You are here
Materials About the Federal Rules
The materials listed below, produced or made available by the Center, are related to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (appellate, bankruptcy, civil, criminal, and evidence).
Click here for curated content on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Displaying 151 - 160 of 237
Title |
Rule(s) | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
Electronic Filing in State Courts This report presents the results of an analysis of electronic filing practices in state courts to identify courts that require attorneys to complete electronic filings on the due date before a certain time other than midnight local time. We examined state-court systems in thirty states, chosen to include at least half of the states that comprise each of the eleven federal numbered circuits. An appendix includes rule excerpts. This report supplements a report on Electronic Filing Times in Federal Courts. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure | November 22, 2022 |
|
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. |
Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | September 9, 2002 |
|
Early Stages of Litigation Attorney Survey: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules This report summarizes the findings of a study of the operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and 16(b) in a nationwide sample of recently terminated civil cases. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 16, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 | March 1, 2012 |
|
Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts A factual and legal review of practices in courts and probation offices concerning the preparation and disclosure of presentence reports. The authors analyze the impact of the disclosure mandated by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3) on the federal sentencing process, and they make recommendations for improvements. Reprint of 93 Harvard Law Review 1613 (June 1980). |
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 | June 1, 1980 |
|
District Court Implementation of Amended Federal Civil Rule 16: A Report on New Local Rules An examination of the local rules federal district courts have developed in response to the 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which calls for increased use of scheduling orders in managing caseloads. An appendix contains sample local rules from fifteen districts. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 16 | January 1, 1984 |
|
Disqualification of Federal Judges by Peremptory Challenge An analysis of statutory procedures proposed in the early 1980s, and which continue to arise, that would allow federal litigants to challenge, on a peremptory basis, the federal judge or magistrate judge assigned to their case. Prepared at the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, the report discusses the proposals that have been offered on the federal level, analyzes the procedures then in effect in seventeen state court systems, and considers the possible administrative consequences of a federal peremptory challenge procedure. |
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | January 1, 1981 |
|
Discovery and Disclosure Practice, Problems, and Proposals for Change: A Case-based National Survey of Counsel in Closed Federal Civil Cases At the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, the Center conducted a study of the discovery process, examining the extent to which discovery is used, the frequency and nature of problems in discovery, the impact of the 1993 amendments, and whether additional rule changes are needed. This is the report of that study. Submitted to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, for Consideration at its Meeting September 4-5, 1997. Note: A revised version of this study is published at 39 Boston College Law Review 525 (May 1998) under the title An Empirical Study of Discovery and Disclosure Practice Under the 1993 Federal Rule Amendements. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | January 1, 1997 |
|
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. |
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 35 | February 1, 2002 |
|
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." |
Fed. R. Crim. P. 26 | February 23, 1998 |
|
Court-Ordered Mental Examinations of Capital Defendants: Procedures in Ten States Report to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules regarding the proposal to amend Rule 12.2. Procedures governing court-ordered mental examinations are presented as they have been implemented in a sample of districts with extensive death penalty experience. |
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 | March 26, 1999 |