Court of Appeals Caseload Information

House Bill 239 would reduce the number of judges on the court of appeals from 15 to 12. It has passed the House and awaits Senate consideration. Proponents of the bill (mostly Republicans) say that the court should contract because the number of appeals has fallen in recent years. The bill’s opponents (mostly Democrats) say that the court remains extremely busy, and that the real purpose of the bill is to prevent Governor Cooper from appointing replacements for three Republican judges who are nearing mandatory retirement age. This post presents some historical and statistical information that may help readers assess the bill for themselves. [Update: I have received several comments pointing out other factors, beyond caseload, that should be considered when determining the size of a court. Clearly, factors like disposition times, number of law clerks and staff attorneys, and case mix are all pertinent. This post presents caseload data because caseload information is relevant and readily available, but it isn’t intended as a complete analysis — interested readers are encouraged to consider the full spectrum of pertinent information. To get a sense of how complex measuring and comparing court performance is, see, e.g., W. Warren H. Binford et al., Seeking Best Practices among Intermediate Courts of Appeal: A Nascent Journey, 9 J. App. Prac. & Process 37 (2007) (noting that “[c]ourt productivity is difficult to define, let alone measure,” but finding the Court of Appeals of North Carolina to be above average in both “productivity” and “efficiency”).]

History. The court of appeals was created in 1967 with six seats. The number of judges increased over time. By 1977, the court had 12 members. It remained that way until 2000 when it grew to its current size.

Filings at the court of appeals. The Administrative Office of the Courts publishes data about appellate filings in annual statistical reports. The table below shows filings, dispositions, and filings per judge going back over 25 years. The AOC includes appeals and petitions for extraordinary writs as filings, but does not include the many motions that are filed each year in its tally. The year 2000-01 is in bold because that is when the court expanded to 15 judges.

Looking at the table, filings peaked in 2004-05 and have since declined. On a per judge basis, filings approached 200 just before the court was expanded in 2000 and have since declined, though they remain higher than a few years in the early 1990s. If the current level of filings were to continue and the court were to shrink to 12 judges, annual filings per judge would be 182. Of course, no one knows for sure whether filings will fall, rise, or remain roughly constant in the future.

Caseload data from other jurisdictions. Comparisons with other states may not be “apples to apples” because of differences in accounting conventions and case mixes. With that caveat in mind, data from three nearby states are presented below. I could not quickly find recent, reliable national data.

Virginia. The Virginia Court of Appeals has 11 judges. Filing and disposition data for that court are published in annual statistical reports.

Tennessee. Tennessee has two intermediate appellate courts, the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, each of which has 12 judges. Data for the two courts are published in annual statistical reports.

Georgia. The Georgia Court of Appeals was expanded from 12 to 15 judges in 2015. Filing data are available here on the court’s website. The following table summarizes the data, with the year 2015 in bold because that is the year in which the court expanded:

Discussion. The School of Government is neutral and non-partisan, and has no position on HB 239. Of course, opinions are welcome in the comments. Research attorney Christopher Tyner collected most of the statistical information in this post and I appreciate his work.