|
the legislature can control the number of
judges and decide whether to allow addi-
tional judges, would they not be able to say
in effect, no, to the court, if it did not sit
in the proper division?
Is that essentially your question, Dele-
gate Key?
DELEGATE KEY: Y^es.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I guess
the answer to that is yes, the legislature
could, as a matter of corridor bargaining
with the courts say, do not increase the
number to nine, unless you pledge by rule
that you will have them sit in particular
places.
Does that answer suggest that I under-
stand your question?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think so.
Does Delegate Mudd yield to a question
from Delegate Carson?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman Mudd,
I understand under 5.31 that both the
Court of Appeals by rule and the General
Assembly by law shall have concurrent
power to prescribe regulations concerning
practice and procedure in all courts, as
well as certain other matters; is that cor-
rect, sir?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE CARSON: Would you con-
sider it to be one of the matters which
would be within the realm of practice and
procedure, the length of an appellate brief
to be filed in either of the appellate courts?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: The length of ap-
pellate brief?
DELEGATE CARSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Would that be a
matter that might be provided by rule?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: I am asking
whether the length of an appellate brief
would fall within the definition of a regu-
lation governing practice and procedure in
all courts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: In my view, yes.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Then, Chairman
Mudd, if I understand you correctly, the
General Assembly will have the right to
say what the length of a brief shall be
that will be filed in the appellate courts,
is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: The General As-
sembly would have the right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson,
the Chair is at a complete loss to under-
stand the connection between your ques-
tions and this amendment. Would you care
to explain?
DELEGATE CARSON: What I am get-
ting at there is this: is it not so that un-
der your position both the General As-
sembly and the court by rule would have
concurrent ability to decide the length of
an appellate brief, but that the General
Assembly would have no right to decide
what divisions any intermediate appellate
court judge would sit in.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I concur in that
interpretation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Are you ready ^for the question? Dele-
gate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I simply would
like to ask a further clarifying question
of the Chairman of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to the question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Gladly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Is it quite clear
in the opinion of the Committee that the
question of the number of judges which a
litigant is entitled to have hear his case is
in fact a matter of practice and procedure,
and not a matter of substance?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Your question is
that a litigant —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Is it quite clear
that the question of the number of judges
that sits in a panel is a matter of proce-
dure, and not in fact a matter of sub-
|
