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 211 - 220 of 235
Title |
Rule(s) | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 53 | August 9, 2000 |
|
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. |
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 | September 30, 2003 |
|
Study of Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals: Report to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States This report to the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules focused on class action objector appeals filed in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits from settlements approved by the district courts in class actions filed after January 1, 2008. The objector appeals studied were filed from January 1, 2008, through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit. The study focused on the overall frequency of class action objector appeals during the study period, the final disposition of the class action objector appeals filed and no longer pending, and the prevalence of Appellate Rule 7 cost bonds imposed on the objector appeals identified. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 7, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23, Fed. R. Civil P. 7 | October 1, 2013 |
|
Summary Judgment Practice in Three District Courts A review of data indicating a decline in the percentage of cases disposed of by summary judgment from 1975 to 1986. The report also notes, however, a renewed interest in the use of this procedure, the standards for which have been clarified by several Supreme Court decisions. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 | January 1, 1987 |
|
Survey of Bankruptcy Judges Regarding Use of Rule 7026 Mandatory Disclosure in Adversary Proceedings Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires each party to disclose to the other, at specified time intervals, a variety of information about their case. These mandatory disclosures are covered by Rule 26: (a)(1) initial disclosure, (a)(2) expert testimony disclosure, and (a)(3) pretrial disclosure. Civil Rule 26 is made applicable to adversary proceedings (APs) in bankruptcy by Rule 7026 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Rule 26 is Appendix 1. The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to survey bankruptcy judges about whether the Committee should recommend an amendment to Bankr. Rule 7026 to exempt certain categories of APs from the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 26. These survey results were submitted to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules in March 2004. |
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 | March 22, 2004 |
|
Survey of District Court Judges on a Proposed Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) Concerning Prior Consistent Statements This report was prepared for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the current version of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are admissible for their substance as well as for their rehabilitation only if they rebut recent fabrication because they occurred before the fabrication motive. If a prior consistent statement is admissible for credibility but not admissible for substance, the opposing party is entitled to a jury instruction. Because of perceived difficulties with such an instruction, an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) was proposed to the Evidence Rules Committee. This paper reports the results of an FJC survey of district judges on matters related to the proposed amendment. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 801 | March 2, 2012 |
|
Survey of Literature on Discovery from 1970 to the Present: Expressed Dissatisfactions and Proposed Reforms An analysis of a broad range of literature dealing with the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The author examines how well the rules are functioning and makes suggestions for change and reform. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | January 1, 1978 |
|
Survey on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure A report of the results of a Center survey of participants in the bankruptcy system concerning their views of the Bankruptcy Rules and related forms. The Long-Range Planning Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference's Committee on Bankruptcy Rules requested the survey as part of a comprehensive review of the rules to determine whether they should be modified. After reviewing this report and the survey comments, the subcommittee identified three areas for possible further study: litigation practice, attorney admissions and ethics, and inconsistencies in the hearing requirements of Bankruptcy Code provisions and related Bankruptcy Rules. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure | March 13, 1996 |
|
Technology-Assisted Review for Discovery Requests: A Pocket Guide for Judges This pocket guide summarizes the essential concepts behind a variety of labor-saving techniques, known generally as technology-assisted review (TAR), that help identify documents for production. The guide outlines possible factors for ascertaining whether and how the use of TAR may qualify as a reasonable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). It also provides an illustrative order for governing the use of TAR in civil litigation. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 | March 28, 2017 |
|
The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions: A Monograph on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The authors suggest ways of thinking about summary judgment that can help judges and lawyers make more effective use of the rule as a vehicle to reach the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1: the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation. (Also see the authors' Summary Judgment After Eastman Kodak, 45 Hastings Law Journal 1 (1993), which is reprinted at 154 F.R.D. 311 (1994)). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 | January 1, 1991 |