Suchergebnisse

In continental court System the monopolization of the process model within the framework of Civil Justice has been a reality. Civil justice was identified with the Process, linked to the idea of 'public service'. But the great transformations of the 21st Century have been provoked by Globalization. A global and globalized society emerges, in which Justice systems are moving with efficacy and efficiency criteria and with a tendency toward harmonization, if not homegenenization. And, added to this, gradually new legal actors have been incorporating some functions that in the 20th century were of the exclusive jurisdiction of the State are now outsourced, such as notaries, registrars, mediators, arbitrators, etc appear and have a function in Justice. They were not part of the classical structure of Justice. The old paradigm of liberal justice, established by the State as a power structure, as a political entity, and guarantor of the rights of its citizens, is giving way to a different scenario in which the same States are giving up part of their sovereignty. Now the process is not the only way and judges are not only actors in the world of Justice. It is emerged a 'megaconcept' of civil justice, in which ADR is a part of it. So, it integrates Jurisdiction and ADR, as a sort of Multi-door-Justice System. ADR methods contribute to a new perspective of Justice of the 21th century, a plural and global perspective, in which judicial process coexist with extrajudicial mechanisms that in some cases permit the avoidance of judicial actions and, in others, simply reduce them. However, there is an important risk: governments can have an economically driven vision of this integration between courts and ADR mechanisms. Public expenses could be reduced. This consideration is not bad, but could be dangerous if we are talking about Justice. The governments could seek more efficiency at a lesser cost and this would result in a gap between rich and poor.

Civil justice reform in the federal government has become highly controversial. Each branch of the federal government apparently is vying to outdo the others in the field of civil justice reform. Congress passed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) to reduce expense and delay in federal civil litigation, and the federal judiciary has been implementing that statute since late 1990. In December, 1991, the Montana Federal District Court became one of thirty-four federal districts which issued civil justice expense and delay reduction plans to qualify for designation as Early Implementation District Courts (EIDC) under the CJRA. During October, 1991, the Bush Administration, in the name of civil justice reform, imposed numerous, relatively burdensome requirements on government counsel who litigate civil cases. Moreover, the Administration has introduced in Congress civil justice reform proposals that are unlikely to pass in 1992. The Administration has also developed model civil justice reform legislation which it is urging the states to adopt. These developments in the federal sphere mean that the 1993 session of the Montana Legislature probably will consider some form of civil justice reform legislation for the Montana state court system. This essay evaluates whether the legislature should pass a civil justice reform statute. The paper first briefly examines the complications in civil litigation which led Congress to enact the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. It then analyzes whether the Montana Legislature should adopt a civil justice reform measure. Because the piece finds that relatively few reasons for passing such legislation apply to the Montana state court system, the paper recommends that the Montana Legislature proceed cautiously in the area of civil justice reform.

Changes in the form of civil adjudication that have occurred since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 are evaluated. Paradoxically, the system has become both less & more adversarial. After identifying the causes of these opposing trends, it is concluded that the forces undermining adversariness are more powerful than those supporting the traditional model. The implications of this retreat from customary procedure are explored. 24 References. HA.

From Merck to McDonald s to Firestone, high-profile tort cases inspire high-powered tort reform debate. Simultaneously they fuel public perceptions of spurious claims and outlandish awards, while fostering professional perceptions of an unwieldy legal system. The contributors to Civil Juries and Civil Justice bring order, as well as a much-needed reality check, to the situation. This insightful, multidisciplinary volume provides in-depth case data, empirical findings, and original research, synthesizing a range of seemingly irreconcilable legal and psychological viewpoints. Leading scholars consider the roots of juryphobia, the growth trajectories of damage awards, alternative means of obtaining civil justice, and the role of the social sciences in formulating legal policy while addressing these key questions of the tort reform controversy: What can be learned by studying jury decision-making? What is the relationship between compensatory and punitive damages? Are judges more capable than juries in awarding damages? Where do non-litigation methods such as apologies and mediation fit in? Can physicians help improve the malpractice system? Have reform efforts done more harm than good? Civil Juries and Civil Justice will attract readers across numerous disciplines: forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, attorneys, sociologists, criminologists, political scientists, and policy makers. Because of its research/practice orientation, professors and students in these fields will find it a worthy text for course adoption.

Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in the contemporary world : global developments towards harmonisation (and back) Alan Uzelac -- Civil justice in Austrian-German tradition Christian Koller -- Civil justice in pursuit of efficiency C.H. (Remco) van Rhee -- Goals of civil justice when nothing works : the case of Italy Elisabetta Silvestri -- Goals of civil justice in Norway : readiness for a pragmatic reform Inge Lorange Backer -- American exceptionalism in goals for civil litigation Richard Marcus -- Civil justice with multiple objectives : the unique path of Hong Kong's civil justice reform Peter C.H. Chan and David Chan -- Social harmony at the cost of trust crisis : goals of civil justice in China Yulin Fu -- Civil litigation in Russia : guided justice and revival of public interest Dmitry Heroldovich Nokhrin -- Battle between individual rights and public interest in Hungarian civil procedure Miklos Kengyel and Gergely Czoboly -- (In)compatibility of procedural preclusions with the goals of civil justice : an ongoing debate in Slovenia Ale Gali -- Judicial activism as goals setting : civil justice in Brazil Teresa Arruda Alvim Wambier

Congress passed the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990 out of growing concern about litigation abuse in federal civil lawsuits, increasing cost and delay in those cases, and declining federal court access. The legislation commands every federal district court to promulgate a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan by December 1993. The statute also creates a demonstration program and designates the Northern District of California, the Northern District of West Virginia, and the Western District of Missouri as courts that are to "experiment with various methods of reducing cost and delay in civil litigation, including alternative dispute resolution. " In October 1991, the Western District of Missouri established an Early Assessment Program (EAP) as a demonstration project. Under that three-year experiment, which began in January 1992, the court automatically assigns approximately one-third of its civil caseload to some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Moreover, the Western District recently completed an evaluation of the first year of experience with the EAP. Because the CJRA's implementation is a significant attempt to decrease expense and delay in civil litigation and because experimentation, especially with ADR, in the Western District of Missouri comprises an important constituent of the national endeavor, civil justice reform in the Western District warrants examination. This Essay undertakes that effort. The Essay initially describes the origins and development of civil justice reform. It then analyzes implementation in the Western District of Missouri, emphasizing the court's experience with ADR The piece concludes with suggestions for future experimentation.

The passage of the Judicial Amendments act of 1994 postponed several key implementation deadlines prescribed by the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990. Perhaps most significantly, the new legislation extends for one year the mid-1995 date when the RAND Corporation, which is studying ten pilot districts' experimentation with cost and delay reduction procedures, must submit its conclusions to the Judicial Conference of the United States. Numerous compelling arguments supported congressional postponement of this deadline. Most importantly, the RAND Corporation can now capture much additional data, which are critical to assessing accurately the procedures' effectiveness in decreasing expense and delay, thereby increasing the value of the innovative civil justice reform effort. Particularly significant, the extension will facilitate RAND's collection, evaluation, and synthesis of considerably more information on the cohort of cases that impose the greatest cost . and delay and, therefore, enhance understanding of the procedures' efficacy in expeditiously concluding that litigation which is the most difficult to resolve. In short, the one-year extension of the statutory deadline could substantially increase the worth ·of this novel national experiment with expense and delay reduction procedures, even though the modification might seem relatively insignificant. The above factors mean that the section of the Judicial Amendments Act of 1994 that postpones the deadline for completing the study of the pilot districts warrants analysis. This essay undertakes that effort. The paper initially explores the developments that prompted Congress to pass legislation extending the deadline. I first examine the RAND Corporation's empirical assessment in the ten pilot districts and ascertain that the company's compliance with the mid-1995 date on which it was to have submitted the study would have precluded assembling, evaluating, and synthesizing considerable instructive material. The essay concomitantly analyzes the genesis of this problem and finds that several phenomena, such as some pilot districts' delayed implementation of civil justice reform, led to the complication but that RAND had no responsibility for, and was unable to affect, the difficulty. I next briefly evaluate the 1994 statute's provisions. The paper then assesses whether Congress should have granted the extension by examining the advantages and disadvantages that will probably attend postponement. I ascertain that the benefits will be much greater than the detriments, most of which are comparatively unimportant or appear amenable to amelioration. The essay thus finds that the congressional decision to extend the deadline was appropriate. I conclude with several suggestions for efficaciously implementing the postponement that the 1994 Judicial Amendments Act affords.