April 18, 1997© HyperLaw, Inc.®

Third Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform


Back to HyperLaw Home Page

Back to Judicial Conference Comments Page


HyperLaw, Inc.

Third Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform -- March/April 1997


Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands

HyperLaw Comments:

Following is the survey sent to Federal Court Judges and Magistrates by the Administrative Office and Automation Committee of the Judicial Conference and the responses received from judges in the Third circuit. These responses, for all circuits, are also available in RTF format. In addition, individual letters were sent by certain judges. These may be found on the Judicial Conference Comments Page.

The comments have been excerpted for the Third Circuit.

The Chief Judge of the Third Circuit is [note information as to judges is current as of 1996]:

[to be provided]

See, critical comments re survey by Judge Leif M. Clark, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas:

"I am concerned that the materials furnished in this survey were woefully inadequate in addressing what I believe are very real issues for the judges who are being asked to complete this survey. The questions in the survey are "bottom line," and do not reflect the nuances of the issue, or the myriad of reasons that a given judge may have answered in the way he or she did. As a result, I think it will be dangerous indeed to draw any conclusions of value with regard to the attitude of the federal judiciary to this issue."

To make your views known as to judges who have made anonymous comments, one could communicate with the Chief Judge of the Circuit wherein the judge sits. The Chief Judge is also one of the twenty-seven members of the Judicial Conference which will decide whether to adopt the ABA Proposal at the semi-annual meeting of the Judicial Conference in September, 1997.


Following are the survey questions. Explanatory materials did not accompany the survey. The identity of the Judges responding to the survey has not made public. Many judges see no need to change the system. They like the way it works now. Many judges do not see that it is their responsibility to assure that opinions that are authoritative and citable are made available to the public either in paper or in electronic form. In addition, many judges, including those who will vote on approving the proposal after the Committee is finished with its work, seem to have prejudged the issue, without the facts.

ABA RESOLUTION ON UNIVERSAL CITATION SYSTEM
FEDERAL COURT JUDGE SURVEY FORM

1 Should the clerk of your court be required to add an official citation number beyond the case number to each opinion?

2. Should the federal judiciary Require the use of the official citation?

Permit it?

3 .Should federal judges number the paragraphs in fin opinion so that there may be Pinpoint citations in which no private sector company can have a copyright.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL JUDGES SURVEY ON ADOPTION OF THE ABA CITATION RESOLUTION - THIRD CIRCUIT ONLY

Legends
Judge Type - Cir = Circuit Dist = District Bank = Bankruptcy
Mag = Magistrate CFC = Court of Federal Claims CIT = Court of International Trade

Judge

Type


Cir.


#1


#2a


#2b


#3


Comments


Bank


3


...


.....


No...


Yes....


#1. NOT THE PROPOSED ONE. If the standard were changed so that each judge could use it, it would be helpful* Also, the use of a sequential opinion number in the location where page numbers currently are used will cause immense confusion unless it is preceded by a # symbol or some other character (like "n" or "no." for numbers). Moreover, there is no proposed citation for opinions by bankruptcy courts and no apparent way to distinguish magistrate judge opinions from district court judge opinions in the same case. "Our clerks are already overburdened with increases in case filings. They should not be burdened with this task, nor should they change a judge's opinion, even to add a number.

* An appropriate standard would sequentially number each judge's opinion but not the court's. An example could be

Smith v. Jones, 1996 Bkr WDTx JGK #1, ¶1, n4

This equates to:


1996 BkrWDTx JGK # 1 ¶ 1 n 4

Year Court Judge's Number of Numerical Paragraph Number Footnote Number of

Initials Judge's Opinions Opinion in Year Sign (or use para") of Cited Footnote

(to be sequential for ¶ Cited

opinions released

to public)


#2a. NOT THIS ONE. This standard as proposed is not administratively easy to use in trial courts. Another standard should be used that has each judge numbering opinions. In appellate courts, per curiam opinions can be designated, for example, as a 3dCirPC(i.e., substituting "PC" for the judge's initials); en bancs can be designated with "EB" rather than a judge's initials, etc..(see above).

#2b. No. An appropriate one, when developed, should be required to assist the courts in keeping track, in automated fashion, of the case as it travels through the appeal process. The proposed standard is NOT feasible.

#3. Yes. Although I see nothing untoward with an entity choosing to take the risk of analyzing our opinions and copyrighting their work, a pinpoint citation to a ¶ number eliminates any need to refer to a page number.


Mag


3


no


no


yes...


No...


#2b. Yes, on a court by court basis

#3. No. It's a tremendous amount of unnecessary work.

If it's not broke don't fix it. Currently citation systems are the least problematic area of judicial business.


Bank


3


yes


yes


yes


no....


#3. No. Aesthetic considerations outweigh any factors supporting the numbering of paragraphs by judges.


Bank


3


no


no


no-..


no


#2b..no-that would defeat its purpose


Bank


3


no


no


yes


no



Dist


3


..


..


..


..


#1. Absolutely not.

#2a. Heavens, no!

#2b. Sure

#3. Forget it. No one should so constrict the form of what we write.


Dist


3


no


no


no


no



Dist


3


no


no


o.k., yes


no



Dist


3


no


no



no



Dist


3


no


no


yes


no



Dist


3


No


No


yes


No



Bank


3


no


no



no



Cir


3


no!


no!


no opinion


no!




Dist


3


no


no


yes


no



Dist


3


no


no


no...


no


#2b. No. We are being asked to intervene in a dispute between the bar and West Publishing Co. We should stay out of it.


Dist


3


yes


yes



yes



Mag


3


no..


No


yes


no...


#1. Would lead to confusion and is unnecessary.

#3. No-perhaps federal courts should tell these private companies that we will not cite to them anymore.


Dist


3


no


no



no



Dist


3


no


no


no


no



Cir


3


no


no


yes


no


I have great concern as to how rehearing opinions and not-for-publication opinions feed into this citation summary. I am not sure that the report is as refined as it should be and takes into account the various federal publications.


Mag


3


yes


yes



yes



Dist


3


no


no


yes


no



Bank


3


no


no


yes


no



Cir


3rd


no


no


no


no