LegalNewsLine Logo  
Sunday, February 12 2012 Twitter  feedburner  yahoo  Subscribe in NewsGator Online
News | Contact LegalNewsline | About Us | Advertise | RSS
Enter search keyword
 
clear
clear
NEWSLETTER
Receive our FREE weekly newsletter
click here
Today's Offers:

LNL MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
+ Vermont GOP wants Sorrell to look into possible union bullying
+ Hood critical of bill that would allow officials to hire outside attorneys
+ More than 40 states have signed on to proposed mortgage deal
+ Study shows plaintiff bias in Philly courts
+ Role of plaintiffs lawyers in Dodd-Frank debated at House hearing
LNL HOT TOPICS
+ Asbestos
+ Big Pharma
+ BP Oil Spill
+ Class Action
+ Dickie Scruggs
+ Federal Government
+ Financial Crisis
+ Global Warming
+ Hurricane Katrina
+ Lead Paint
+ Sub-Prime Mortgages
+ Tobacco
State Supreme Courts 
story date  
Ketchum changes mind on need for new appeals court
ketchum.jpg
Ketchum
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - He was in favor of an intermediate appellate court system on the campaign trail, but West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Menis Ketchum now has a different opinion.

During a Feb. 9 budget hearing before the House of Delegate's Finance Committee, Ketchum said he isn't in favor of adding the intermediate appeals court, which officials say would cost at least $8 million a year.

"It will be $15 million by the time the bureaucrats get done," Ketchum said, according to wvared.com. "Am I going to write a 30-page opinion on every case? Ninety percent of the appeals I see are frivolous, so the answer is, hell no. But you'll get a decision on the merits."

The topic of an intermediate appellate court is a hot topic right now at the statehouse. Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis' recent comments about how she doesn't see the need for such a court has sparked a war of words. The Court is in the process of updating rules about appeals.

"Why do we keep talking about what we're doing now, or what we used to do?" Ketchum said at the Feb. 9 hearing. "Give us a chance to do our rules. We're doing what everybody said they want.

"With the five justices now, we can take every appeal. we can study them and we can do it standing on our heads. You watched the Super Bowl. Hell, I read briefs."

But in 2008, when he was campaigning for the seat on the bench, Ketchum said he was in favor of the intermediate appellate court.

"Yes, we do need an intermediate court of appeals," Ketchum said during an Oct. 22 forum at Shepherd University, according to a story in The West Virginia Record. "I think we need four (courts of error) - one in the Northern Panhandle, one in the Eastern Panhandle, one in Greenbrier County or that area and one in Charleston."

On Wednesday, Ketchum explained why he has changed his mind.

"On the campaign trail, I said we needed intermediate appellate courts," he said. "I said they would cost $850,000 apiece. Now, I've been informed the court would cost $8 to $14 million annually. I was misinformed about the cost.

"In my year on the court, I have discovered that our caseload is diminishing each month.

"The five justices on the current court, all of whom work extremely hard, can review the entire record on every case and make a decision and save the taxpayers $8 to $14 million a year."

Ketchum said the Supreme Court easily can handle the appeals caseload in West Virginia.

"I am now of the opinion that it would be a waste of taxpayer money to spend $8 to $14 million annually on an intermediate appeals court.

"The Supreme Court, under the Constitution, would be required to supervise the intermediate appellate court. The appeals that would be decided by this intermediate appellate court would then come to the Supreme Court. It is not necessary for a double review at a cost of $8 to $14 million annually."

Filed Under: State Supreme Courts

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format

MORE NEWS HEADLINES:
+ W.Va. SC says city can't be sued for injuries at trash station - 2/10   read more
+ S.C. chief justice says courts essential to economic development - 2/9   read more
+ Pa. SC won't meddle with Philly forum-shopping - 2/2   read more
+ D.C. high court tackles government contacts principle - 2/2   read more
+ Conn. SC: Physician's opinion in med mal case detailed enough - 2/1   read more
+ Ark. SC rules clerk's signature on summons was valid - 2/1   read more
+ Miss. SC reverses part of decision in underwriting case - 2/1   read more
+ Mo. SC upholds cap on punitive damages - 1/31   read more
+ Del. SC says firm's fee must be deducted before lien - 1/31   read more
+ Md. high court: Allergy is a handicap - 1/31   read more


IN THE SPOTLIGHT:
garrett.jpg
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
PHILADELPHIA (Legal Newsline) - A roundtable of federal and state judges from across the country will convene at the posh Ritz Carlton on Feb. 9 to address topics such as "Can MDL's keep up with state court trial settings;" "Priority of deposition examination;" "State and federal cooperation;" and "Forum non conveniens."
Read more...


+ Study shows plaintiff bias in Philly courts - 2/6
+ Fannie Mae offers examples of routine dishonesty in its fight against lenders - 2/3
+ Quaker City courts have troubled history; some reject 'plaintiff-friendly' criticism - 1/31
+ Madison County asbestos docket feeds off intake firm referrals - 1/19
+ Torts conference set for Feb. 8 in Philly - 1/18
BROWSE BY STATE:
 
BROWSE BY AG:
 
BROWSE BY DATE:
 
NEWS WIDGET:
Attention bloggers:
Add Record Headlines to your site!


fast + free- click here
NEWS | CONTACT LEGALNEWSLINE | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | RSS © 2008 LegalNewsLine.com. All Rights Reserved.