Opinion ID: 1779981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Process for Establishing Relative Case Weights

Text: Upon determining that case mix was a relevant factor for judicial workload, the Commission developed a process to measure the judicial effort associated with any given caseload. The Commission first established categories of similar cases and ranked them to identify a mid-ranked case. Then, representative samples of judges from each court were asked to approximate the relative weight of each case category in relation to the mid-ranked case. Judges were instructed to assign the relative weights based on a typical, average, or normal version of each case type. Based on the similarity and consistency of the judges' responses, we were able to statistically determine that this methodology adequately represented judicial perceptions of the proportional relationship between case type categories. These weights were then applied to each court's dispositions on the merits to determine the weighted caseload value. See Appendix A for the average relative weights and explanation of their application; see Appendix B for the instrument and instructions. Figure 1. Application of Average Relative Weights to Cases Disposed After Submission on the Merits FY First Second Third Fourth Fifth 2000-01 23,135 28,566 24,178 28,003 25,343 2001-02 25,267 28,571 24,621 29,986 26,484 2002-03 23,702 31,923 24,149 30,848 26,654 2003-04 28,365 29,317 22,050 32,005 28,409 2004-05 28,317 32,456 22,553 31,424 28,387 The relative case weights may be used in several ways. First, they can show how a court's judicial workload has increased or decreased over time. Second, they can allow a comparative assessment of the distribution of judicial workload between the districts. And finally, they can also contribute to an analysis of how the use of other non-judicial resources can affect judicial workload. Notwithstanding the usefulness of the case weight analysis, the Commission does not believe that the case weighted number of dispositions on the merits for any particular district court can provide a single numerical factor for determining the need for additional district court judges. The Commission notes two issues with the survey results that require further comment. The first is in the area of administrative appeals. The First District weighted their administrative appeals with a substantially greater judicial effort than the other courts. This is because so many complex rule challenges are filed in Tallahassee, which is the headquarters of most state agencies. The relative weights calculated for this report reflect the statewide weight for administrative appeals, resulting in a lower relative case weight than is reflective of the actual workload of the First District. The Commission will continue to study this issue and attempt to isolate that portion of cases in the First District unique to that court, just as workers' compensation cases are unique to that court. It will then assign a weighted workload measure to those cases commensurate to their greater complexity. The second issue deals with the Third District and its lack of central staff. Central staff handles the work-up of various categories of cases in the other courts, including writs and post-conviction relief matters. In the Third District, without central staff, these cases appear to demand more judicial effort, which is reflected in the relative weights assigned in the Third District's survey results. Were the Commission to use the Third District's weights for these cases the Third District's relative case weight would be substantially higher. However, the use of the relative weight to compare courts may also tend to show the impact of various case management practices on the judicial workload.