IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v1y2004i3p591-626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting Toward Bethlehem or Gomorrah?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen B. Burbank

Abstract

This article explores summary judgment from historical, empirical, and normative perspectives. It demonstrates that, because Rule 56 as promulgated in 1938 represented a radical transformation of the device, the members of the Advisory Committee had no reliable basis for predicting the consequences of their work had they been inclined to do so, and that in any event the image they projected of that work was tethered to the past. Because existing empirical studies of summary judgment based on reported decisions are unreliable, the article analyzes published studies that rely on data from court files, and it presents new such data for fiscal years 2000–2003 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The article finds that there is sufficiently reliable evidence to believe that the rate of case termination as a result of summary judgment rose substantially from 1960 to 2000, with one plausible (and perhaps conservative) range being from ca. 1.8 percent to ca. 7.7 percent. It also finds evidence that the termination and other activity rates vary, sometimes dramatically, among courts and case types. The latter possibility deserves additional empirical, doctrinal, and normative inquiry since it is reminiscent of experience under Rule 11 in the period 1983–1993 and thus, if confirmed, would prompt serious questions of procedural policy and, ultimately, of equal justice under law.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen B. Burbank, 2004. "Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting Toward Bethlehem or Gomorrah?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 591-626, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:1:y:2004:i:3:p:591-626
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00016.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00016.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00016.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas H. Cohen, 2008. "General Civil Jury Trial Litigation in State and Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 593-617, September.
    2. Brent D. Boyea & Paul Brace, 2021. "Revisiting the Business of State Supreme Courts in the 21st Century," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 684-696, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:1:y:2004:i:3:p:591-626. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.