuse Post-Standard reports the tribe may turn to international forums instead: "The nation said it will pursue the claim in international venues -- the United Nations or the Organization of American States Commission on Human Rights."

Broadcasters Seek U.S. Supreme Court Review in Aereo Copyright Case

TV broadcasters are challenging in the U.S. Supreme Court Aereo's business model as an infringement on their copyrights in their programming. FierceCable reports: "Broadcasters argue in the petition that Aereo designed its system to exploit what they described as a loophole in copyright law which has allowed Cablevision to launch its network DVR." Aereo specifically set up its service of streaming free broadcast programming through individual antennas within the Second Circuit because of the Cablevision precedent.

FierceCable also reports a ruling for Aereo could have positive implications for "cable operators and satellite TV distributors who pay retransmission-consent fees to broadcasters."

VA Appeals Court Considers Subpoena for Yelp Reviewers in Defamation Case

A Virginia carpet cleaner allowed a rug cleaner to subpoena Yelp about the identities of negative reviewers of its business, The Raw Story reports. The carpet cleaner argues its business rival made the reviews. Yelp was found in contempt of court for not complying, and the Virginia Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case this week. Advocacy group Public Citizen explains, according to The Raw Story, '“courts elsewhere have recognized that before stripping the defendant of a First Amendment right, they should take an early look at the case to confirm that the speaker’s statement appears to be false and defamatory, such that the company’s claim is viable. In this appeal, where the users’ original claims about [carpet cleaner] Hadeed’s practices are echoed by dozens of other users whose reviews have not been challenged as defamatory, Yelp urges Virginia to adopt that approach.”'

U.S. Supreme Court 'Term Is Deeper in Important Cases'

The New York Times' Adam Liptak reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous docket this fall: the "court’s new term, which starts Monday, will feature an extraordinary series of cases on consequential constitutional issues, including campaign contributions, abortion rights, affirmative action, public prayer and presidential power."

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - appellate law