Opinion
Delivered February 18, 1991
On November 19, 1990, we issued a per curiam order requesting that Charles Roscopf, President of the Arkansas Bar Association, reinstate the 1984 special committee, which previously studied the state's appellate caseload, and recharge the Committee to conduct a study that should include, but not be limited to: 1) whether or not additional appellate judges should be added to the present court of appeals, 2) evaluation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 29 and make recommendations for changes or adjustments which should be considered in that Rule, and 3) whether certiorari review should be established in the supreme court.
On January 30, 1991, the Committee, composed of:
Dennis L. Shackleford, Chair, El Dorado Honorable John A. Fogleman, Little Rock Honorable Ernie E. Wright, Harrison David Solomon, Helena W. H. Sutton, Little Rock James M. Moody, Little Rock J. D. Gingerich, Conway
submitted this report to the court with the following recommendations:
(a) There should be six additional judges added to the present Court of Appeals. A purpose of the study of this committee is to determine the extent of the growth of the case load and whether case terminations are maintaining an appropriate pace with that growth. We reach the conclusion that the number of terminations will not keep up with the projected case load growth. The time for termination will lengthen as this progression continues. To retain the timely termination of cases, the only solution is to increase the number of judges on the Court of Appeals.
(b) The distribution of the caseload between the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals should be adjusted. However, there should be sufficient time allowed for the case load to stabilize after the six judges are added before making adjustments.
(c) There should be divisions of the enlarged court, composed of no less than three (3) judges, with a required procedure for rotation of judges among divisions. The decision of a division should be unanimous. Consideration should be given to the designation of a division or divisions for criminal cases, and other special classes of filings that require priority handling.
(d) At the present time our study does not reveal a need to limit case review in the Arkansas Supreme Court to petition for writ of certiorari. Nor do we find any facts that persuade us to reach the conclusion that discretionary appellate review is a solution. Every unsuccessful litigant is entitled to at least one review by a multi-judge court.
A complete copy of the Committee's findings and report is on file with the Supreme Court Clerk and available for inspection.
We accept the report as filed and extend our sincere appreciation for the work performed by the Committee and its membership, particularly in light of the severe time constraints within which they performed their work.