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 171 - 180 of 235
| Title | Rule(s) |
Date |
|---|---|---|
|
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Case Management Procedures in the Federal Courts of Appeals [Superseded] This report details the varying appellate practices and procedures of the U.S. courts of appeals within the generally uniform appellate scheme imposed by the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. Superseded by Case Management Procedures in the Federal Courts of Appeals, Second Edition (2011). |
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure | January 1, 2000 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 | 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). |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | 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. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence | 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. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure | March 30, 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." |
Fed. R. Crim. P. 26 | 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. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26, Fed. R. Civil P. 33 | February 1, 1998 |