Docket Equalization Transfers in the Texas Courts of Appeals Joint Appellate Seminar Ft. Worth November 2, 2017

Why Equalize?? 14 courts of appeals - geographic jurisdictions 80 court of appeals justices Unequal: population growth; lawsuit filings and appeals per appellate justice and, of course, … Politics

Basis for Transfers Judicial section – Legislative Appropriations bill: Equalization. It is the intent of the Legislature that the Supreme Court use funds appropriated above to equalize the dockets of the 14 Courts of Appeals. For the purposes of this rider equalization shall be considered achieved if the new cases filed each year per justice are equalized by 10 percent or less among all the courts of appeals. Multi-district litigation cases are exempted from this provision. Legislative mandate

What is Transferred? “In effectuating this Order, companion cases shall either all be transferred, or shall all be retained by the Court in which filed, as determined by the Chief Justice of the transferring Court, provided that cases which are companions to any case filed before the respective operative dates of transfer specified above, shall be retained by the Court in which originally filed. It is specifically provided that the cases ordered transferred by this Order shall, in each instance, not include original proceedings; appeals from interlocutory orders; appeals from denial of writs of habeas corpus; appeals in extradition cases; appeals regarding the amount of bail set in a criminal case; appeals from trial courts and pretrial courts in multidistrict litigation pursuant to Rule 13.9(b) of the Rules of Judicial Administration; appeals in cases involving termination of parental rights; and those cases that, in the opinion of the Chief Justice of the transferring court, contain extraordinary circumstances or circumstances indicating that emergency action may be required.” SCOTX order language.

Courts of Appeals by District Houston Fort Worth Austin San Antonio Dallas Texarkana Amarillo El Paso Beaumont Waco Eastland Tyler Corpus Christi & Edinburg If specifics are desired, there is a detailed map on the Judicial Branch website maintained by the Office of Court Administration: www.txcourts.gov

2d Court of Appeals Counties (12) Archer Tarrant Clay Wichita  Cooke Wise  Denton Young  Hood  Jack  Montague  Parker  

5th Court of Appeals Counties (5.5) Collin Dallas Grayson Hunt (overlapping jurisdiction with 6th COA – remember, Politics) Kaufman Rockwall

Key: Case Filing Projections Fiscal Year Total Cases Filed Thru Feb. % Cases Filed Thru Feb. Total Cases Filed in Remaining Months of FY % Cases Filed in Remaining Months of FY Total Cases Filed FY   Average (FY 12-16) 4,790 48.4% 4,927 51.6% 9,717 2017 4,441 4,735 9,176 Projected Projected filings assumes of cases will be filed in the remaining months of the FY.

Equalization Before Transfers COURT Number of justices Actual filings for FY Avg % of total monthly filings for trailing 12 months Projected total filings for FY 20171 Projected FY filings per justice Projected difference from statewide avg Absolute value of difference from avg % difference from avg 1st/Houston 9 472 10.7% 983 109.3 (5.4) 5.4 4.7% 2nd/Fort Worth 7 437 10.3% 948 135.5 20.8 18.1% 3rd/Austin 6 447 9.8% 899 149.8 35.1 30.6% 4th/San Antonio 391 9.1% 831 118.7 4.0 3.5% 5th/Dallas 13 699 16.5% 1,514 116.5 1.8 1.5% 6th/Texarkana 3 131 2.9% 264 88.1 (26.6) 26.6 23.2% 7th/Amarillo 4 166 3.7% 341 85.3 (29.4) 29.4 25.7% 8th/El Paso 127 2.6% 236 78.8 (35.9) 35.9 31.3% 9th/Beaumont 247 5.2% 481 120.2 5.5 4.8% 10th/Waco 219 435 144.9 30.3 26.4% 11th/Eastland 163 3.8% 352 117.4 2.7 2.3% 12th/Tyler 153 3.3% 304 101.4 (13.3) 13.3 11.6% 13th/Corpus Christi 290 6.3% 575 95.9 (18.8) 18.8 16.4% 14th/Houston 499 11.0% 1,011 112.4 (2.3) 2.3 2.0% TOTALS 80 4,441 100.0% 9,176 114.7 16.6 14.4% Equalization before transfers 85.6%

Equalization After Transfers Projected transfers to +/- 0% statewide avg2 Prior transfers for FY Remaining transfers Projected transfers per each of remaining 2 orders Proposed transfers this order Projected net new cases filed, incl. prior transfers & proposed transfer this order3 Projected net FY filings per justice Projected difference from statewide avg. Projected % difference from avg, incl. prior transfers & proposed transfer this order 49 2 47 23 15 1,000 111.2 (3.5) 3.1% (146) (65) (81) (40) (37) 846 120.9 6.2 5.4% (210) (79) (131) (66) (60) 760 126.6 11.9 10.4% (28) (14) 831 118.7 4.0 3.5% (23) (10) (13) (6) 1,504 115.7 1.0 0.9% 80 44 36 18 323 107.8 (6.9) 6.0% 118 54 64 32 25 420 105.0 (9.7) 8.4% 108 52 56 28 22 310 103.5 (11.2) 9.8% (22) (15) (7) (3) 466 116.4 1.7 1.5% (91) (46) (45) (20) 369 122.9 8.3 7.2% (8) (4) 352 117.4 2.7 2.3% 40 12 10 329 109.7 (5.0) 4.3% 113 50 63 31 20 645 107.6 (7.1) 6.2% 21 (2) 11 1,019 113.3 (1.4) 1.3% (528) (217) (313) (156) (117) 9,176 114.7 5.0% 528 217 313 156 117 Equalization after transfers 95.0%

Handling Transferred Cases Oral Argument -- location TRAP 41.3. Precedent in Transferred Cases [T]he court of appeals to which the case is transferred must decide the case in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court under principles of stare decisis if the transferee court's decision otherwise would have been inconsistent with the precedent of the transferor court. The court's opinion may state whether the outcome would have been different had the transferee court not been required to decide the case in accordance with the transferor court's precedent.

THE END