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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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:

6. 2d Court of Appeals Counties (12)
Archer Tarrant
Clay Wichita
 Cooke Wise
 Denton Young
 Hood
 Jack
 Montague
 Parker

7. 5th Court of Appeals Counties (5.5)
Collin
Dallas
Grayson
Hunt (overlapping jurisdiction with 6th COA – remember, Politics)
Kaufman
Rockwall

10. 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.

11. 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%

12. 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%

13. Handling Transferred Cases
Oral Argument -- location
TRAP 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.

14. THE END