Most commentators familiar with the administrative pressures placed upon the appellate process in California, due to the massive number of cases appealed from trial court determinations, are in agreement that substantial reform of the appellate system, in one manner or another, is of practical necessity. A debate, however, has arisen with respect to the precise form such revision ought to assume. In 1972, a special committee of the California State Bar, chaired by Mr. Hufstedler, proposed comprehensive restructuring of the appellate system. That proposal suggested, inter alia, that appellate review be divided between cases appealed for a "review for correctness" and those appealed for "institutional review." Further, the proposal recommended that the presiding trial court judge participate in the appeal process. The proposal was met with vigorous opposition, principally by Mr. Jack Leavitt in an article appearing earlier this year in the Pacific Law Journal. Herein, Mr. Hufstedler discusses in detail the rationale supporting the proposal in light of the current trends in appellate review case loads. Mr. Hufstedler then analyzes the criticisms of the proposal and responds by submitting a modified proposal for appellate reform.
Seth M. Hufstedler,
California Appellate Court Reform--A Second Look,
Pac. L. J.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol4/iss2/16