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 111 - 120 of 235
| Title | Rule(s) |
Date |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit II-9. Sample Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Professionals | Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 | January 1, 2009 |
| Form 52: Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 73 | January 1, 2009 |
| Exhibit I-2. Local Rule on Joint Administration of Cases | Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1015, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002 | January 1, 2009 |
| Exhibit II-5. Guidelines for Cash Collateral and Financing Stipulations | Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 | January 1, 2009 |
|
Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act on the Federal Courts: Preliminary Findings from Phase Two's Pre-CAFA Sample of Diversity Class Actions The preliminary findings presented in this report suggest that, in diversity class actions, there is less to class allegations than one would expect. There was relatively little motions activity in the typical case, and the majority of cases not remanded to state court were voluntarily dismissed. Most plaintiffs did not move to certify a class. But all class actions in which a class was certified, whether for litigation or settlement purposes, ended with class settlements. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | November 1, 2008 |
|
Report on Summary Judgment Practice Across Districts with Variations in Local Rules The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to examine summary judgment practice across federal district courts as a means of assessing the potential impact of proposed amendments to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 | August 13, 2008 |
| Form 13: Minute Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 | April 16, 2008 |
|
The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on the Federal Courts: Fourth Interim Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) (Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005)) expanded the federal courts' diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over class action litigation. Congress's intent was, in part, to shift some class action litigation from the state courts to the federal courts. Passage of the Act sparked concerns about the impact of these additional class actions on the federal courts' rocedures and workload. In light of these concerns, the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee)1 asked the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to study the impact of CAFA on the federal courts. This report marks the end of the first phase of the FJC study on the impact of CAFA on the number of class actions initiated in the federal courts. This report presents interim findings on class actions filings and removals in the federal courts from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that CAFA has caused an increased number of class actions based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to be filed in the federal courts. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | April 1, 2008 |
|
Federal Judicial Center Exploratory Study of the Appellate Cost Bond Provisions of Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure At its Fall 2007 meeting, the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee discussed the current circuit split over whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 authorizes the inclusion of attorney fees in a bond for costs on appeal. This item has been brought back before the Committee as it determines whether, in light of recent case law developments, to proceed with a proposed amendment approved by the Committee in 2003 which made clear that FRAP 7 bond "costs" do not include attorney fees. This report describes an exploratory study undertaken by the FJC of FRAP 7 bond activity in three federal district courts: the Southern District of New York, the Central District of California, and the Eastern District of Michigan. These districts are in circuits that permit attorney fees to be included in FRAP 7 cost bonds. |
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 7 | April 1, 2008 |
|
FJC Research Brief, No. 2: Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: 1975-2000 For the full 33-page report see Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: 1975-2000 (2007). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure | December 1, 2007 |