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 Procedure (civil, criminal, evidence, appellate, and bankruptcy).
For a list of projects or other reports of FJC research that the Center has published, click on Research Projects or Reports and Studies.Displaying 141 - 150 of 211
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|
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.
|Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56||November 1, 2001|
Auctioning the Role of Class Counsel in Class Action Cases: A Descriptive Study
A study conducted by the Center to provide the Third Circuit Task Force on Selection of Class Counsel information on judges who have employed an auction or bidding method to select class counsel. The report describes in detail the auctioning procedures used by the judges, including the process of evaluating bids and selecting the winning bidder. This report is also reprinted at 209 Federal Rules Decisions 519 (2002).
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23||August 29, 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.
|Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 706||June 15, 2001|
|Securities Class Action: Language for Envelope||Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23||May 10, 2001|
Appendixes B-G, Index [Superseded]
Appendix B: Court Administration and Case Management Committee, Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed ADR
Appendix C: Differentiated Case Management System: Local Rules and Forms
Appendix D: Sample Statistical Reports
Appendix E: Bibliography
Appendix F: Table of Statutes
Appendix G: Table of Rules
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure||January 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:
|Fed. R. Civil P. 26||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).
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence||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.
|Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 53||August 9, 2000|
Case Management Procedures in the Federal Courts of Appeals [Superseded]
This report details the varying appellate practices and procedures of the U.S. courts of appeals within the generally uniform appellate scheme imposed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Part I of the report highlights key variations from court to court; Part II describes in detail the case management procedures of each court.
|Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure||January 1, 2000|