Court Docket Research Articles

The 2005 Record of the International Court of Justice

This article discusses developments relating to the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) during 2005. Using data on the General List, Orders and Judgments issued, and hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Court's most recent record is described.1 It also reports on certain amendments that were made to the Rules of Court and on changes in the Court's composition. Finally, a brief outlook is presented based on the status of the Court's docket as at 31 December 2005. In 2005, the ICJ issued four procedural Orders, held three sets of hearings and handed down three Judgments. Four Orders dealing with case management issues (all involving the fixing or extending of time limits for the filing of written pleadings) were issued in 2005. Hearings were held in the frontier dispute case between Benin and Niger and in two cases brought by the Democratic Republic...

The U.S. Supreme Court's In Forma Pauperis Docket: A Descriptive Analysis

The proportion of the U.S. Supreme Court's docket composed of unpaid or in forma pauperis petitions, petitions filed by litigants who cannot afford the Court's filing fee, has consistently outstripped the percentage of cases granted review that originate on the IFP docket. Scholars and jurists alike attach little significance to this apparent disparity because they tend to write off categorically cases on the IFP docket as frivolous and unimportant. Yet given the large and growing number of IFP petitions filed with the Court, this class of cases requires some form of systematic consideration. This article compares a sample of the unpaid petitions for review filed with the U.S. Supreme Court from the 1976 through 1985 terms to a similar sample of paid petitions to determine whether and how the two dockets differ. Examination of the cases indicates that the IFP petitions are not categorically frivolous and unimportant and suggests, as a result, that these petitions require further consideration in the literature on the Supreme Court's agenda setting.

Self-inflicted constraints on judicial government in Nigeria

Although the prevailing tendency is to view the executive and, to a lesser extent, the legislature as the primary drivers of the developmental process in any country, this paper situates the judiciary in the Nigerian developmental process. Seldom is the judiciary recognized as an equal partner in the developmental process: when the system works, which suggests that their job is being done well, the judiciary is rarely the destination of praise, but as their failure (real or imagined) is often incandescent, blame is easily lavished on them. This article brings attention to what it terms “judicial government” but contextualizes the judiciary's performance against the backdrop of the constraints to which it is subject and it crucially identifies self-inflicted constraints. These self-inflicted constraints impact on the size of the Supreme Court's docket (which affects the quality of dispensed justice) and the issue of costs in the litigation process.

Cyber Courts and the Future of Justice

A real need exists to use the benefits of modern technology intelligently to reduce the court backlogs. Cyber courts are a viable alternative to the endless delays that plague court dockets, but only if they succeed in making courts more efficient.

Agenda Setting, Issue Priorities and Organizational Maintenance: The US Supreme Court, 1955 to 1994

In recent decades, political science has turned to the study of agenda setting as a central aspect of collective decision-making environments. The content of the public agenda – and the issue agendas of political institutions – make significant social change possible. Recent studies suggest that these political institutions are engaged in both competitive relationships, as they identify and pursue both active and latent public issues, and more complex cue-taking relationships. For separated powers, the problems of co-operation and competition with one another are entwined with internal collective decision-making dilemmas.In this study, we focus on the tension within a political institution between agenda setting as a mechanism for internal organizational maintenance, and agenda setting as a consequence of that institution's interaction with other branches of government and the general public. Specifically, we examine agenda setting by the United States Supreme Court, and ask the question of why the Court allocates more or less of its valuable agenda space to one policy issue over others. Our study environment is the policy issue composition of the Court's docket: the Court's attention to criminal justice policy issues relative to other issues. Among the most important powers of the Court is the power to apportion its agenda space among policy issues.Pacelle argues that the Court's agenda-building process, its culling of cases and issues from numerous petitions, may represent the most important sequence of decisions the Court makes. But the Court's docket is a finite agenda space on which some issues are provided with a larger proportion of the Court's attention. Allocating space to an issue can promote the issue's national visibility and legitimacy as an important public concern.

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2004

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2004

A Forest with No Trees: The Supreme Court and International Law in the 2003-04 Term

The Court's docket last Term included five cases directly presenting questions of international law. Republic of Austria v. Altmann raised issues of the international of expropriation and the immunity of foreign sovereigns. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain concerned statute authorizing suits to redress a tort . . . committed in violation of the of nations. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Rasul v. Bush concerned the status of individuals taken prisoner in the war on terror, thereby raising the subject of that best known of all international agreements, the Geneva Convention. The thesis of this Article is that, despite the direct relevance of international to these cases, the Court repeatedly ignored international and, when faced with no plausible way to ignore international law, took highly constricted approach to its application. The Article argues that the Court decided three of the five cases - Altmann, Padilla, and Hamdi - without resolving any substantive international legal questions. In Rasul, the Article asserts, the Court ignored the Geneva Convention, although it did take pragmatic, control-oriented view of what constituted sovereignty. Even in Sosa, where the statute's plain language - giving federal courts jurisdiction over suits for tort, committed in violation of the of nations - unavoidably required some attention to international law, the Court repeatedly took constricted reading of the meaning and relevance of international law, both by ignoring the importance of treaties to the statutory scheme (and history) and by repeatedly limiting the scope of the customary law of nations. In all five cases, the Court focused on purely procedural issues and on statutory interpretation instead of on international law. A concluding section of the Article speculates that the Court downplayed international legal issues not for fear of public, legislative, or executive backlash, but rather because the Court is simply more comfortable with traditional methods of statutory and originalist interpretation than it is with the unfamiliar, decentralized world of international law.

The Reentry Court Initiative: Court-Based Strategies for Managing Released Prisoners

In response to the growing need to effectively manage the large numbers of released prisoners returning into the community, the Office of Justice Programs launched the Reentry Court Initiative (RCI). Nine sites were identified and charged with developing strategies to improve the tracking and supervision of offenders upon release and providing the services necessary to help offenders reconnect with their families and the community. The current article describes the RCI programs. Telephone interviews were conducted with key site contacts from each site. Site visits were conducted to three sites, at which semistructured interviews were held with 28 key stakeholders, including judges, program directors, supervision officers, case managers, and program participants. The sites employed diverse approaches in establishing their programs, with the judicial branch maintaining programmatic authority in five of the eight operational sites, and administrative law judges and/or parole boards serving as the legal authority in the remaining three. All RCI programs required regular court appearances, although not all established a specialized reentry court docket. The majority of sites appeared to offer comprehensive services to their program participants, with case management provided either through a specialized case manager or the supervision officer. Several barriers were common across the RCI sites, particularly the difficulties in obtaining employment, and appropriate, affordable housing for program participants.

Of time and judicial behavior: United States Supreme Court agenda-setting and decision-making, 1888-1997

This study examines the agenda setting and decision making behavior of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1888 to 1997. The study finds that economics decisions dominated the Court's docket up until the 1950s, when civil liberties cases became more prominent, and judicial power decisions remained relatively constant. Proxies of the justices' attitudes are related in the long run to all three decisional areas.

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2003

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2003

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2002

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2002

Divorce, Custody, and Spousal Violence: A Random Sample of Circuit Court Docket Records

The fastest growing marital status category in America is divorced, with the number of divorced individuals quadrupling between 1970 and 1996. The majority of children in divorced families live with a single parent and often lose contact with the noncustodial parent. A recent review of the literature suggests that many noncustodial fathers fail to keep contact with their children and become delinquent in child support payments because of their dissatisfaction with the custody arrangement. However, there has been little examination of how custody arrangements are typically determined or settled. In addition, divorces that involve spousal violence bring further complications to child custody, visitation, and child support decisions. This study included a 20% random sample of court records for all divorces settled in one county judicial circuit court during 1998. The purpose of this study was to examine characteristics of divorcing adults as well as characteristics of child custody arrangements, visitation, and child support decisions. Contrary to popular belief, findings from this study indicate that divorce actions were almost always settled through agreement of the divorcing parties rather than by adjudication. About 38% of the couples had children in common and between 78 and 92% of cases were settled through agreement, which suggests that fathers are in fact agreeing to the custody arrangement, rather than being forced into it. About one in five records overall noted spousal violence, and there was no significant difference in settlement methods for couples with or without spousal violence. Cases with children and spousal violence were significantly more likely to have also mentioned substance use and postdecree activity. This study suggests a need for more focused attention on divorce cases with spousal violence to reduce postdecree court involvement and safety of children and adult victims, as well as further study into what causes noncustodial parents to lose contact with their children.

The Future: Scrutinizing The Empirical Case For the Court of Federal Claims

The 20th anniversary of the Federal Courts Improvement Act (FCIA) presents an opportunity to reflect upon the unique role of the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC). The COFC has evolved into a jurisdictional catch-all, rather than a forum that serves a needed purpose. Although public contracts dominate the Court of Federal Claims' docket, the Court plays only a minor role in the field, and mere election of fora does not justify the Court's participation. Hence, this paper offers three reasons to challenge the viability of the Court's current mandate: (1) the Court is not a specialized court; (2) dispersal of the Court's docket would not unduly burden any receiving fora; and (3) because most of the Court's jurisdiction is concurrent and because (empirically) the Court is not the forum of choice, the benefits of forum election are illusory. Ultimately, the paper makes the empirical case that eliminating the Court could enhance efficiency and consistency, while reducing confusion in law and practice.

Seattle's mental health courts: early indicators of effectiveness

Courts specializing in the adjudication of mentally ill defendants are relatively new to the United States. Steadman, Davidson, and Brown (2001) proposed a four-part functional definition of a mental health court (MHC): (1) all identified mentally ill defendants are handled on a single court docket, (2) the use of a collaborative team which includes a clinical specialist who recommends and make linkages to treatment, (3) assurance of availability of appropriate clinical placement prior to the judge making a ruling, and (4) specialized court monitoring with possible sanctions for noncompliance. Other authors have stressed the view that MHCs are primarily vehicles for the practice of therapeutic jurisprudence, defined as the process of fostering therapeutic outcomes by legal means, or at least considering the therapeutic or antitherapeutic outcomes resulting from the legal process (Casey & Rottman, 2000; Wexler & Winick, 1996). Publications on MHCs have been primarily limited to descriptions of MHCs and their implications from legal, health, and social policy perspectives. There remains a virtual absence of empirical data elements in published accounts, with the exception of basic program statistics, such as number of defendants screened, adjudicated, and supervised. Although a major evaluation of the Broward County Mental Health Court is underway, and a description of the evaluation’s methods, measures, and challenges is available (McGaha, Boothroyd, Poythress, Petrila, & Ort, 2002), empirical reports from that research are only beginning to emerge (see Boothroyd et al., this issue; Poythress, Petrilla, McGaha, & Boothroyd, 2002), and analyses for many facets of that study are still in preparation. Heretofore, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of MHCs has been very limited and benchmarks from which different court

Changes in the Courthouse-Electronic Records, Filings and Court Dockets

This article describes the electronic revolution that is currently taking place within court systems across the nation. Digital archiving of documents is becoming a well-established practice. Electronic filing of documents is gathering momentum as a viable method of conducting the daily business of the courts. Although court functions remain relatively the same, the manner in which their daily business is being affected is changing dramatically.

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2001

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2001

Supreme Court Monitoring of State Courts in the 21st Century

A relatively neglected aspect of the many strands of judicial federalism is the review by the United States Supreme Court of decisions on federal law by state courts. The Supreme Court has undertaken such review almost from its inception, but this article considers two apparent shocks to this review, one recent and well-known, the other one more long-standing and less the subject of comment. The first is Bush v. Gore (2000), where the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, thus resolving the post-presidential election controversy in favor of Texas Governor George W. Bush. The Florida court's decision, ordering manual recounts of votes, was ostensibly based on state law, yet the Supreme Court majority (or at least three Justices thereof) disagreed with the state court's interpretation of its own law, in order to reach federal legal issues. Much can, will, and should be said about Bush v. Gore, but the question is whether the majority's aggressive review portends a new role for the Court for other state court cases. The second, less noticeable but potentially as profound a shock to the understood system of Supreme Court review is the Court's decreasing caseload. Through most of the 20th century the Court was deciding well over 100 cases per Term, and as late as the mid-1980s the number was almost 150. But starting in 1990 the number began to sharply spiral down, and for much of the 1990s the Court was only deciding 70 to 80 cases per Term. The likelihood of review of any given decision, not high to begin with, is even lower today. What might account for the Court's shrunken caseload, and what are its implications for state court decision-making? This paper addresses some of these questions. Part II considers the effect of Supreme Court review on the development of state constitutional law. After briefly surveying the history of Court review of state court decisions, and of the New Judicial Federalism, Part II addresses the impact of two controversial Supreme Court decisions: Michigan v. Long (1983), in which the Court held that review of federal issues was possible, unless the state court plainly stated that it was relying on state law, and the aforementioned Bush v. Gore. Part III of the paper turns toward the Supreme Court's shrunken docket, and in particular its possible impact on the adjudication of federal issues in state courts. Finally, Part IV considers the role of state intermediate appellate courts regarding the issues raised in Parts II and III.

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2000

An Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 2000

“Haves” Versus “Have Nots” in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases

This article evaluates two basic issues about dockets and case outcomes in American appellate courts. First, what determines the extent to which a court devotes its docket to civil cases involving asymmetrical power relationships between litigants? Second, in civil cases in which the “have-nots” are pitted against the “haves,” which forces determine the extent to which courts favor the less privileged? To answer these questions, we identify power asymmetric civil cases and the size of each court's docket by examining all 6,750 cases decided in state supreme courts in 1996. Results reveal that contextual factors are formidable in shaping both agenda space and win rates in civil disputes involving conflicts between advantaged and disadvantaged litigants. Institutional features of supreme courts and state court systems, the supply of legal resources, and public preferences all emerge as critical influences on the willingness of the states' highest courts to decide have/have not conflicts and on the ultimate disposition of these cases. In sum, a comprehensive understanding of the ways in which courts treat cases involving the disadvantaged and, more broadly, function as agents of redistributive change cannot be achieved without focusing beyond the ideological preferences of judges and the skill of the litigants.

The Tale of Ida Jane and George: Murder, Miscegenation, and Bastardy in 1893 Raleigh, Ontario

Introduction In late-nineteenth-century Raleigh, Ontario, the attention of a whole town was riveted to the spectacle of an entire black family on trial. Seven members of the Freeman fam­ily, Cecilia, Jeremiah, Lemuel, William Henry, George, Elizabeth, and Alexander, stood in the court docket for the murder of a white constable while a packed court­room savoured the salacious details of the trial. The tale of the Freeman family case engendered much commentary, played out on many different levels, and had all the elements of high drama: murder, bastardy, and miscegenation.1