Back to Judicial Conference Comments Page
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 Sixth 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 Sixth Circuit.
The Chief Judge of the Sixth 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.
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 - SIXTH 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 |
Cir |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
|
Dist |
6 |
yes |
|
... |
yes |
#2b. Permit it, for now. |
Mag |
6 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Cir |
6 |
no.. |
... |
|
... |
#1. No. The Court of Appeals number should be an adequate identification of the case. No reason to assign some new number to the case except to have a smaller number. 2a. Until we know the data base that lawyers can use to get the official citation, no. Substantial burden on lawyers to get this additional information. #3. See no objection to numbering the paragraphs. That should make an even playing field. |
Dist |
6 |
no... |
no |
yes |
... |
#1. No-only the published opinions. #3. In the published opinions only. |
Cir |
6 |
no |
no |
.... |
No |
2b. Perhaps, if overwhelmingly approved! |
Mag |
6 |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
|
Mag |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Mag |
6 |
yes |
... |
|
Yes |
#2a. The judiciary should require the use of the official citation, but also require parallel citations. |
Cir |
6 |
|
|
|
|
Sounds ok but I'll rely on the more informed judgement of the active Judges. |
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Bank |
6 |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
Dist |
6 |
yes.. |
... |
|
... |
#1. Yes, provided that the clerks would be able to develop a method for ensuring that cases are numbered consecutively, and that two or more cases don't get assigned the same number. #2. I think there should be a transition period, perhaps three to five years, during which the official citation is permitted but not required, and the case reporter citation, with a pinpoint, is still required. This will leave a period of time during which any problems with the standard citation system can be resolved. #3. A better time to add the paragraph numbers might be when the opinion is actually put onto the Internet. I'm not sure what the process would be for putting the case on-line, but it just seems to be a more efficient time to do it. This is assuming that numbering paragraphs cannot be done automatically with WordPerfect. |
Mag |
6 |
.... |
... |
..... |
...... |
#1. Definitely not. Our clerk's staff are already overworked and understaffed. I am opposed to the addition of any citation format beyond the name of the court and the case number. These two items should themselves provide a sufficiently unique denomination for any given name. #2a. I am not opposed. See 1. Above. #2b. See above #3. Possibly the use of pre-printed sheets numbered on one edge would be appropriate , similar to the practice presently undertaken by some courts. |
Bank |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Mag |
6 |
no... |
No |
no... |
... |
#1. No - this creates a logistical nightmare. For example, our magistrate judge opinions do not flow through the clerk's office. Would a Report & Recommendation have a number? Does even a discovery order get a number? The problems are endless. #2b. No-at the risk of sounding old-fashioned, Blue Book citations have served us well for a long time. #3. Not if the proposed cite form is not adopted, but yes if adopted. |
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Mag |
6 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Dist |
6 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Bank |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
..... |
#3. Without a universally accepted research method (such as West key number), this would appear to be unnecessary. Likewise, if there is an alternative to the West system, then it is also unnecessary. |
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Bank |
6 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Cir |
6 |
no... |
No |
yes.... |
no |
#1. No. It is just more work to put on the clerk. #2b. Yes. It is like the use of parallel citations |
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
... |
#3. If distribution and/or dissemination to the public or access is a problem in current format, yes. Otherwise, probably not. |
Cir |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Bank |
6 |
no |
no |
... |
no |
#2b. Not opposed |
Bank |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
yes |
|
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
yes |
yes |
|
|
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
My answers are predicated on the view that publication of opinions at the district court level should not be encouraged. The implication of a numbering system is that opinions so numbered and paragraphed will be published or available for citation. I am also of the opinion that there is likely to be a deterioration in the reporting of decisions and citation of precedents in the effort to achieve a "universal citations system." I find nothing wrong in the current system. I am particularly concerned that headnotes will disappear from the current system. Electronic search of precedents has limitations. |
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
|
|
|
|
#1. No strong feeling. If others think it sensible to do so, I have no problem. #2b. Yes, if there's concurrence re: utility of such practice. #3. Probably a good idea-But only if there is a program to add numbers before final print out. |
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Bank |
6 |
no! |
no! |
|
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
6 |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
|
Cir |
7 |
yes |
|
|
yes |
|