Other Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform

April 18, 1997© HyperLaw, Inc.®

Back to Judicial Conference Comments Page

HyperLaw, Inc.

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

International Trade

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 Other 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 Other Circuit.

The Chief Judge of the Other 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 - OTHER 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
CIT	4	...	yes		no	#1. An official citation number beyond the case number has been added to each opinion of the U.S. Court of International Trade
CIT	4	...	No	yes	...	#1. We use sequential opinion numbers but no paragraph numbers. #3. Probably a decent idea, but not of great concern.
CIT	Fed	...	No	yes	no	#1. The Clerk already does so.
CFC	4	no	no	yes...	No	#2b. Yes, if such procedure is adopted.
CFC	Fed	no...	no..	no	no....	Judges shall not be required to reformat opinions and their own citations in order to provide computer access. Judges do use citations and computer services when an opinion has not yet been published.