You are here
Reports & Studies
Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested. See also Manuals, Monographs, & Guides.
Displaying 191 - 200 of 335| Title |
Date |
|---|---|
|
Unresolved Intercircuit Conflicts: The Nature and Scope of the Problem, Final Report: Phase I In section 302 of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Congress took steps to address long-felt concerns about the capacity of the federal judicial system to provide, within a reasonable time, a uniform construction of federal law where uniformity is needed. Adopting a recommendation of the Federal Courts Study Committee, Congress asked that the Federal Judicial Center undertake a study to determine "the number and frequency of conflicts among the judicial circuits . . . that remain unresolved because they are not heard by the Supreme Court." The Center asked the author to design and conduct the study. The results of the first phase of the research are presented in this report. |
December 1, 1991 |
|
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:
|
November 1, 1991 |
|
How Caseload Statistics Deceive Despite the various adages concerning statistics and lies, statistics don't lie. Instead, we often mislead ourselves by misinterpreting statistics. Court caseload statistics present numerous opportunities for this sort of self-deception. Obvious ways of looking at caseload data and obvious nostrums about assessing a court's caseload are sometimes just simply wrong. Their flaws are unappreciated not because they are hard to grasp, but because we are conditioned to think about statistics using apples-and-oranges or dicethrowing examples. Because significant time elapses over the life of many court cases, the better statistical analogy is that of human populations. Failure to appreciate how the lifespans of cases affect caseload statistics causes numerous misunderstandings. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate three closely related misunderstandings about caseload statistics, in the hope that a basic understanding of the problem can help prevent mistakes on the part of the various parties charged under the Civil Justice Reform Act with trying to improve the condition of court dockets. |
August 9, 1991 |
|
Judicial Evaluation Pilot Project of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Judicial Branch: A Report to the Committee The Judicial Conference Committee on the Judicial Branch appointed a subcommittee to study judicial evaluations and make recommendations. The subcommittee chose to initiate a pilot project of voluntary, confidential evaluations with the specific goal of judicial self-improvement. Because of the voluntary nature of the project, subcommittee members agreed that the pilot district would have to be one in which the judges unanimously agreed to participate. The Central District of Illinois was selected because of the concerted interest of the judges. This report is intended to provide useful information to members of the federal judiciary who wish to conduct similar evaluation programs. |
January 1, 1991 |
|
Sentencing Federal Offenders for Crimes Committed Before November 1, 1987 An update of a 1985 revised Center publication describing the statutory federal sentencing alternatives for offenders convicted of crimes committed before the effective date of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Sentencing Guidelines. The report relates sentencing alternatives to policies of the agencies that carry out the sentences, such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission. The report includes limited comparisons of old and new law. |
January 1, 1991 |
|
A Day in the Life: The Federal Judicial Center's 1988-1989 Bankruptcy Court Time Study At the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System, during fiscal year 1989, the Center surveyed the caseloads of 272 bankruptcy judges (97% of those sitting at the time). The data collected in the survey formed the basis of seventeen case weights, which are the average amounts of time bankruptcy judges spent on the matters that came before them. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts uses the case weights to calculate weighted caseloads for each bankruptcy court, and the Judicial Conference uses this information as a major factor in assessing the need for bankruptcy judgeships. Reprinted from 65 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 491 (1991). |
January 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. |
January 1, 1991 |
|
The 1987 District Court Case Time Study: A Brief Description (1990) In November 1987, the Federal Judicial Center commenced its third major "time study" in the U.S. district courts. Like studies conducted in 1969 and 1979, the purpose of the new study is to develop case "weights" for district court civil and criminal cases.Case weights reflect the difference in average judge time demanded by different types of cases (antitrust cases, for example, have a much higher weight than automobile personal injury cases). Totaling the weights assigned to all cases filed in a district in a particular year yields a measure of the total judicial workload in that district, the district's "weighted filings." Compared to a simple count of the number of cases filed, the weighted filing index is a superior statistical indicator of the burden imposed by a district's caseload. |
August 28, 1990 |
|
Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee The Federal Courts Study Committee was created in 1988 under the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (Pub. L. No. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4642, 4644) to examine problems and issues facing the federal courts. Appointed by the Chief Justice, the 15-member committee of judges, members of Congress and lawyers made numerous recommendations both to Congress and the federal courts, leading to various statutory and administrative changes. This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center. Availability — Printed copies the Federal Courts Study Committee's Working Papers and Subcommittee Reports are not available for distribution from the Federal Judicial Center. When the Committee issued its final report, and working papers and subcommittee reports, it sent printed copies to federal courts libraries. Please check your court library for local availability of the Committee's materials. The final Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee was also reprinted at 22 Connecticut Law Review 733 (No. 4, Summer) 1990. |
April 2, 1990 |
|
The Pre-Argument Conference Program in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals A study conducted at the court's request to determine if its program met its goals of saving judges' time, lessening case-management burdens, and simplifying issues on appeal. Using a control group method, the study determined that the program was a success--it met its goals and received strong support from the bar. |
January 1, 1990 |