In the First District Appellate Court, cases often exceed the maximum time limits set in court rules for filing briefs, records, and transcripts. Apparently, attorneys often fail to prepare and promptly file the documents, and trial court clerks fail to monitor the flow of case materials to ensure that time limits are met. Trial judges may also contribute to the problem by not consistently following established policies for the granting of extensions for filing notices of appeal, records, and transcripts. Also, trial judges are not uniformly monitoring the performance of attorneys, court clerks, and reporters during the initial stages of the appellate process. Time-lapse data for the decision stage of the appellate process generally showed the court to be operating efficiently; however, the court may not have been hearing enough cases each month, thereby accumulating backlog. Techniques and procedures for disposing of more cases might include (1) using procedures for assigning cases to individual judges on the basis of their case backlog, (2) adopting court rules specifying that written opinions must be completed within 30-60 days after decision, (3) prescribing sanctions against judges who are regularly delinquent in completing assigned cases, (4) eliminating scheduling policies which artificially limit the number of cases which can be heard per month, and (5) developing formal mechanisms for increasing judge collegiality and resolving panel conflicts. Appended are a framework for examining delay in appellate court systems, case subject matter, type of attorney involved in appeal, time interval graphs, and correlates of case processing time. Graphic and tabular data are provided. (Author summary modified)