You are here
Reports & Studies
Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested. See also Manuals, Monographs, & Guides.
Displaying 111 - 120 of 340Title |
Date![]() |
---|---|
Conference on Large Chapter 11 Cases The purpose of the conference, held in Washington, D.C. January 30-February 1, 2003, was to identify the factors that influence the selection of venue for Chapter 11 cases of large companies irrespective of the statute; evaluate the effect of venue choice on parties-in-interest and the courts; and determine whether legislation or judicial action related to venue was necessary and appropriate. Recognizing that the debtor's choice of venue may depend greatly on the procedures courts have in place for handling various aspects of large Chapter 11 cases, an additional goal of the conference was to critically examine the effectiveness of such procedures, the variations in them among districts, and, ultimately, whether standard procedures for handling large Chapter 11 cases are needed. This report summarizes the conference discussions, focusing first on the factors that influence the choice of venue and, second, on the proposals for further action recommended by the Bankruptcy Committee's Subcommittee on Venue-Related Matters. To a large extent, these recommendations are oriented toward expanding the expertise in handling large Chapter 11 matters throughout the bankruptcy bench and helping to establish more effective and standard procedures for large Chapter 11 cases throughout the nation. |
January 1, 2004 |
State Court Procedures Regarding Pre-Verdict Judgments of Acquittal and the State's Right to Appeal Those Judgments The Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed amending Rule 29 to preserve the government's right to appeal a trial court's decision to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. DOJ argues, "Rule 29 as currently constituted represents an anomaly within the Rules and indeed within the judicial system." To help inform the debate, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States asked the Federal Judicial Center to conduct a study of state laws that allow the trial judge to grant a motion for a judgment of acquittal prior to the case's submission to the jury. Specifically, the Committee wanted to know (1) whether a state judge may enter a judgment of acquittal before a jury verdict, and (2) whether the prosecution may appeal from judgments of acquittal directed by the trial judge prior to submission of the case to the jury. |
September 30, 2003 |
Remote Public Access to Electronic Criminal Case Records: A Report on a Pilot Project in Eleven Federal Courts Prepared for the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference, this study shows there may be more advantages to remote public access to electronic criminal case documents than disadvantages or potential harm and that the majority of federal judges in the study favor access. |
May 7, 2003 |
Sealed Settlement Agreements in Federal District Court—May 2003 Progress Report Case records generally are public records and all documents filed with a court are available to the public for inspection upon request unless a statute, rule, or order provides otherwise. This report summarizes federal and state court rules on sealing documents in trial courts files. It also describes early stages of research on sealed settlement agreements in federal district court. The research was conducted at the request of the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. For the completed 2004 report on federal sealed settlement agreements, see Sealed Settlement Agreements in Federal District Court. |
May 1, 2003 |
A Qualitative Study of Issues Raised by the Discovery of Computer-Based Information in Civil Litigation, September 13, 2002 This research report was submitted to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for its October 2002 meeting. |
September 13, 2002 |
Effects of Amchem/Ortiz on the Filing of Federal Class Actions: Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has been considering a proposal to revise Fed. R. Civil P. 23 to create new certification standards that would apply only to settlement class actions. The Committee sought empirical research from the Center to help it decide how to proceed. The Center conducted the research in two phases during 2002-2004. This report is the first phase. For the second phase see Attorney Reports on the Impact of Amchem and Ortiz on Choice of a Federal or State Forum in Class Action Litigation: A Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Regarding a Case-based Survey of Attorneys (2004). The Class Action Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to examine the impact, if any, of the Supreme Court decisions in Amchem and Ortiz on the rate at which plaintiffs file class actions in federal courts. The resulting report describes trends in federal class action filings, removals, settlements, and dismissals during the period from January 1994 through June 2001 and identifies certain discernible changes after the two decisions. The report discusses the results of a time-series analysis that tested whether there were any statistically significant relationships between the two decisions and the filing/disposition patterns found. Certain of the changes observed were not likely to have occurred by chance; however, many factors might have affected filings. |
September 9, 2002 |
Statement of Allegations and Reasons in Chief Judge Dismissal Orders Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 This brief report was prepared at the request of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary Committee. Researchers found that in reviewing complaints of judicial misconduct or disability filed pursuant to statute, chief judges of all but one of the circuits have usually applied Judicial Conference standards that call for a restatement of allegations in the complaint and a reasoned response to such allegations. Researchers also found that 80% of the chief judge dismissal orders cited as a reason for dismissal the close relationship between a complainant's allegations and the merits of a decision by the judge who was the subject of the complaint. |
May 1, 2002 |
Past and Potential Uses of Empirical Research in Civil Rulemaking This article describes some of the advantages, disadvantages, potential benefits, and limitations of conducting empirical research to inform the civil rulemaking process. The article documents and analyzes the impact of fourteen Center studies during the last fourteen years in response to specific requests from rulemakers who wished to examine empirical data relevant to contemplated changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. From 77 Notre Dame Law Review 1121 (April 2002). |
April 1, 2002 |
Defining the "Majority" Vote Requirement in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) for Rehearings En Banc in the United States Courts of Appeals This report was prepared at the request of the Committee on Appellate Rules as they consider proposing a uniform rule on en banc voting procedures for the courts of appeals. |
February 1, 2002 |
Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials This is an expanded version of Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis (2000). In 1998, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal judges about their experiences with expert testimony in civil cases. Judges answered specific questions about their most recent relevant civil trial, as well as questions drawing on their overall experience with expert testimony in civil cases. The Center conducted a similar survey of judges in 1991, shortly before the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Preliminary analysis of the aggregated data has focused on (1) comparing judges' experiences with expert testimony before and after Daubert and (2) exploring the current concerns of judges regarding expert testimony in civil cases. Additional data have since been collected from attorneys in the trials described in the 1998 survey. Preliminary findings include the following:
Note: Excerpted from Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2002, vol. 8, no. 3, pages 309-322. |
January 1, 2002 |