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 131 - 140 of 337| Title |
Date |
|---|---|
|
Informing Judicial Recusal Decisions: Party Disclosure of Financial Interests Information - Report to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides for disclosure of financial information from corporate parties in the courts of appeals. The purpose of the rule is to assist appellate judges in identifying if they have financial conflicts of interest for recusal purposes. There is no corresponding national rule governing civil, criminal, and bankruptcy proceedings in the district and bankruptcy courts. The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States is evaluating whether a national rule requiring financial interests disclosure in district and bankruptcy courts is necessary, and if so, how the rule should be structured. To inform its work, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the practices and variations in methods used in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts where financial information from parties is currently being filed. The study includes the courts of appeals, because many of them have local rules on disclosure that supplement the requirements set forth in FRAP 26.1. |
January 1, 1999 |
|
Assessment of Caseload Burden in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Report to the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Committee on Judicial Resources of the Judicial Conference of the United States The mix of cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit differs markedly from the case mix of other U.S. courts of appeals. The implications of this difference for judicial workload and judgeship needs, however, have been unclear. At the request of the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, we conducted this study to assist the subcommittee in assessing judgeship needs in the D.C. Circuit. |
January 1, 1999 |
|
Mass Torts Problems and Proposals: A Report to the Mass Torts Working Group (Appendix C) The Mass Torts Working Group, appointed in 1998 by the Chief Justice, asked the Center to conduct a literature review examining problems related to mass torts and to discuss proposals for resolving those problems. This report is the result of that research. It identifies fourteen distinct problems and discusses a variety of case-management, legislative, and rule-making proposals to ameliorate those problems. This report is reprinted at 187 Federal Rules Decisions 328 (1999). |
January 1, 1999 |
|
Individual Characteristics of Mass Torts Case Congregations: A report to the Mass Torts Working Group (Appendix D) This report, done for the Mass Torts Working Group, appointed in 1998 by the Chief Justice, organizes and presents information from published sources on about fifty sets of mass tort litigations involving personal injury and property damage claims. Information presented includes the shape of the litigation (e.g., individual, class action, consolidation, etc.), the number and type of parties, the dispersal of cases in the federal and state systems, the number and types of injuries alleged, the type of product involved and the evidence of its ability to cause the harm alleged, the extent of research and testing of the product, the length of any latency period, the extent of public exposure to the product, and the current status of the litigation. |
January 1, 1999 |
|
Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence That May Require Clarification At the request of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, Professor Daniel Capra, committee reporter, listed instances where Congress either rejected or substantially changed rules before passage, thus rendering advisory committee notes possibly confusing. He provides an introduction and a rule-by-rule commentary on these discrepancies. |
July 21, 1998 |
|
Implementation of Disclosure in United States District Courts, With Specific Attention to Courts' Responses to Selected Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 Updates the March 28, 1997 report on the federal district courts' responses to the 1993 amendments to FRCP 26. Tables describe courts' local rules, general orders, and CJRA plans by indicating which of five key provisions of Rule 26 are in effect. |
March 30, 1998 |
|
Data on Discovery Cutoffs Memorandum to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules expanding on earlier report on time limits on discovery. Findings are based on data gathered from a survey of counsel in 1,000 closed civil cases and differed from findings Rand Corp. presented to the committee. The memorandum includes the following two tables: Table 1: Length of discovery cutoffs Table 2: Percentage of attorneys who complained that time for discovery was too short by length of discovery cutoffs imposed. |
February 23, 1998 |
|
Data from Middle Ground Districts (Memorandum) Memorandum to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules identifying two districts, the Northern District of Alabama and the Central District of California, as examples of "the 'middle ground' between current requirements and abolition of disclosure requirements." |
February 23, 1998 |
|
Numerical and Durational Limitations on Discovery Events as Adopted in Federal Local Rules and State Practices Conducted at the request of Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, the report describes the local rules or practices in all ninety-four federal districts regarding numerical limitations on interrogatories and depositions and durational limits on depositions. |
February 1, 1998 |
|
Mass Tort Settlement Class Actions: Five Case Studies This report by Professor Jay Tidmarsh of Notre Dame Law School examines five cases in which Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been used to achieve a settlement of a mass tort controversy. The reason for studying mass tort settlement class actions is simple: Using class actions for this purpose has been, and is, controversial. The mass tort settlement class action was the subject of a significant decision in the last term of the Supreme Court, and it is also the subject of a proposed amendment to Rule 23 that has been under consideration by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There has been considerable debate both about the idea of settlement class actions in general and about the proposed amendment in particular. There have also been a number of case studies or anecdotal descriptions about mass torts in which settlement classes have been used. Thus far, however, the studies and descriptions have been narrowly focused on only one case or on only some of the issues relevant to the propriety of settlement class actions. |
January 1, 1998 |