Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Massachusetts Appeals Court

June 23, 2015 · Appeals Court · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published June 23, 2015 Audit covers July 1, 2013 – December 31, 2014 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The auditor found that the Appeals Court’s case system worked, appeals were handled on time, and fee waivers followed the rules.
source
“Based on our audit, we determined that the Appeals Court’s case-management system was operating effectively; appeals were managed, heard, and decided in a timely manner; and fees were waived in accordance with applicable requirements.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts Appeals Court covering July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014.

“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Massachusetts Appeals Court.”
Why was it audited?

The audit checked whether the court’s case-management system worked well, whether appeals moved on time, and whether entry fees were waived properly.

“This report considers whether, during our audit period of July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014, the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s case-management system was operating effectively; appeals were managed, heard, and decided in a timely manner; and appeal entry fees were properly waived in accordance with applicable requirements.”
Why it matters

The Appeals Court handles important cases, and its decisions can have serious long-term effects.

“It presides over cases of public importance, and its decisions can have significant and lasting consequences.”
What's in it for me?

For the public, the key point is that appeals were found to be handled on schedule and fee waivers were handled according to requirements.

“Based on our audit, we determined that the Appeals Court’s case-management system was operating effectively; appeals were managed, heard, and decided in a timely manner; and fees were waived in accordance with applicable requirements.”
The bottom line

The auditor answered yes to both audit questions: the court managed appeals effectively and waived fees properly.

“Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer and the conclusion we reached regarding each objective.”
What happens next

The report does not describe corrective actions, because the audit did not report problems needing fixes.

“My audit staff discussed the contents of this report with management of the court, whose comments are reflected in this report.”
Why it's significant

This matters because the Appeals Court was created to help handle the state’s large appeal workload, and this audit found that the reviewed operations were working as expected.

“The Appeals Court was established to help the Supreme Judicial Court manage the large volume of appeals arising from increased litigation.”
Jargon, unpacked

An entry-fee waiver means a person who cannot afford the appeal entry fee may ask the court not to charge it, using an affidavit of indigency.

“Waivers of entry fees may be granted to indigent appellants pursuant to a motion.”

What the Auditor checked

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Appeals Court .

See this entity's page with all 3 audits →