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 121 - 130 of 340| Title |
Date |
|---|---|
|
Alternative Structures for Bankruptcy Appeals Under the current bankruptcy appellate system, appeals from dispositive orders of bankruptcy judges are taken to the district court or to the bankruptcy appellate panel, if one has been established and the district has chosen to participate, with further appeal as of right to the court of appeals. In response to legislative proposals to change this system, the Judicial Conference of the United States asked Congress to defer action until the judiciary had an opportunity to "study further the existing process and possible alternative structures and to submit a subsequent report to Congress." To facilitate the Conference's deliberations, its Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the existing bankruptcy appellate structure and possible alternatives. This report sets out the results of that study. It describes the bankruptcy appellate system now operating in the United States and how it evolved, sets out the recent efforts to change this system, and analyzes the evidence regarding the need for change and the desirability of proposed changes. Reprinted from 76 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 625 (Fall 2002). Note: This is a slightly updated version of the Center's publication Alternative Structures for Bankruptcy Appeals (2000, 123 pp.). This report is identical to the Federal Judicial Center's report that was considered by the Judicial Conference Bankruptcy Committee in making its recommendations in 1999, except that Part 2 has been updated to reflect more recent legislative and Judicial Conference activity. In addition, Appendices A, B, and D to the initial report are omitted and minor editorial changes have been made.
|
January 1, 2002 |
|
Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: A Preliminary Analysis The drop in trial rate in civil cases over the past three decades prompts many hypotheses about the cause. One possible explanation is an increase in dispositive motions, especially motions for summary judgment. The Center has collected information on dispositive motions in cases terminated in six federal district courts during 1975, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1995 and 2000. This preliminary analysis examines changes in summary judgment practice. |
November 1, 2001 |
|
Neutral Science Panels: Two Examples of Panels of Court-Appointed Experts in the Breast Implants Product Liability Litigation This report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management describes two different types of independent panels used in the silicone gel breast implants litigation. The use of such panels of appointed experts represents a marked departure from the traditional means of presenting and considering testimony. This report describes these expert panels in sufficient detail to permit others to understand the procedures that were used, the benefits that resulted, and the problems that arose. A similar version of this report was originally delivered to the Committee in November 1999. |
June 15, 2001 |
|
CJA Supervising Attorney: A Possible Tool in Criminal Justice Act Administration The District of Maryland, the Central District of California, and the Northern District of California have each received special funds to create a position called “Criminal Justice Act Supervising Attorney” on a pilot basis. The purpose of these positions is to assist the courts in carrying out their responsibilities under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). The purpose of this report is to provide the Judicial Conference and its committees with information about how having these positions worked. |
April 1, 2001 |
|
Implementation of the Disclosure Provisions in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26 by the United States Bankruptcy Courts This is an update to the FJC's 1995 study of the implementation of Rule 26 disclosure provisions by the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. This update includes new data on disclosure provisions and related local rules collected from the Bankruptcy Courts during the summer of 2000. The original 1995 study can be found here: |
December 1, 2000 |
|
Case Law Divergence from the Federal Rules of Evidence This report is an effort to increase the awareness of counsel practicing in federal courts, as well as judges, about the possibility that case law has diverged from the text of some of the Federal Rules of Evidence. At the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence, Professor Daniel Capra, committee reporter, highlights the major instances in which case law has diverged from an applicable Rule. This divergence comes in two forms: (1) where the case law (defined as case law in at least one circuit) is flatly inconsistent with the text of the Rule, the Committee Note explaining the text, or both; and (2) where the case law has provided significant development on a point that is not addressed by either the text of the Rule or the Committee Note. This report is reprinted at 197 Federal Rules Decisions 531 (2001). |
October 3, 2000 |
|
Special Masters' Incidence and Activity: Report to the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and Its Subcommittee on Special Masters The Special Masters' Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference asked the Center to examine how often judges appointed special masters and what functions they asked masters to perform. This report documents the incidence of recent special master consideration and appointment. The authors found that such activity was rare and occurred primarily in high-stakes cases that were especially complex. Party initiative, consent, or acquiescence provided the foundation for appointments and the basis for authorizing activities not contemplated by Rule 53. The subcommittee used the report along with other information in framing a proposed revision of Rule 53 that was published in August 2001. |
August 9, 2000 |
|
Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis 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: Experts testified most frequently in tort cases. Medical and mental health experts were the most common broad category of testifying experts, although economists were the single most frequent specific type of expert. Experts from scientific specialties testified in only a small proportion of cases. Judges were more likely to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and less likely to admit expert testimony in 1998 than in 1991. Attorneys report filing motions in limine, challenging the admissibility of expert testimony, more frequently after Daubert. The two most common problems cited by judges were experts who were not objective and the excessive expense of expert testimony. In general, judges' assessments of problems with expert testimony did not differ greatly from 1991 to 1998. Also see the 2002 expanded version of this report Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials. |
January 1, 2000 |
|
Case Studies of Mass Tort Limited Fund Class Action Settlements & Bankruptcy Reorganizations This is an expanded version of a report that was previously published as Appendix E of the Report of the Advisory Group on Civil Rules and the Working Group on Mass Torts (Report on Mass Tort Litigation) February 15, 1999. In this version, the author expands her analysis by examining publicly available information about three additional bankruptcy cases. By broadening the range of the study, she was better able to make direct comparisons of--to evaluate the policy implications of--the processes used in class actions and bankruptcies. This report also offers informed suggestions for improving approaches to resolving tort claims against businesses that are approaching insolvency. |
January 1, 2000 |
|
Alternative Structures for Bankruptcy Appeals Under the current bankruptcy appellate system, appeals from dispositive orders of bankruptcy judges are taken to the district court or to the bankruptcy appellate panel, if one has been established and the district has chosen to participate, with further appeal as of right to the court of appeals. In response to legislative proposals to change this system, the Judicial Conference of the United States asked Congress to defer action until the judiciary had an opportunity to "study further the existing process and possible alternative structures and to submit a subsequent report to Congress." To facilitate the Conference's deliberations, its Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the existing bankruptcy appellate structure and possible alternatives. This report sets out the results of that study. It describes the bankruptcy appellate system now operating in the United States and how it evolved, sets out the recent efforts to change this system, and analyzes the evidence regarding the need for change and the desirability of proposed changes. Note: A slightly updated version of this study Alternative Structures for Bankruptcy Appeals (2002) was published at 76 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 625 (Fall 2002). |
January 1, 2000 |