Speedier rulings sought for state Supreme Court

By Lynda Arakawa
Advertiser Capitol Bureau

As the Hawai'i Supreme Court works on its own ways to cut through its case backlog, the Legislature this session may also get involved to help the high court issue decisions more quickly.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon has said he wants to set internal rules on timeliness.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court, the state's final authority on legal disputes, has been struggling to deal with a growing case backlog, which was highlighted in an Advertiser series in November. As of Dec. 31, the last available statistics, the Supreme Court had 349 appeals awaiting a decision. The median age of appeals resolved in the first three months of the 2004 fiscal year was 473 days, longer than that of most supreme courts, according to at least one court expert.

"I think anything that can make it faster is great," said Big Island resident Charles Rapoza, who waited four years for the Supreme Court to resolve his appeal involving his wrongful-death lawsuit. The January decision overturned a 1998 Circuit Court ruling and jury verdict that sided with those Rapoza alleged were responsible for the death of his son, who was electrocuted while working at a construction site in 1994.

"I'm sure a lot of people's lives are on hold because of the length of time that they're taking," Rapoza said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon has said he wants to set internal rules on timeliness and other protocols to expedite the appeals process.

Help with the backlog also is expected to come from the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which is expanding from four to six judges, allowing the court to handle appeals in two panels of three. Gov. Linda Lingle recently made one appointment to the intermediate appellate court, and is waiting for the Judicial Selection Commission to provide her with another list of nominees for the second additional judge position.

Meanwhile, Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-50th (Kailua, Mokapu), introduced a bill that would require the Supreme Court to resolve civil cases within one year of taking them "under consideration." The bill also sets a time limit of six months for the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

There is no independent law or court rule that specifies the total length of time for the Hawai'i Supreme Court to issue a decision on an appeal.

"I feel that the Supreme Court needs to issue decisions in a much more timely manner," said Thielen, a retired attorney. "It does the litigants no good at all to have to wait two, three, four years for a decision from the court."

Thielen introduced the bill following a conversation with a constituent, Angela Chinen, who was involved in an appeal that took the Supreme Court more than four years to resolve. Chinen's condominium association, which fired its manager, unsuccessfully appealed the outcome of the former manager's wrongful termination lawsuit.

While the appeal was pending, Chinen said, the former manager who filed the original lawsuit died. The appeal was filed in 1998 and the Supreme Court issued a decision in June 2003.

"The time limit is important because it gives people who have cases pending at least a time frame in which to make their plans for whatever way the court should happen to decide," Chinen said.

Thielen acknowledged that the bill does not specify what would happen if the appellate courts do not meet those deadlines and said she is not looking at pursuing any penalties.

"I guess it's just taking the first step to set time limits," Thielen said. "This bill is a way to send a message to the court to correct whatever's wrong and professionally issue decisions in a timely manner."

Said Moon: "We have reviewed the bill and will follow it with interest."

Supreme Court chief staff attorney Jim Branham said if the bill is scheduled for a hearing, the judiciary will likely point out that the new resources in the intermediate appellate court have not yet been put in place, promote its own legislative proposal and assert that the judiciary will need more resources if an artificial time limit is imposed.

House Judiciary Chairman Eric Hamakawa, D-3rd (Hilo, Kea'au, Mt. View), said he needs to review the bill more carefully, but expressed concerns that setting time limits may result in poorly reasoned decisions or an increase in dismissals.

"I understand there is a problem with people having their appeals sit in court for a long time, but I don't think setting an arbitrary length of time to dispose of cases is the way to go," he said. "But I think if anything the bill is serving as a platform of discussion, so we can talk to the court about what it is they need to dispose of cases more efficiently."

University of Hawai'i law professor Jon Van Dyke also said time limits may not be the best approach, noting that some cases are more complex and require more time.

Van Dyke favored the judiciary's proposal to change the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which currently accepts all appeals and assigns some to the Intermediate Court of Appeals and handles others itself.

The proposal would require appeals to be filed with the Intermediate Court of Appeals rather than the Supreme Court. The high court would handle cases calling for a review of the intermediate appellate court's decisions, and the intermediate court may transfer appeals to the Supreme Court upon litigants' requests.

Having appeals filed directly to the Intermediate Court of Appeals makes sense, particularly with the expansion of that court, Van Dyke said.

The change in the system would automatically allow the intermediate court to process more appeals and "you'd get a quicker review on the vast majority of the cases," Van Dyke said.

Branham, Supreme Court chief staff attorney, said of the 39 states that have intermediate appellate courts, only four states including Hawai'i have a system where all appeals are filed first to the Supreme Court. Changing the system under the bill would free the Supreme Court and its staff from analyzing cases for the purpose of assigning them, allowing the high court to deal with cases that require more time and hold oral argument in most or all of its cases.

The goal, Branham said, is to make the appellate system more efficient.

"If a case can be decided satisfactorily by three judges instead of five, the taxpayers have saved some money," he said.

Reach Lynda Arakawa at larakawa@honoluluadvertiser.com or at 525-8070.