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 Ninth 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 Ninth Circuit.
The Chief Judge of the Ninth 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 - NINTH 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 |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Mag |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Cir |
9 |
no |
no |
... |
no |
#2b. Perhaps |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
no opinion |
no... |
#3. No-This appears to be an attempt to have the courts do the research for lawyers and publishers. A lawyer should read an entire decision-not simply a paragraph-in order to understand a court's reasoning in a contextual sense. This is little more than research by headnotes for the lazy. The time and cost burden would be significant and of little, if any, benefit to the judiciary. Of course, it would provide lawyers with a new excuse-"The judge didn't properly number his or her paragraphs." |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Cir |
9 |
No |
No |
... |
No.... |
#2b. Only if parallel to, e.g., F.3d. #3. No. I see no good reason to create that cacophony of numbers. Few books have such a thing. (Incidentally, I see nothing evil about a private company having a copyright on copyrightable material.) |
Dist |
9 |
.... |
yes |
|
yes |
#1. Only as to cases the judges designates "for publication" |
Bank |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Mag |
9 |
yes... |
yes... |
... |
yes... |
#1. Yes. I favor a uniform system of citation that is controlled by the courts and not by legal publishers, and that produces a citation shortly after the opinion is published which stays with the opinion permanently. #2a. Yes. The present system which can have multiple citations to the same case is unnecessarily cumbersome. #2b. Require it. #3. Yes. There is no reason why the citation system should be at the mercy of legal publishers. I favor a uniform citation system for pinpoint cites. I have no view on how this can best be accomplished. |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no.. |
yes |
no |
#2a. I see no reason to abandon the use of the uniform citation form in the Bluebook. |
Cir |
9 |
... |
... |
... |
.... |
#1. Not until the system is modified to distinguish between citable and non citable authority and between different opinions in same case. #2a. See above #2b. See above #3. See above |
Cir |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no... |
No |
no |
no... |
#1. No. I see no compelling reason to do so and it would impose additional burdens on the Clerk's Office and add confusion. #3. No. The Blue Book system remains satisfactory for locating cases and I see no justification for change. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
no... |
no |
#2b. No position |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no.. |
#3. No, the burden would exceed any perceived benefit to the public. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes |
yes. |
No |
yes |
#2a. It should be required not permissive. |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
No... |
yes.... |
yes.... |
..... |
#1. No-only those designated for publication (otherwise, there will be huge gaps in the number sequences, and practitioners, scholars and courts will be uncertain whether they have all precedent) #2a. Yes, if we're going to use them on our own decisions. #3. Require only if we're adopting the system. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
|
|
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes.. |
yes.. |
... |
.... |
#1. Yes, if the official citation number will improve public access to court documents. #2a. Yes. This citation system should be uniform throughout the federal judiciary. 2b. I think it would be better if the system was implemented nationwide, but perhaps a pilot project would be useful. #3. I am not opposed to numbering paragraphs in opinions, although I am not enthusiastic about the idea. If it would improve access, however, it would be worth doing. |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Cir |
9 |
no.. |
no.. |
|
no... |
#1. No-no-no-no-no #2. No - This is a bad idea. #3. Absolutely not. This is crazy. This thing should be killed--and for good. . |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Mag |
9 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Cir |
9 |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
Mag |
9 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no.. |
... |
See above |
no |
#1. No. Too burdensome and disruptive for court and chambers staff - at least as to bankruptcy courts. 2a. Not now, but maybe in the future. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no... |
No |
.... |
no... |
#1. No. Certainly this requirement should not apply to unpublished dispositions, in any event. In a district court with a number of district judges it seems like a useless exercise. It makes more sense for a court of appeals published opinions. In a district where there are separate divisions widely separated, numbering district court opinions sequentially will present bookkeeping problems. In an average year we issue hundreds of orders and publish a few. It seems impractical and to serve no particular purpose to number all orders. Aside from published orders and decisions the remaining orders are not going to be accessible on computer, even if the official citation can be located. These decisions may be on chambers' computers but they are going to be erased periodically because of lack of capacity. The printed order in the official clerk's file obviously is not going to be on any computer. #2b. It seems a waste because it seems from a district court viewpoint it would be virtually impossible to locate the decisions, except for those that are published. #3. No. For published opinions this might be useful but for the vast number of unpublished orders and decisions we issue in a year it will add one more thing to our work load with very little benefit. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no... |
No |
no... |
..... |
#1. No. Not absent a consistent citation form. I believe the current format is completely acceptable. #2b. No. I think that all opinions ought to be filed in the case and with the clerk's office (with a designation as to the decision being "publishable" or not) Anyone with an interest can then obtain the clerk's copy and apply its own citation format. #3. Does this mean judicially provided/produced head notes? I am opposed to any change in citation method and I wonder why the courts are letting themselves be dragged into this dispute. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes |
yes |
|
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no.. |
#3. This method of citation would take extra time to prepare. We are not on the billable cycle!! There is nothing wrong with the current system which is easy and informative. |
Dist |
9 |
.... |
yes, if .. |
|
... |
#1. Not in District Courts #2a yes, if there comes to be one. #3. No opinion |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Cir |
9 |
... |
... |
|
.... |
#1. Not at this time-we have no solid information on costs or benefits. #2a. If a system becomes "official", yes #3. No-not with present work load. We have no information on costs for added staff. |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Mag |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
|
no |
|
Mag |
9 |
... |
.... |
|
yes |
#1. It has not been convincingly demonstrated to me that the existing citation system is inadequate. Assuming, however, that it is inadequate, then my answer is: yes. #2a. Yes, uniformity should be strongly encouraged or required. |
Dist |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
... |
... |
Yes |
yes |
#1. At this point, it should be recommended, not required. #2a. At this point it should be recommended or requested, but not required. |
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
no |
no |
|
Bank |
9 |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Mag |
9 |
yes |
no |
yes |
no |
|
Cir |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dist |
9 |
no.... |
No |
no... |
no... |
#1. No. There is no reason to deviate from the citation form used in the Blue Book. This is a universal system that is taught in law school and is easy to apply. #2b. No. The proposed citation system will create too many administrative problems for the courts. The current citation system is easy to apply and has been effectively used for years. #3. No. West has spent a great deal of time and effort to create a workable and thorough citation system. The courts should not be inconvenienced because other companies are attempting to compete with West. |