Suchergebnisse

Several years ago in the pages of this journal, I asked and attempted to answer the question whether the 1993 session of the Montana Legislature should adopt a civil justice reform act. The article initially afforded a brief analysis of the problems in federal civil litigation that prompted the United States Congress to pass the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990. I next evaluated whether the state legislature in Montana should enact similar legislation which would govern civil litigation in the state court system. Because there were relatively few important reasons for adopting a measure covering civil justice reform in the Montana courts, I suggested that the 1993 legislature act cautiously in the controversial, unsettled field of civil justice reform. The 1993 Montana Legislature appropriately decided against enacting any civil justice reform statute during its legislative session. The legislature did, however, adopt House Bill 525 which established a Judicial Unification and Finance Commission and directed that entity to study the organizational and financial structures of the Montana judiciary. The legislation more specifically instructed the Commission to consider the judiciary's possible unification, present and future funding for the judiciary, issues relating to the standards and selection of judges and additional matters regarding the judiciary's efficient operation. During the ensuing two years, nothing of sufficient consequence has happened in Montana to warrant the passage of comprehensive civil justice reform legislation, although numerous developments have occurred in federal civil justice reform and in state civil justice reform in a number of jurisdictions. These recent developments deserve evaluation to ascertain whether they compel reexamination of the earlier decision not to pass civil justice reform legislation in Montana.

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) has reached the mid-point of its implementation nationally and in the Montana Federal District Court. At this juncture, one of the most important aspects of statutory effectuation is evaluation of the experimentation that federal district courts have conducted under the legislation. The timing is particularly propitious in the Montana federal district because the court recently completed the annual assessment of statutory implementation that the CJRA requires. These developments in civil justice reform, particularly relating to evaluation of the experimentation which has occurred, warrant examination. This Article undertakes that effort. The Article first considers the requirements regarding assessment that the legislation imposes. The piece then evaluates compliance with those strictures across the country and by the Montana Federal District Court. It also examines how assessment of implementation of procedures that are intended to reduce cost and delay informs understanding of civil justice reform. Finding that most of the statutory requirements relating to assessment have been satisfied, the Article concludes with a glimpse into the future.

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) has reached the mid-point of its implementation nationally and in the Montana Federal District Court. At this juncture, one of the most important aspects of statutory effectuation is evaluation of the experimentation that federal district courts have conducted under the legislation. The timing is particularly propitious in the Montana federal district because the court recently completed the annual assessment of statutory implementation that the CJRA requires. These developments in civil justice reform, particularly relating to evaluation of the experimentation which has occurred, warrant examination. This Article undertakes that effort. The Article first considers the requirements regarding assessment that the legislation imposes. The piece then evaluates compliance with those strictures across the country and by the Montana Federal District Court. It also examines how assessment of implementation of procedures that are intended to reduce cost and delay informs understanding of civil justice reform. Finding that most of the statutory requirements relating to assessment have been satisfied, the Article concludes with a glimpse into the future.

Congress passed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) because it was increasingly concerned about litigation and discovery abuse in federal civil cases, growing cost and delay in such suits, and decreasing access to federal courts. The statute requires that all ninety-four federal district courts develop civil justice expense and delay reduction plans by December 1993. Thirty-four districts issued plans by December 1991, and the Judicial Conference of the United States recently designated these districts as Early Implementation District Courts (EIDC). Three of those EIDCs, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Northern District of West Virginia, and the Southern District of West Virginia, are located in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, while the remaining six districts in the Circuit have been proceeding with the development of their civil justice plans. Because implementation of the Civil Justice Reform Act is an important attempt to reduce expense and delay in civil litigation, which could significantly affect the character of federal civil practice, effectuation of civil justice reform in the Fourth Circuit warrants close analysis. This essay undertakes that effort. The piece first examines the background of civil justice reform, focusing on the statutory requirements and on the Act's national implementation. The paper then evaluates effectuation of civil justice reform in the Fourth Circuit, emphasizing developments in the three EIDCs and describing relevant work to date in the other districts. The essay concludes with suggestions for future implementation of civil justice reform in the Fourth Circuit.

Many observers, including most of the participants in the civil litigation symposium, have levelled considerable criticism at the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 ("CJRA" or "Act") and its implementation. This criticism--which encompasses numerous phenomena, as abstract as constitutional theory and as pragmatic as numerical limitations on interrogatories--emanates from several quarters and ranges across the political spectrum. Notwithstanding the numerous criticisms that observers have lodged at the statute and its effectuation, a number of which have considerable validity, the federal reform initiative has afforded many advantages. Unfortunately, these benefits have received comparatively little recognition. Because the reform's salutary aspects could improve the civil justice system, they warrant analysis. This essay undertakes that effort by emphasizing the most important beneficial features of implementation to date. Part I of this Article examines the origins and development of the CJRA. Part II then analyzes the advantageous dimensions of the reform.

Published research on the legal process for the most part neglects the strategic importance of trial clerks in courtroom workgroups. Using a questionnaire survey, this study examines the duties and perceptions of clerks in civil courts in two states. Differences in work styles are related to differential modes of selection: appointment in Tennessee and election in Mississippi. Tennessee clerks follow a bureaucratic model while those in Mississippi follow a more political one. These differences may influence in large measure the kind and degree of outputs in the respective justice processes.