You are here

Caseloads & Case Weights

Displaying 51 - 60 of 102
Contains
Contains
Format: 2019
Greater than or equal to
Archival Copy on File

The report of the Civil Justice Advisory Group for the Northern District of Indiana

Archival Copy on File

News articles dated 9/13/1991, 9/17/1991, and 11/18/1991 entitled "Other branches blamed-for federal court bind," "Panel labors-to put courts back in order," and "Judges Clog Federal Docket"

Archival Copy on File

Correspondence regarding a questionnaire sent to attorneys in the Southern District of Illinois. Also includes statistics on case loads, types, and lengths for that district.

Available Online Only

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.

Archival Copy on File

Court Administrator John P. Mayer forwards additional materials and research of the Civil Justice Advisory Group for the Eastern District of Michigan to the Administrative Office. Materials include case statistics and advisory group meeting minutes from June 18, 1991.

Archival Copy on File

In this memo to Civil Justice Advisory Group members of the Northern District of Georgia, Jeanne J. Bowden shares statistics regarding case loads and relays the contents of a conversation she had with John Shapard, author of the article "How Caseload Statistics Deceive."

Archival Copy on File

Chief Deputy Attorney General shares his proposal for differentiated case management guidelines with members of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Civil Justice Advisory Group

Archival Copy on File

An assessment of the civil and criminal dockets and rules of procedure prepared by the Civil Justice Advisory Group for the Northern District of Georgia

Archival Copy on File

A document prepared for Civil Justice Advisory Group members by The Recent Legislation Subcommittee of the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. The document outlines their role pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 and contains data on case filings SY1981-1990

Archival Copy on File

Clerk of the Court Robert D. Dennis transmits a packet to Abel J. Mattos of the Administrative Office. Packet includes correspondence from Chief Judge Ralph G. Thompson, the local order establishing the Civil Justice Advisory Group for the Western District of Oklahoma, and a report on the state of the dockets delivered to Advisory Group members in anticipation of their meeting.

Pages

Subscribe to Caseloads & Case Weights