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 161 - 170 of 196
Will return exact match for word(s) entered
Title Rule(s) Datesort ascending
Rule 1006: Paying Filing Fee Installments through the Chapter 13 Trustee

Survey results regarding suggested changes to Fed. R. Bankr. 1006 are presented in this memo.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1006 February 21, 1994
Special Masters [Superseded]

Offers suggestions for the use of special masters pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 53 January 1, 1994
Court-Appointed Experts: Defining the Role of Experts Appointed Under Federal Rule of Evidence 706

A study of why judges rarely appoint experts under Rule 706. In discussing this issue with judges, the authors learned of techniques and procedures that may aid judges when considering whether to appoint an expert or when managing an expert who has been appointed. These suggestions are collected in the final chapter of this report.

Fed. R. Evid. 706 January 1, 1993
FJC Directions, No. 4

A magazine that reported Center research and education activities in a concise format. In this issue of FJC Directions:

  • New Developments in Court Education: Taking It to the People, by Emily Z. Huebner, page 1
  • Defining a Role for Court-Appointed Experts, by Joe S. Cecil and Thomas E. Willging, page 6
Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 706 August 1, 1992
FJC Directions, No. 2: Special Issue on Rule 11

A magazine that reported Center research and education activities in a concise format. Centered around a study undertaken by the Center to assess the operation and impact of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, this issue of FJC Directions describes Rule 11 activity in the federal courts, answers central questions about use of the rule, reports judges' assessments of the rule, and outlines proposed changes to the rule. Included is the text of an amended Rule 11 proposed by the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. In this issue of FJC Directions:

  • The Federal Judicial Center's Study of Rule 11, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 3
  • Rule 11 Activity in the Federal Courts, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 6
  • Central Questions about the Use of Rule 11, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 10
  • Judicial Assessments of Rule 11: Its Effectiveness and Its Impact on Litigation in Federal Court, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 28
  • Proposed Changes in Rule 11, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 35
  • Text of Proposed Amended Rule 11, page 40
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 11 November 1, 1991
Form 51: Order of General Reference to Magistrate Judges Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 72, Fed. R. Civil P. 73 September 27, 1991
FJC Directions, No. 1

A magazine that reported Center research and education activities in a concise format. In this issue of FJC Directions:

  • Observations from the Pilot Sentencing Institute for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, by Barbara S. Meierhoefer, page 3
  • Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: A Summary of Findings, by Joe S. Cecil, page 11. A second assessment of changes in summary judgment practice (see Summary Judgment Practice in Three District Courts). This study, examining practices in six federal district courts across a 14-year period, found that the percentage of cases with motions for summary judgment varies greatly by district and type of case. In torts and civil rights cases, motions for summary judgment have increased since 1975, whereas in prisoner cases they have dropped sharply. No increases in such motions were found since a series of decisions by the Supreme Court in 1986 clarifying the standards for summary judgment. Summary judgments are reversed at a rate that is similar to that of other civil appeals, and usually on an interpretation of substantive law rather than an overlooked material fact.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 April 1, 1991
Rule 11: Final Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Report on an empirical study of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Research Division of the FJC undertook the study to assist the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules in its evaluation of the rule. The study has three major components: (1) a survey of all federal district judges about their experiences with Rule 11; (2) an analysis of all district and appellate opinions published between 1984 and 1989 that address Rules 11 issues; and (3) a study of Rule 11 activity in five district courts. The district court study includes a separate analysis of the application of Rule 11 to civil rights cases in these five courts.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 11 January 1, 1991
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
Use of Rule 12(b)(6) in Two Federal District Courts

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows the defense of "failure [of a complaint] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The Center conducted the study at the request of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States and its reporter, Professor Paul Carrington. After considering the data in the paper at its April 1989 meeting, the Advisory Committee decided not to change Rule 12(b)(6).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 12 January 1, 1989

Pages