Federal Judicial Center
        
              
        Search tips
Search

          HomeAbout the FJCStatuteThe FJC and What It DoesAnnual ReportsBoard MembersSenior StaffJob VacanciesContact UsResearch About the CourtsReports & StudiesManuals, Monographs & GuidesResearch ProjectsCardone Recommendation StudyFederal Rules MaterialsFederal Court Cases: FJC Integrated Database (IDB)Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990OverviewDocumentsPublicationsLegislationSpecial Topics1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for JudgesOverviewRecent CasesSources of Law and InterpretationCase CommentariesSample OrdersArticles and CommentaryFAQsVideo TutorialsChecklistCovid-19 and the Federal Judiciary: Research ResourcesOverviewMaps and DashboardsResearch ReportsTopical WebpagesElection LitigationOverviewCase Studies in Emergency Election LitigationLitigation SubjectsRegistration ProceduresNullifying RegistrationsDistrict LinesFilling VacanciesGetting on the BallotRecall ElectionsBallot MeasuresCampaign ActivitiesElection DatesAbsentee and Early VotingVoter IdentificationPoll HoursVoting ProceduresPolling Place ActivitiesProvisional BallotsVoting IrregularitiesRecountsInteractive Map of Emergency Election CasesFJC Publications on Election LitigationElection Law BibliographyCovid-19Federal and State Court CooperationOverviewTopics for Cooperation Between State and Federal CourtsReducing BiasWhat Is Bias and How Is It Measured?Effectiveness of Implicit Bias TrainingsReducing Bias ReferencesBankruptcy EducationState–Federal Judicial CouncilsExamples of State–Federal Court CooperationSample FormsAdditional ResourcesIllustrative Forms of Class Action NoticesOverviewSecurities NoticesProducts Liability NoticesEmployment Discrimination NoticesNotice Checklist and Plain Language GuideNotes for Use by Attorneys and JudgesOverview of MethodologyDetailed Discussion of MethodologyAcknowledgmentsManaging Capital CasesOverviewManaging Federal Death Penalty TrialsIntroductionResource Guide, Volume IOrders and FormsFederal Death Penalty Resource Counsel AssistanceManaging Habeas Corpus Review of Capital ConvictionsResource Guide, Volume IICapital Defense Network AssistanceAdditional ResourcesNational Security CasesOverviewPublicationsSelected Orders and Other Case DocumentsRelated FJC ResourcesForeign Intelligence Surveillance CourtRules of Practice and ProcedureOverviewVideo TutorialsGuidesResearch ReportsPrint PublicationsOnline-Only Research ReportsScience ResourcesOverviewFingerprint IdentificationNeuroscienceOpioids CrisisDNA TechnologiesWater and the LawTechnology in LitigationOverviewPublicationsThird-Party Litigation FinancingOverviewPublications and ReportsLocal Rules and FormsState LawsIndustry StandardsEducation for the CourtsEducation ProgramsPrograms and Resources for JudgesPrograms and Resources for Court AttorneysPrograms and Resources for Federal DefendersPrograms and Resources for ExecutivesPrograms and Resources for Supervisors and ManagersPrograms and Resources for Experienced Probation and Pretrial Services OfficersPrograms and Resources for All Court EmployeesPrograms and Resources for TrainersCivic Education About the CourtsTalking Points on Judicial HistoryFamous Federal TrialsState and Federal CourtsInside the Federal CourtsManuals, Monographs, & GuidesVideos & PodcastsHistory of the Federal JudiciaryJudgesBiographical Directory of Article III Federal JudgesBankruptcy JudgeshipsMagistrate JudgeshipsDiversity on the BenchJudicial SalariesUnsuccessful Nominations and Recess AppointmentsImpeachments of Federal JudgesJudgeship ReassignmentsCourtsSupreme Court of the United StatesU.S. Courts of AppealsU.S. District CourtsU.S. Circuit Courts, 1789-1911Other Federal CourtsCourts: A Brief OverviewWork of the CourtsCaseloadsThe Contempt Power of the Federal CourtsJurisdictionThe Role of the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the Federal JudiciaryRulesJudicial BranchAdministrative BodiesCongress and the CourtsExecutive Branch and the CourtsCourt Officers and StaffFederal Judicial CircuitsTalking Points on Federal Judicial HistoryCourthousesGalleryDetailed ListList by StateCasesCases that Shaped the Federal CourtsFamous Federal TrialsExhibitsTimelinesGraphs: DemographicsGraphs: CaseloadsMapsNotable Federal TrialsSnapshots of Federal Judicial History, 1790-1990Spotlight on Judicial HistoryThe Justices' Circuit Court OpinionsFor Further StudyCourt History ProgramsGuide to ResearchJudges' Published PapersOral History ResourcesPublished Court HistoriesScholarship on JudgesInternational OfficeAbout IOHistoryInternational ProgramsGlobal ReachBriefing MaterialsTranslated MaterialsContact UsPublications Catalog You are here HomeResearch About the Courts  Reports & Studies Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested. See also Manuals, Monographs, & Guides.
 Title
          Description
                        
                  Will return exact match for word(s) entered
 Title
                  Datesort ascendingBankruptcy Court Rules and Procedures Regarding  Electronic Signatures of Persons Other than Filing AttorneysAt the request of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Center collected and reviewed local bankruptcy rules regarding signatures of non-registrants of CM/ECF (e.g., debtors) and requirements for retention of documents bearing original handwritten signatures of non-registrants. Staff also reviewed district court rules regarding signatures and retention, reviewed an OMB document on the use of electronic signatures in federal transactions, and solicited the views of interested parties regarding potential rules changes in these areas.
              February 22, 2013Process-Descriptive Study of Judge-Involved Supervision Programs in the Federal SystemThis report presents the results of the Federal Judicial Center's retrospective process-descriptive study of judge-involved supervision programs for offenders in the federal courts. It is part of a larger research effort to investigate how programs modeled on state and local drug and reentry court programs operate in the federal system. This report does not evaluate these programs, but describes the population served, the services provided, and, through official data, how the participants fared when compared with a group of similar offenders who were not in a program.
              February 1, 2013Second Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010)The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“the Act”) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. Among those reforms is Title II of the Act, which provides a process for the identification and orderly liquidation of distressed, systemically important financial institutions. Title II also directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of distressed financial institutions under Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The AOUSC submitted its first report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act on July 21, 2011 (“First Report”). The AOUSC now submits this second report in compliance with section 202(e)’s instruction that it summarize the results of its study in a report “[n]ot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of th[e] Act [and] in each successive year until the third year.” This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center.
              July 27, 2012Survey of District Court Judges on a Proposed Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) Concerning Prior Consistent StatementsThis report was prepared for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the current version of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are admissible for their substance as well as for their rehabilitation only if they rebut recent fabrication because they occurred before the fabrication motive. If a prior consistent statement is admissible for credibility but not admissible for substance, the opposing party is entitled to a jury instruction. Because of perceived difficulties with such an instruction, an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) was proposed to the Evidence Rules Committee. This paper reports the results of an FJC survey of district judges on matters related to the proposed amendment.
              March 2, 2012Early Stages of Litigation Attorney Survey: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil RulesThis report summarizes the findings of a study of the operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and 16(b) in a nationwide sample of recently terminated civil cases.
              March 1, 2012Survey of Federal Transferee Judges in MDL Proceedings Regarding Coordination with Parallel State Proceedings: Report to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State JurisdictionThe Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") asked the Federal Judicial Center to survey transferee judges in multidistrict litigation proceedings about their experiences in coordinating with state judges. The purpose of the survey was to provide the committee and the JPML with information to assist in the development of practical resources to facilitate coordination between federal and state parallel proceedings in complex litigation.
              December 1, 2011Jurors' Use of Social Media During Trials and Deliberations: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case ManagementThe Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) asked the Federal Judicial Center to develop and administer a short survey of district court judges to assess the frequency with which jurors use social media to communicate about cases during trial and deliberation. The survey also sought to identify strategies judges have found to be effective and appropriate in curbing this behavior. This report presents the findings from the survey. A subsequent survey in 2014 also considered attorneys' use of social media.
              November 22, 2011ADR in the Federal District Courts: An Initial ReportThis report provides a brief history of alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, in the federal district courts, touching on the statutes that have prompted ADR developments and noting policy guidance and support to assist courts in establishing ADR programs. The report then provides a summary of ADR procedures authorized in the district courts as of late 2011.
              November 16, 2011Update on Resolution of Rule 12(b)(6) Motions Granted with Leave to Amend: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil RulesIn our March 2011 report, we indicated that following the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were granted more frequently with leave to amend the complaint. We also noted that the opportunity to amend the complaint may cure the defect and change the findings of the study. The Advisory Committee asked that we follow the events in the study cases, determine the extent to which the respondents submitted amended complaints, and report the outcome of any subsequent motions to dismiss.
              November 1, 2011The Timing of Scheduling Orders and Discovery Cut-Off DatesThe Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the operation of Rules 16 and 26(f) in the district courts. This report summarizes findings of part of that study. Specifically, this report examines the timing of Rule 16 scheduling orders in civil cases and, drawing from those scheduling orders, also examines the timing of the first discovery cut-off date imposed, without regard to any extension. The data analyzed in this report were drawn from court records in 11 districts.
              October 1, 2011
 Pages « first
‹ previous
...
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
next ›
last »
 Share Share this page
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC 20002-8003
202-502-4000

Supreme Court of the United States  USCourts.gov  U.S. Sentencing Commission  Federal Judicial Center Foundation

*This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.*

The Federal Judicial Center produced and maintains this site in furtherance of its statutory mission. The Center regards the contents of this site to be responsible and valuable, but these contents do not reflect official policy or recommendation of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. The site also contains links to relevant information on websites maintained by other organizations; providing these external links is for the convenience of this site's users and does not constitute verification or endorsement of the information or the sites to which the links are produced. Opinions expressed in the materials found on this site are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
Site Map | Contact Webmaster | Privacy and Security Notice