| Nevada Judiciary Releases Annual Report |
| Thursday, 04 January 2007 11:15 | |||
|
As one of his final acts on his last day as a Nevada Supreme Court justice, Chief Justice Bob Rose on Dec. 29 released the Nevada Judiciary Annual Report for fiscal year 2006 to the Nevada Legislature.
The 72-page report has also been released to the public, new Chief Justice William Maupin announced today. It is the seventh annual report published by the Administrative Office of the Courts. "The Annual Report outlines not only the caseloads of every court in the state, but also the numerous programs that have made our court system more efficient and certainly more user-friendly," said Chief Justice Maupin. "Every Nevadan can be proud of the way our courts at every level have stepped up to the challenge of providing fair, impartial, and timely justice." he Annual Report is available as a printed document from the Administrative Office of the Courts in Carson City or Las Vegas, or can be downloaded from the Supreme Court website (www.nvsupremecourt.us). To a great extent, the Annual Report is the result of what Chief Justice Rose considered one of his most significant accomplishments while on the high court - creating a uniform system of judicial records. The requirement that courts maintain and report information about their caseloads was facilitated by the computerization of courts, which otherwise would have had to count their data by hand. Chief Justice Rose emphasized that these statistics have formed the basis for the Annual Report and provided vital case management information. During fiscal year 2006, the Nevada Supreme Court had 2,086 filings (a 3 percent increase over the prior year), making it one of the busiest appellate courts in the United States. Because Nevada has no intermediate Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court must consider all appeals filed and handle a variety of other matters. The Supreme Court disposed of 2,129 cases in fiscal year 2006, an increase of nearly 8 percent. Among the trial courts, those in Clark County continue to be the busiest, but the courts in Washoe County are not far behind. At the District Court level, 83,271 cases were filed at the Eighth Judicial District Court, translating to 2,523 cases filed per judge. At the Second Judicial District Court, 20,965 cases were filed, or 1,747 cases per judge. A new statistic was added this year of cases filed in District Court per 10,000 population. The Fifth Judicial District (Esmeralda, Mineral, and Nye Counties) was highest, with 634 cases filed per 10,000 population. The Fourth Judicial District (Elko) had 529 cases per 10,000 population, and the Second Judicial District (Washoe) was third with 528. The Eighth Judicial District was fifth with 463. The court with the fewest cases filed per 10,000 population was the Ninth Judicial District (Douglas) with just 277. At the Justice Court level, Las Vegas Justice Court was the busiest with 14,099 cases filed per judge. Reno Justice Court was second with 4,758 cases per judge and Sparks Justice Court was third with 3,817 cases per judge. At the Municipal Court level, Las Vegas Municipal Court was the busiest court for the first time in several years, with 5,277 cases filed per judge. North Las Vegas Municipal Court, which traditionally had been the busiest court, added a second judge during fiscal year 2006 but only dropped to second place, with 3,883 cases per judge. Reno Municipal Court was third with 2,104 cases per judge. Originally, the Annual Report provided statistics only about case filings. Every year Nevada's courts provide more information about what they do. This year, there is more specific data about traffic offenses and better data about the disposition of cases from rural justice courts that utilize a Supreme Court case management program. In addition to caseload statistics, the Annual Report provides information about such programs as drug and mental health courts, judicial education, technology, court interpreters, the Court Improvement Project, and the Supreme Court Bench Bar Committee. One section details innovations implemented by the trial courts during fiscal year 2006.
|