Peruta/Richards going en banc

[esqappellate]

Yes

and that is most certainly correct unless doing so would have impermissible retroactive effects

 

[Schipperke]

This thing is taking time too.

One prediction

 

[press1280]

This thing is taking time too.

One prediction

That's an optimistic prediction. I'm thinking it could be up to a year from orals for an opinion, which could include numerous dissents & concurrences.

 

[randian]

That's an optimistic prediction. I'm thinking it could be up to a year from orals for an opinion, which could include numerous dissents & concurrences.

It will be more than that. At a minimum I expect them to wait until after the 2016 elections.

 

[esqappellate]

That's an optimistic prediction. I'm thinking it could be up to a year from orals for an opinion, which could include numerous dissents & concurrences.

Oh, I quite a agree. I argued a case in the 9th back back in the beginning of February to a panel. Still no decision. 1-2 years from argument to decision is very common in the 9th Circuit and that is just run of the mill.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Oh, I quite a agree. I argued a case in the 9th back back in the beginning of February to a panel. Still no decision. 1-2 years from argument to decision is very common in the 9th Circuit and that is just run of the mill.

That's astonishing to this layperson. Conducting briefing and correspondence via pony express wouldn't slow the process a fraction of a percent.

 

[esqappellate]

That's astonishing to this layperson. Conducting briefing and correspondence via pony express wouldn't slow the process a fraction of a percent.

What I find astonishing is that even though they often take a long time to decide cases, they often decide cases wrongly. The least they can do is get it right....

 

[wolfwood]

What I find astonishing is that even though they often take a long time to decide cases, they often decide cases wrongly. The least they can do is get it right....

Why does the Ninth take so long to decide cases? It is very discouraging for a solo practitioner to take cases up to the Ninth when you have no idea how long it will take to as much get a oral argument.

 

[esqappellate]

Why does the Ninth take so long to decide cases? It is very discouraging for a solo practitioner to take cases up to the Ninth when you have no idea how long it will take to as much get a oral argument.

All of the below is just one guy's opinion: Part of the reason is that it is so bloody big (both in geographic scope from Alaska to the Northern Mariana Islands, to Arizona and in number of cases -- that huge scope has consequences as it limits face to face meetings). It has the most cases by far. For example, the 9th had over 6800 cases commenced in 2014 while the DC Circuit had only 561. Of course, that doesn't explain it all, as the 5th Circuit also had over 6000 cases commenced in 2014 and it is *far* faster than the 9th, but the sheer number of cases is a lot. Another part of the problem has been that the 9th has many opinions that conflict over time, often because one panel doesn't know of what another panel has done recently. The saying used to be that it was easy to find two cases adopting exactly the opposite holding on a point of law in the 9th. That has lessened in recent years as opinions are now circulated electronically prior to release, but even that takes a lot of time with that many judges and that many opinions. En banc decisions have cleaned up some of that as well. Another part of the reason is, IMHO, that a lot of the judges in that circuit are often pushing the edge of the envelope, thus encouraging litigants to likewise push arguments that would be rejected in other circuits in cases that would not otherwise be brought. That encourages forum shopping in the 9th, with ever more suits and ever more appeals and more opinions and dissents. Of all the circuits, the panel composition is most often the key in the 9th, particularly in certain types of cases (e.g., constitutional issues). A "panel" en banc is another problem as it introduces another element of chance in what has become a crap shoot for judges. No other circuit does a panel en banc. While the rules allow a true, full court en banc, I can't think of an instance where one as been held. But that can add to the delay factor as well. Other circuits are much more disciplined in their adherence to circuit and SCT precedent. Personally, I think the administration of justice would be improved if they split the circuit. Northern California and maybe Oregon, and Washington in one circuit (California has the bulk of the cases by far) in one circuit and Southern California and all the rest in a new 12th Circuit. The trouble is that you really don't want to split a state between two circuits and California is thus the problem.

 

[wolfwood]

That is helpful. Thanks. I'm working on my first 5th circuit brief right now and I am hoping we at least get orals in the next year. It gets a little frustrating in that I've been done with briefing for over two years in my second Ninth Circuit appeal and I havent had oral arguments. I don't even know what to tell my client. I had no idea it would be so long when I appealed it for him.

 

[esqappellate]

That is helpful. Thanks. I'm working on my first 5th circuit brief right now and I am hoping we at least get orals in the next year. It gets a little frustrating in that I've been done with briefing for over two years in my second Ninth Circuit appeal and I havent had oral arguments. I don't even know what to tell my client. I had no idea it would be so long when I appealed it for him.

The 9th does oral arguments FIFO by docket number. Take a look at the latest 9th circuit decisions' docket numbers and the oral argument dates for those decisions. That will give you a very rough guestimate as to when your docket number will come up. I willing to bet that you will get oral argument in your 5th Circuit case before you will in your 2 year old 9th Circuit case. You may even get a 5th Circuit decision before argument in the 9th.

 

[Brooklyn]

What I find astonishing is that even though they often take a long time to decide cases, they often decide cases wrongly. The least they can do is get it right....

Just as a short tight argument takes longer to write than to read, so to does red queen logic take longer to construct than to destruct.


They just don't have time to do both.