Opinion
Opinion Delivered November 19, 1990.
In the mid-1970's, the bench, Bar and the public became aware that Arkansas's appellate case load had increased to the point that the state decided it must seriously consider adding a new court. During this period, between 500 and 600 appeals were lodged with the supreme court — the highest number in the court's history.
In 1978, Arkansas voters responded by approving Constitutional Amendment 58, which authorized the General Assembly to establish an intermediate court known as the court of appeals. That new court went into operation in July 1979, and the supreme court's case load was reduced to a manageable number. However, at the time and shortly after the court of appeals was established, it was given direct jurisdiction over administrative agency appeals (Workers' Compensation, Employment Security Division and Public Service Commission). Thus, during its initial years between 1980 through 1983, its appellate filings averaged over 970 per year — an especially astounding figure when comparing it with the prior history of appeals to the supreme court.
To assist the court of appeals in meeting its case load, the General Assembly authorized the court to sit in two divisions, each consisting of three judges. While this change helped, the court of appeals, even when sitting in divisions, continued having difficulty in reducing or disposing of its tremendous case load.
In 1984, an Arkansas Bar Association study committee was appointed to study the problems created by the case overload of the court of appeals and to make recommendations for effective solutions. The court of appeals adopted most of the recommendations of the Committee by establishing a central legal staff and adopting a suggestion to shorten opinions in cases that have little precedential value. Even with these changes in 1983 and 1984, and the concerted efforts of the members of the courts of appeals, that court has made little progress in the actual reduction of its case load. In fact, the number of appeals to that court grew to an all-time high of 1,096 in the 1989/1990 term.
During this period when the court of appeals has made adjustments in an attempt to meet its tremendous case load, the supreme court's case load has increased as well. In 1981, the supreme court's appeals numbered 405. In the 1989/1990 term, the supreme court's appeals increased to 482, and the present filings in 1990 reflect the number of appeals for the 1990/1991 term will well exceed 500.
The increased number of appeals, at least in part, results from the colossal number of cases being filed in this state's general jurisdiction courts. In 1979, the total number of cases filed in our trial courts was 98,213. In the 1989/1990 term, that annual number of filings was 139,858 — a 42% increase. This enormous increase was largely due to a 142% increase in criminal cases — 14,866 in 1979 and 36,010 in 1989/1990. In addition, paternity cases, now filed in chancery courts instead of county courts, account for some of that 42% increase. Since July 1, 1989, the General Assembly has added twenty-one trial judges to the state's judicial system in order to handle this increase in litigation. Obviously, the increased number of cases at the trial level (and added trial courts to handle those cases) translates into more appeals to both appellate courts.
The foregoing numbers reflect not only a tremendous growth in trial court litigation in this state over the past ten or so years, but also portends a growth in appellate filings that may soon become unmanageable and result in undue delays in decision making. Before the court of appeals was established and when this court was confronted with an unmanageable case load, the supreme court temporarily divided itself into two divisions in order to consider and expedite the disposition of its cases. This court operated in this manner beginning in 1976 through 1978. That temporary method of disposing of appeals in the state's highest court was met with various degrees of dissatisfaction, and we are convinced that such a method for decision making should be avoided in the future, if possible.
In recognition of the growing number of appeals and the difficulty and potential delays both appellate courts face in disposing of those appeals, we have requested Charles Roscopf, President of the Arkansas Bar Association, to reinstate the 1984 special committee, chaired by Dennis Shackleford, that previously studied the state's appellate case load. That committee's charge then was to study and offer short-term solutions to redesign and to modify work methods in the court of appeals' handling of its tremendous case load. Today, the committee's charge is broader, and its study should include, but not be limited to, whether or not additional appellate judges should be added to the present court of appeals. In addition, the committee's study should include its evaluation of Appellate Jurisdiction Rule 29 and any changes or adjustments that should be considered in that Rule, including whether certiorari review should be established in the supreme court. We request the special committee to commence its work immediately and to submit its findings and recommendations to this court for presentation to the 78th General Assembly.