Florida International University College of Law eCollections
Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship
1994
A Bibliography for the United States Courts of Appeals
Thomas E. Baker Florida International University College of Law
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications
Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons
Recommended Citation Thomas E. Baker, A Bibliography for the United States Courts of Appeals , 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 335 (1994). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/152
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A BmLIOGRAPHY FOR THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS·
by Thomas E. Baker"
If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice. - Learned Handl
This Bibliography was compiled for a book by the present author entitled, RATIONING JUSTICE ON ApPEAL - THE PROBLEMS OF THE V.S. COURTS OF APPEALS, published in 1994 by the West Publishing Company. That book is a general inquiry into the question whether the United States Courts of Appeals have broken Judge Hand's commandment already and, if not, whether the Congress and the Courts inevitably will be forced to yield to the growing temptation to ration justice on appeal. After a brief history of the intermediate federal courts, the book describes the received tradition and the federal appellate ideal. The book next explains the "crisis in volume," the consequences from the huge docket growth experienced in the Courts of Appeals since the 1960s and projected to continue for the foreseeable future. The past techniques of adding judges and dividing circuits are chronicled. There follows a general discussion and evaluation ofreforms, including reforms already implemented and those being proposed. Reforms are divided into intramural reforms, procedural reforms capable of being implemented by the judges, and extramural refotms, which require Congressional action. The book ends with a discussion of alternative futures ofthe federal intermediate court and a suggestion about how the public debate ought to choose among them. All these themes are reflected in this bibliography, which is arranged to follow the chapters in the book. Despite the inevitability of errors of both inclusion and exclusion, this is intended to be a complete and comprehensive bibliography of all the
• Adapted with pennission from THOMAS E. BAKER, RATIONING JUSTICE ON ApPEAL - THE PROBLEMS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, Bibliography, Copyright 1994 West Publishing Company, 610 Oppennan Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, MN 55164-0526; 800-328-9352. This book began as a report of the Justice Research Institute for the Federal Judicial Center. Decisions to include or exclude materials from this bibliography are those of the author alone. •• Alvin R. Allison Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law. B.S. cum laude 1974. Florida State University; J.D. with high honors 1977, University of Florida. The author thanks Diana Nichols and Michael S. Truesdale for their painstaking research efforts in compiling this bibliography. 1. Judge Learned Hand, Address Before the Legal Aid Society of New Yode. Thou Shalt Not Ration Justice. (Feb. 16, 1951), in BRIEF CASE, 3. 5 (1951). 335
HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 335 1993-1994 336 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 books and articles dealing with the United States Courts of Appeals available through June 1993. The works are arranged according to the organization in the following outline. When a work is particularly relevant to more than one heading, it is repeated under each heading.
****
I. HISTORY OF THE U.S. COURTS OF ApPEALS ...... •... 337 II. THE FEDERAL ApPELLATE DESIGN: TRADITION AND IDEAL 340 III. DOCKET GROWTH AND THE CRISIS OF VOLUME ...... 343 IV. THE DIVISION OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ...... •..... 347 V. THE DEBATE WHETHER TO DNIDE THE NINTH CIRCUIT ... 350 VI. INTRAMURAL REFORMS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED: WHAT THE COURTS OF ApPEALS HAVE DONE TO HELP THEMSELVES 354 A. Oral Argument Reforms " 354 B. Briefing Reforms...... 355 C. Opinion Writing Reforms...... 356 D. Case Management Techniques 360 E. Staffing Developments ...... 362 VII. PROPOSED INTRAMURAL REFORMS: WHAT ELSE THE COURTS OF APPEALS MIGHT 00 TO HELP THEMSELVES ...... 365 A. Uses ofTechnology " 365 B. Reforms ofCourt Administration and the En Banc Court. 367 C. More Differentiated Case Management ...... 368 D. Greater Emphasis on Oral Argument 370 E. Maintaining and Improving Judicial Productivity ... .. 370 F. Using Two-Judge Panels...... 372 G. Developing Advisory Staff...... 373 H. .Dealing with Frivolous Appeals 374 I. Miscellaneous...... 375 VIII. EXTRAMURAL REFORMS OF THE PAST 377 A. Reducing Original Jurisdiction ...... 377 B. Alternative Dispute Resolution 381 C. Creating Circuit Judgeships...... 384 D. Dividing Courts ofAppeals 388 E. Creating Specialized Appellate Courts...... 390 F. Improving Federal Legislation 391 IX. POSSffiLE EXTRAMURAL REFORMS FOR THE FuTURE .•.. .. 392 A. Assumptions about the Future 392 B. Substituting Discretionary Review for the Statutory Right ofReview ...... , 393 C. Alternative Structures to the Present Circuit System 395 1. Multiple Small Circuits 395
HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 336 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 337
2. A Four-tiered System , 395 3. National Subject Matter Courts , 398 4. Consolidated Intermediate Appellate Courts , 399 5. De jure Jumbo Courts ofAppeals ...... •.... 401 D. Retaining the Present System 401 E. Miscellaneous...... 402 X. How REFORM MIGHT PROCEED ...... 402 * ***
I. HISTORY OF THE U.S. COURTS OF ApPEALS
ALMANAC OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY (1988).
PAUL M. BATOR ET AL., HART & WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (3d ed. 1988).
HENRY 1. BOURGUIGNON, THE FIRST FEDERAL COURT: THE FEDERAL ApPELLATE PRIZE COURT OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1775-1787 (1977).
ROBERT A. CARP & RONALD STIDHAM, THE FEDERAL COURTS (1985).
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION (1989).
ALFRED CONKLING, A TREATISE ON THE ORGANIZATION, JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES (4th ed. 1864).
PETER GRAHAM FISH, THE POLmCS OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL ADMINIS TRATION (1973).
FELIX FRANKFURTER & JAMES M. LANDIS, THE BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT -A STUDY IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1927).
JULIUS GOEBEL, JR., HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT - ANTECED ENTS AND BEGINNINGS TO 1801 (1971).
DWIGHT F. HENDERSON, COURTS FOR A NEW NATION (1971).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF ApPEALS AND THE JUDGES WHO SERVED DURING THE PERIOD 1801 THROUGH MARCH 1958, COMM. ON JUDICIARY, U.S. SEN., 85TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1958).
HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 337 1993-1994 338 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335
FRANK O. LOVELAND, THE ApPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (1911).
JAMES W. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE para. 0.1-0.7 (2d ed. 1992).
ROSCOE POUND, ApPELLATE PROCEDURE IN CML CASES (1941).
EDWIN C. SURRENCY, HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (1987).
RUSSELL R. WHEELER & CYNTHIA HARRISON, FED. JUDICIAL CTR., CREATING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1989).
13 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCE DURE §§ 3501-3510 (2d ed. 1984 & Supp. 1992).
Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. LJ. 917 (1990). .
Thomas E. Baker, Precedent Times Three: Stare Decisis in the Divided Fifth Circuit, 35 sw. L.J. 687 (1981).
Thomas E. Baker, Toward a Unified Theory of the Jurisdiction of the United States Courts of Appeals, 39 DEPAUL L. REv. 235 (1989).
Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 HARv. L. REv. 1400 (1987).
Bennett Boskey & Eugene Gressman, The Supreme Court Bids Farewell to Mandatory Appeals, 121 F.R.D. 81 (1988).
Robert W. Breckons, The Judicial Code ofthe United States with Some Incidental Observations on its Application to Hawaii, 22 YALE LJ. 453 (1913).
Paul D. Carrington, The Function of the Civil Appeal: A Late-Century View, 38 S.C. L. REv. 411 (1987).
Paul D. Carrington, The Power ofDistrict Judges and the Responsibility of Courts of Appeals, 3 GA. L. REv. 507 (1969).
HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 338 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 339
Thomas H. Case & Scott R. Miller, Note, An Appraisal ofthe Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 57 S. CAL. L. REV. 301 (1984).
Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in .Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1 (1989).
Evan A. Evans, Fifty Years of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 9 Mo. L. REV. 18 Iohn P. Frank, Historical Bases of the Federal Judicial System, 13 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. 3 (1948). Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Peter W. Huber, The Intercircuit Committee, 100 HARV. L. REV. 1417 (1987). lames D. Hopkins, The Role of an Intermediate Appellate Court, 41 BROOK L. REv. 459 (1975). Stanley Mosk, Recycling the Old Circuit System, 27 S.C. L. REv. 633 (1976). Iohn 1. Parker, The Federal Judicial System, 14 ER.D. 361 (1953). Richard A. Posner, Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Survive Until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization ofthe Judicial Function, 56 S. CAL. L. REV. 761 (1983). William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Appellate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship, 21 U. MICH. I.L. REF. 623 (1988). Robert L. Stem et aI., Epitaph for Mandatory Jurisdiction, A.B.A. 1., Dec. 1988, at 66. Erwin C. Surrency, A History ofFederal Courts, 28 Mo. L. REV. 214 (1963). Erwin C. Surrency, The Judiciary Act of 1801, 2 AM. 1. LEGAL HIST. 53 (1958). William F. Swindler, Seedtime of an American Judiciary: From Independence to the Constitution, 17 WM. & MARy L. REV. 503 (1976). Kathryn Turner, The Midnight Judges, 109 U. PA. L. REv. 494 (1961). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 339 1993-1994 340 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 William W. Van Alstyne, A Critical Guide to Ex Parte McCardle, 15 ARIZ. L. REv. 229 (1973). Charles Warren, New Light on the History ofthe Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 HARv. L. REv. 49 (1923). Charles Alan Wright, The Doubtful Omniscience ofAppellate Courts, 41 MINN. L. REv. (1957). Hiller B. Zobel, Those Honorable Courts - Early Days on the First First Circuit, 73 F.R.D. 511 (1977). II. THE FEDERAL ApPELLATE DESIGN: TRADITION AND IDEAL ADVISORY COMM'N ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, A FRAME WORK FOR STUDYING THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE FEDERAL COURTS AND FEDERALISM (Apr. 1986). AMERICAN BAR Assoc., COMM'N ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO ApPELLATE COURTS (1977). ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). FELIX FRANKFURTER & JAMES M. LANDIS, THE BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT -A STUDY IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1927). ARTHUR D. HELLMAN, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., UNRESOLVED INTERCIRCUIT CONFLICTS: THE NATURE AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM, FINAL REpORT: PHASE I (Dec. 1991). J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). INTERCIRCUIT PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES ACT: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMM. ON COURTS OF THE SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985). KARL N. LLEWELYN, THE COMMON LAW TRADITION - DECIDING ApPEALS (1960). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 340 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 341 THOMAS B. MARVEL, ApPELLATE COURTSAND LAWYERS (1978). DANIEL J. MEADOR, ApPELLATE COURTS - STAFF AND PROCESS IN THE CRISIS OF VOLUME (1974). ROSCOE POUND, ApPELLATE PROCEDURE IN CML CASES (1941). WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, THE SUPREME COURT: How IT WAS, How It Is (1987). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). RICHARD J. RICHARDSON & KENNETH NELSON VINES, THE POLITICS OF FEDERAL COURTS (1970). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, Precedent Times Three: Stare Decisis in the Divided Fifth Circuit, 35 Sw. L.J. 687 (1981). Thomas E. Baker, Siskel and Ebert at the Supreme Court, 87 MICH L. REV. 1472 (1989). Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 HARv. L. REv. 1400 (1987). Bennett Boskey & Eugene Gressman, The Supreme Court Bids Farewell to Mandatory Appeals, 121 F.R.D. 81 (1988). Michael J. Broyde, Note, The Intercircuit Tribunal and Perceived Conflicts: An Analysis ofJustice White's Dissents from Denial ofCertiorari During the 1985 Term, 62 N.Y.U. L. REV. 610 (1987). Paul D. Carrington, Ceremony and Realism: Demise of Appellate Procedure, 66 A.B.A. J. 860 (1980). . . Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Erwin Chemerinsky & Larry Kramer, Defining the Role of the Federal Courts, 1990 B.Y.U. L. REv. 67. HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 341 1993-1994 342 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Charles Clark, The Role of National Courts in 200 Years of Evolving Governance, 18 CUMB. L. REv. 95 (1988). Sue Davis & Donald R. Souger, The Changing Role ofthe United States Courts ofAppeals: The Flow ofLitigation Revisited, 13 JUST. SYS. J. 323 (1988-89). Henry J. Friendly, The "Law of the Circuit" and All of That, 46 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 406 (1971). John J. Gibbons, Illuminating the Invisible Court ofAppeals, 19 SETON HALL L. REv. 484 (1989). Arthur D. Hellman, Central Staff in Appellate Courts: The Experience of the Ninth Circuit, 68 CAL. L. REV. 937 (1980). Patrick E. Higginbotham, Bureaucracy-The Carcinoma ofthe Federal Judiciary, 31 ALA. L. REv. 261 (1980). Howard T. Markey, On the Present DeterioraTion of the Federal Appellate Process: Never Another Learned Hand, 33 S.D. L. REV. 371 (1988). Daniel J. Meador, The Federal Judiciary - Inflation, Malfunction. and Proposed Course ofAction, 1981 B.Y.U. L. REV. 617. Sandra Day O'Connor, Our Judicial Federalism, 35 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1 (1984-85). John J. Parker, Improving Appellate Methods, 25 N.Y.U. L. REv. 1 (1950). Richard A. Posner, Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Survive Until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization ofthe Judicial Function, 56 S. CAL. L. REV. 761 (1983). Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration ofJustice, 35 F.R.D. 273 (1906). William H. Rehnquist, A Plea for Help: Solutions to Serious Problems Currently Experienced by the Federal Judicial System, 28 ST. LOUIS U. LJ. 1 (1984). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 342 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 343 Judith Resnik, Housekeeping: The Nature and Allocation of Work in Federal Trial Courts, 24 GA. L. REV. 909 (1990). Martin Shapiro, Islam and Appeal, 68 CAL. L. REV. 350 (1980). Rayman L. Solomon, U.S. Courts of Appeals and Their Judges: Howard's Courts ofAppeals in the Federal Judicial System, 1983 AMER. B. FOUND. R.J. 761. Jonathan D. Varat, Justice White and the Breadth and Allocation of Federal Authority, 58 U. COLO. L. REv. 371 (1987). Fred M. Vinson, Work of the U.S. Supreme Court, 12 TEX. B.J. 551 (1949). Patricia M. Wald, The Problem with the Courts: Black-Robed Bureaucracy, or Collegiality Under Challenge?, 42 MD. L. REV. 766 (1983). Byron R. White, Dedication - Fifth Circuit Symposium, 15 TEX. TECH L. REV. ix (1984). III. DOCKET GROWTH AND THE CRISIS OF VOLUME AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). AMERICAN BAR FOUND., ACCOMMODATING THE WORKLOAD OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS (1968). AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, STUDY OF THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS (1969). ROBERT A. CARP & RONALD STIDHAM, THE FEDERAL COURTS (1985). DEP'T OF JUSTICE COMM. ON REVISION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THE NEEDS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (1977). SAMUEL ESTREICHER & JOHN SEXTON, REDEFINING THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL PROCESS (1986). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 343 1993-1994 344 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., REPORT OF THE STUDY GROUP ON THE CASELOAD OF THE SUPREME COURT, reprinted at 57 F.R.D. 573 (1972). J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). HARRY O. LAWSON & BARBARA J. GLETNE, WORKLOAD MEASURES IN THE COURT (1980). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). THE SUPREME COURT AND ITS WORKLOAD CRISIS: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMM. ON COURTS, CML LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMIN. OF JUSTICE OF THE HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986). CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS (4th ed. 1983). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts of Appeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, Intramural Reforms: How the U.S. Courts ofAppeals Have Helped Themselves, 22 FLA. ST. L. REv. (forthcoming 1994). Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. LJ. 917 (1990). Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 MARv. L. REv. 1400 (1987). Thomas E. Baker & Denis J. Hauptley, Taking the Measure of the "Crisis of Volume" in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. (forthcoming 1994). Quentin N. Burdick, Federal Courts of Appeals: Radical Surgery or Conservative Care, 60 Ky. L.J. 807 (1972). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 344 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 345 Richard D. Catenacci, Hyperlexis and Hyperbole: Subdividing the Landscape ofDisputes and Defusing the Litigation Explosion, 8 REV. LITIG. 297 (1989). David S. Clark, Civil Litigation, Access to Justice and Social Change: Research Issues in Longitudinal Court Studies, 12 S. ILL. U. L.J. 713 (1988). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, The Geographical Boundaries of the Several Judicial Circuits: Recommenda tions for Change, 62 F.R.D. 223 (1973). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, 67 F.R.D. 195 (1975). Stephen Daniels, Ladders and Bushes: The Problem ofCaseloads and Studying Court Activities Over Time, 1984 AM. B. FOUND. REs. J. 751. Kevin L. Domecus, Congressional Prerogatives, The Constitution and a National Court ofAppeals, 5 HASTINGS CaNST. L.Q. 715 (1978). Samuel Estreicher & John E. Sexton, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court's Responsibilities: An Empirical Study, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV. 681 (1984). Wilfred Feinberg, The Coming Deterioration ofthe Federal Judiciary, 43 REC. A.B. CITY N.Y. 179 (1987). Marc Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 MD. L. REV. 3 (1986). Michael C. Gizzi, Examining the Crisis ofVolume in the United States Courts ofAppeals. 77 JUDICATURE 96 (1993). Charles R. Haworth & Daniel J. Meador, A Proposed New Federal Intermediate Appellate Court, 12 U. MICH J.L. REF. 201 (1978). Roman L. Hruska, The Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System: A Legislative History, 1974 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 579. Seth Hufstedler & Paul Nejelski, ABA Action Commission Challenges Litigation Cost and Delay, 66 A.B.A. J. 965 (1980). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 345 1993-1994 346 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Thomas B. Marvell, Caseload Growth - Past and Future Trends, 71 JUDICATURE 151 (1987). Daniel J. Meador, A Challenge to Judicial Architecture: Modifying the Regional Design of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 56 U. CHI. L. REv. 603 (1989). Daniel J. Meador, The Federal Judiciary-Inflation, Malfunction, and Proposed Course ofAction, 1981 B.Y.U. L. REV. 617. Daniel J. Meador, Origin of the Federal Circuit: A Personal Account, 41 AM. U. L. REV. 581 (1992). David W. Neubauer, Are We Approaching Judicial Gridlock? A Critical Review of the Literature, 11 JUST. SYs. J. 363 (1986). Lauren K. Robel, The Politics ofCrisis in the Federal Courts, 7 J. DIS? RESOL. 115 (1991). Maurice Rosenberg, The Federal Courts in the 21st Century, 15 NOVA L. REV. 105 (1991). William K. Slate, n, Report ofthe Federal Courts Study Committee: An Update, 21 SETON HALL L. REv. 336 (1991). Stanley Sporkin, Reforming the Federal Judiciary, 46 S.M.U. L. REV. 751 (1992). Luther M. Swygert, The Proposed National Court ofAppeals: A Threat to Judicial Symmetry, 51 IND. L.J. 327 (1976). Symposium, Crisis in the Courts?, 29 TRIAL 19-51 (1993). Symposium, Federal Courts, 1990 B.Y.U. L. REv. 1. Symposium, The Federal Court Docket: Issues & Solutions, 22 CONN. L. REV. 615 (1990). J. Clifford Wallace, The Nature and Extent of Intercircuit Conflicts: A Solution Needed for a Mountain or a Molehill?, 71 CAL. L. REV. 913 (1983). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 346 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 347 Joseph F. Weis, Jr., The Federal Courts Study Committee Begins Its Work, 21 ST. MARy'S L.J. 15 (1989). Joseph R. Weisberger, Appellate Courts: The Challenge ofInundation, 31 AM. U.L. REV. 237 (1982). IV. THE DIVISION OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN BAR FOUND., ACCOMMODATING THE WORKLOAD OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS (1968). AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, STUDY OF THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS (1969). ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. DEBORAH J. BARROW & THOMAS G. WALKER, A COURT DIVIDED THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF ApPEALS AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988). JACK BASS, UNLIKELY HEROES (1981). HARVEY C. CROUCH, A HISTORY OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 1891-1981 (1984). FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., REPORT OF THE STUDY GROUP ON THE CASELOAD OF THE SUPREME COURT, reprinted at 57 F.R.D. 573 (1972). FELIX FRANKFURTER & JAMES M. LANDIS, THE BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT -A STUDY IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1927). HENRY J. FRIENDLY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION: A GENERAL VIEW (1973). FRANK T. READ & Lucy S. McGOUGH, LET THEM BE JUDGED: THE JUDICIAL INTEGRATION OF THE DEEP SOUTH (1978). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF THE UNITED STATES. HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 347 1993-1994 348 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals Reorganization Act of 1980, 1981 B.Y.V. L. REv. 523. Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, A Legislative History ofthe Creation ofthe Eleventh Circuit, 8 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 363 (1992). Thomas E. Baker, A Postscript on Precedent in the Divided Fifth Circuit, 36 SW. LJ. 725 (1982). Warren E. Burger, 1977 Report to the American Bar Association, 68 A.B.A. J. 504 (1977). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Michael L. Chapman, Appellate Procedure Under the New Eleventh Circuit Rules, 18 GA. ST. BJ. 134 (1982). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, The Geographical Boundaries of the Several Judicial Circuits: Recommenda tions for Change, 62 F.R.D. 223 (1973). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, 67 F.R.D. 195 (1975). Osmond K. Fraenkel, The Function of the Lower Federal Courts as Protectors ofCivil Liberties, 13 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 132 (1948). Thomas G. Gee, The Imminent Destruction ofthe Fifth Circuit; Or, How Not to Deal with a Blossoming Docket, 9 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 799 (1978). John C. Godbold, The Eleventh Circuit Court ofAppeals - The First Ten Years, 43 MERCER L. REV. 961 (1992). Alfred T. Goodwin, Splitting the Ninth Circuit - No Answer to Caseload Growth, OR. ST. B. BULL., Jan. 1990, at 10. HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 348 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 349 Charles R. Haworth, Circuit Splitting and the "New" National Court ofAppeals: Can the Mouse Roar?, 30 Sw. L.J. 839 (1976). Charles R. Haworth, Screening and Summary Procedures in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 1973 WASH. U. L.Q. 257. Hearings Before the Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appel/ate System, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). Howell Heflin, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 - Overdue Relieffor an Overworked Court, 11 CUMBo L. REV. 597 (1980-81). ArthurD. Hellman, Deciding Who Decides: Understanding the Realities of Judicial Reform, 15 LAW & Soc. INQUIRY 343 (1990) (reviewing DEBORAH J. BARROW & THOMAS G. WALKER, A COURT DIVIDED: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF ApPEALS AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988». Arthur D. Hellman, Legal Problems ofDividing a State Between Federal Judicial Circuits, 122 U. PA. L. REv. 1188 (1974). A. Leo Levin & Arlene Fickler, Realignment of the Fifth Circuit: A Necessary First Step, 46 MISS. L.J. 659 (1975). Burke Marshall, Book Review, 63 TUL. L. REV. 1241 (1989) (reviewing DEBORAH J. BARROW & THOMAS G. WALKER, A COURT DIVIDED: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF ApPEALS AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988». Lewis R. Morgan, The Fifth Circuit: Expand or Divide, 29 MERCER L. REV. 885 (1978). George K. Rahdert & Larry M. Roth, Inside the Fifth Circuit: Looking at Some ofIts Internal Procedures, 23 Loy. L. REV. 661 (1977). Frank T. Read, The Bloodless Revolution: The Role ofthe Fifth Circuit in the Integration ofthe Deep South, 32 MERCER L. REV. 1149 (1981). Thomas M. Reavley, The Split ofthe Fifth Circuit: Update and Finis, 12 TEX. TECH L. REV. I (1981). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 349 1993-1994 350 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Alvin B. Rubin, Views from the Lower Court, 23 UCLA L. REV. 448 (1976). Austin Sarat, The Role ofCourts and the Logic ofCourt Reform: Notes on the Justice Department's Approach to Improving Justice, 74 JUDICATURE 300 (1981). Philip Shuchman & Alan Gelfand, The Use ofLocal Rule 21 in the Fifth Circuit: Can Judges Select Cases of"No Precedential Value"?, 29 EMORY L.J. 195 (1980). Albert Tate, Jr., The Last Year ofthe "Old" Fifth (1891-1981), 27 Loy. L. REV. 689 (1981). Gerald Bard Tjoflat, More Judges, Less Justice, A.B.A. 1. July 1993, at 70. Frederick Bemays Wiener, Federal Regional Courts: A Solutionfor the Certiorari Dilemma, 49 A.B.A. J. 1169 (1963). John Minor Wisdom, Requiem for a Great Court, 26 Loy. L. REV. 787 (1980). Charles Alan Wright, The Overloaded Fifth Circuit: A Crisis in Judicial Administration, 42 TEX. L. REV. 949 (1964). V. THE DEBATE WHETHER TO DIVIDE THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1990 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 1991 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT. DEBORAH J. BARROW & THOMAS G. WALKER, A COURT DIVIDED THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988). JOE S. CECIL, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A LARGE ApPELLATE COURT: THE NINTH CIRCUIT INNOVATIONS PROJECT (1985). HEARING ON S. 948 BEFORE THE SUBCOMM. ON COURTS AND ADMIN. PRACTICE OF THE SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, WIST CONG., 2D SESS. (1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 350 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 351 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND UNITED STATES COURT OF ApPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, BIENNIAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF SECTION 6 OF THE OMNIBUS JUDGESHIP ACT OF 1978 AND OTHER MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT. PosmON PAPER PREPARED BY THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE, U.S. COURT OF ApPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (1991). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). RESTRUCTURING JUSTICE - THEINNOVATIONS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE FuTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (Arthur D. Hellman ed., 1990). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REv. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, A Postscript on Precedent in the Divided Fifth Circuit, 36 sw. L.J. 725 (1982). Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 917 (1990). Thomas E. Baker, Precedent Times Three: Stare Decisis in the Divided Fifth Circuit, 35 sw. L.J. 687 (1981). Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 HARv. L. REv. 1400 (1987). Steve Bennett & Christine Pembroke, Mini In Banc Proceedings: A Survey of Circuit Practices, 34 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 531 (1986). Levin H. Campbell, Into the Third Century: Views of the Appellate System from the Federal Courts Study Committee, 74 MAss. L. REV. 292 (1989). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Cathy Catterson, The Changing Ninth Circuit, 21 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 173 (1989). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 351 1993-1994 352 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Thomas Church, Administration of an Appellate Leviathan: Court Management in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in RESTRUCTURING JUSTICE - THE INNOVATIONS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE FuTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS 226 (Arthur D. Hellman ed., 1990). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, The GeographicalBoundaries ofthe SeveralJudicial Circuits: Recommendations for Change, 62 F.R.D. 223 (1973). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, 67 F.R.D. 195 (1975). Steven Flanders, Celebrating Size, 75 JUDICATURE 276, 277 (1992). Cheryl Frank, Split 9th Circuit? It's Doing Fine as Is, Chief Says, A.B.A. 1., Jan. 1985, at 30. Thomas G. Gee, The Imminent Destruction ofthe Fifth Circuit; Or, How Not to Deal with a Blossoming Docket, 9 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 799 (1978). Alfred T. Goodwin, Splitting the Ninth Circuit - No Answer to Caseload Growth, OR. ST. B. BULL., Jan. 1990, at 10. Mark O. Hatfield, Timefor a New Federal Circuit in the West: Why the Ninth Circuit Should Be Divided, OR. ST. B. BULL., Jan. 1990, at 6. Arthur D. Hellman, Breaking the Bane: The Common-Law Process in the Large Appellate Court, 23 ARIz. ST. L.J. 915 (1991). Arthur D. Hellman, Jumboism and Jurisprudence: The Theory and Practice of Precedent in the Large Appellate Courts, 56 U. CHI. L. REv. 541 (1989). Arthur D. Hellman, Central Staff in Appellate Courts: The Experience of the Ninth Circuit, 68 CAL. L. REv. 937 (1980). Arthur D. Hellman, Legal Problems ofDividing a State Between Federal Judicial Circuits, 122 U. PA. L. REv. 1188 (1974). Arthur D. Hellman, Maintaining Consistency in the Law of the Large Circuit, in RESTRUCTURING JUSTICE - THE INNOVATIONS OF THE NINTH HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 352 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 353 CIRCUIT AND THE FuTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS 55, 73-8 (Arthur D. Hellman ed., 1990). A. Levin, Lessons for Smaller Circuits, Caution for Larger Ones, in RESTRUCTURING JUSTICE - THE INNOVATIONS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE FuTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS 55, 331, 334 (Arthur D. Hellman ed., 1990). Jolm B. Oakley, The Screening of Appeals: The Ninth Circuit's Experience in the Eighties and Innovations for the Nineties, 1991 B.Y.V. L. Rev. 859. Alvin B. Rubin, Views from the Lower Court, 23 VCLA L. REV. 448 (1976). Mary M. Schroeder, Jim Browning as a Leader ofJudges: A View from a Follower, 21 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 3 (1989). Faye A. Silas, Circuit Breaker-Move on to Split the Ninth, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1984, at 34. Judy B. Sloan & Gordon Bennant, Bankruptcy Appellate Panels: The Ninth Circuit's Experience, 21 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 181 (1989). Harold 1. Spaeth, Supreme Court Disposition ofFederal Circuit Court Decisions, 68 JUDICATURE 245 (1985). Gerald F. Velmen, The Influence ofthe Solicitor General upon Supreme Court Disposition ofFederal Circuit Court Decisions: A Closer Look at the Ninth Circuit Record, 69 JUDICATURE 361 (1986). Clifford J. Wallace, Before State and Federal Courts Clash, JUDGES' J., Fall 1985, at 37. Stephen L. Wasby, The Bar's Role in Governance ofthe Ninth Circuit, 25 Wn..LIAMETTE L. REV. 471 (1989). Stephen L. Wasby, Technology and Communication in a Federal Court: The Ninth Circuit, 28 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 1 (1988). 101m Minor Wisdom, Requiemfor a Great Court, 26 Loy. L. REV. 787 (1980). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 353 1993-1994 354 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Charles Alan Wright, The Overloaded Fifth Circuit: A Crisis in Judicial Administration, 42 TEx. L. REV. 949 (1964). VI. INTRAMURAL REFORMS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED: WHAT THE COURTS OF ApPEALS HAYE DONE TO HELP THEMSELYES A. Oral Argument Reforms AMERICAN BAR Assoc., COMM'N ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO ApPELLATE COURTS (1977). ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). JOE S. CECIL & DONNA STIENSTRA, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., DECIDING CASES WITHOUT ARGUMENT: A DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES IN THE COURTS OF ApPEALS (1985). JOE S. CECIL & DONNA STIENSTRA, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., DECIDING CASES WITHOUT ARGUMENT: AN EXAMINATION OF FOUR COURTS OF ApPEAL (1987). J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law. 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System. Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, 67 F.R.D. 195 (1975). Harry T. Edwards, The Rising Work Loadand Perceived "Bureaucracy" of the Federal Courts: A Causation-Based Approach to the Search for Appropriate Remedies, 68 IOWA L. REv. 871 (1983). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 354 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 355 John C. Godbold, Improvements in Appellate Procedure: Better Use of Available Facilities, 66 AB.A J. 863 (1980). Charles R. Haworth, Circuit Splitting and the "New" National Court ofAppeals: Can the Mouse Roar?, 30 sw. L.J. 839 (1976). Charles R. Haworth, Screening and Summary Procedures in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 1973 WASH. V. L.Q. 257. William M. Riehman & William L. Reynolds, Appellate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship, 21 V. MICH. J.L. REF. 623 (1988). Donald MeG. Rose, Oral Argument in the Sixth Circuit, 19 V. ToL. L. REV. 229 (1988). Lauren K. Robel, Caseload and Judging: Judicial Adaptations to Caseload, 1990 B.Y.V. L. REV. 3. Kenneth W. Starr, The Courts ofAppeals and the Future ofthe Federal Judiciary, 1991 WIS. L. REV. 1. Stephen L. Wasby, The Functions and Importance of Appellate Oral Argument: Some Views of Lawyers and Federal Judges, 65 JUDICATURE 340 (1982). B. Briefing Reforms AMERICAN BAR Assoc., COMM'N ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO ApPELLATE COURTS (1977). PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). JOE S. CECIL, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A LARGE ApPELLATE COURT: THE NINTH CIRCUIT INNOVATIONS PROJECT (1985). MANAGING ApPEALS IN FEDERAL COURTS (Federal Judicial Ctr. ed., 1988). Joy A Chapper, Fast, Faster, Fastest; Appellate Courts Develop Special Tracks to Fight Delay, JUDGES' J., Spring 1981, at 50. HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 355 1993-1994 356 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Joy A. Chapper & Roger A. Hanson, Expedited Procedures for Appellate Courts: Evidence from California's Third District Court of Appeal, 42 MD. L. REv. 696 (1983). Wade H. McCree, Bureaucratic Justice: An Early Warning, 129 U. PA. L. REV. 777 (1981). Daniel J. Meador, Toward Orality and Visibility in the Appellate Process, 42 MD. L. REv. 732 (1983). William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Appellate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship, 21 U. MICH. J.L. REF. 623 (1988). John E. Shapard, Appeals Without Brief: Evaluation of an Appeals Expediting Program in the Ninth Circuit, in FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., MANAGING ApPEALS IN FEDERAL COURTS 441 (1988). Stephen L. Wasby, The Functions and Importance of Appellate Oral Argument: Some Views of Lawyers and Federal Judges, 65 JUDICATURE 340 (1982). C. Opinion Writing Reforms AMERICAN BAR Assoc., COMM'N ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO ApPELLATE COURTS (1977). ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. C.E. BOLDEN, ApPELLATE OPINION PREPARATION -A SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SURVEY (1978). PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). ROBERT A. LEFLAR, ED., ApPELLATE JUDICIAL OPINIONS (1974). RICHARD A. POSNER, THE FEDERAL COURTS: . CRISIS AND REFORM (1985). GEORGE K. RAHDERT & LARRY M. ROTH, ApPEALS TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT MANUAL (1977). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 356 1993-1994 1994] BIBLIOGRAPHY 357 REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2. 1990). REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF THE UNITED STATES. ROBERT L. STERN ET AL.• SUPREME COURT PRACTICE (6th ed. 1986). DONNA STIENSTRA. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR.• UNPUBLISHED DISPOSI TIONS: PROBLEMS OF ACCESS AND USE IN THE COURTS OF ApPEALS (1985). B. E. WITKIN. MANUAL ON ApPELLATE COURT OPINIONS (1977). Harry Lee Anstead. Selective Publication: Better than Nothing at All? 58 FLA. B.J. 651 (1984). Burton M. Atkins. Communication ofAppellate Decisions: A Multivar iate Model for Understanding the Selection of Cases for Publication. 24 LAW & Soc'Y REv. 1171 (1990). Paige Merrill Baker. Comment. Depublication: The New Starchamber. 18 W. ST. U.L. REV. 313 (1990). Thomas E. Baker. Precedent Times Three: Stare Decisis in the Divided Fifth Circuit. 35 SW. L.J. 687 (1981). Keith H. Beyler. Selective Publication Rules: An Empirical Study. 21 Loy. U. CHI. LJ. 1 (1989). Robert L. Black. Jr.• Hide and Seek Precedent: Phantom Opinions in Ohio. 50 U. CIN. L. REV. 477 (1981). Erica U. Bodwell. Published and Unpublished Federal Circuit Patent Decisions: A Comparison, 30 IDEA 233 (1989-90). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Charles G. Douglass, III, How to Write a Concise Opinion, JUDGES J. Spring 1983, at 4. HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 357 1993-1994 358 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Philip L. Dubois, The Negative Side of Judicial Decision Making: Depublication as a Tool of Judicial Power and Administration or State Courts ofLast Resort, 33 Vll..L. L. REV. 469 (1988). David Dunn, Note, Unreported Decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 63 CORNELL L. REv. 128 (1977). HarryT. Edwards, The Rising Work Loadand Perceived''Bureaucracy" of the Federal Courts: A Causation-Based Approach to the Search for Appropriate Remedies, 68 IOWA L. REv. 871 (1983). Pamela Foa, Comment, A Snake in the Path of the Law: The Seventh Circuit's Non-Publication Rule, 39 U. PITT. L. REv. 309 (1977). Elizabeth A. Francis, A Faster Better Way to Write Opinions, JUDGES J. Fall 1988, at 26. James N. Gardner, Ninth Circuit's Unpublished Opinions: Denial of Equal Justice?, 61 A.B.A. J. 1224 (1975). Robert Gardner, Toward Shorter Opinions, 55 CAL. ST. B.J. 240 (1980). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Remarks on Writing Separately, 65 WASH. L. REV. 133 (1990). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Styles of Collegial Judging - One Judge's Perspective, 39 FED. B. NEWS & J. 199 (1992). Sheldon Goldman, Conflict on the U.S. Courts ofAppeals 1965-1971: A Quantitative Analysis, 42 U. CIN. L. REV. 635 (1973). Joseph R. Grodin, The Depublication Practice ofthe California Supreme Court, 72 CAL. L. REv. 514 (1984). David M. Gunn, "Unpublished Opinions Shall Not be Cited as Authority' ': The Emerging Contours ofTexas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 90(i), 24 ST. MARY'S L. J. 115 (1992). Charles R. Haworth, Circuit Splitting and the "New" National Court ofAppeals: Can the Mouse Roar?, 30 SW. L.J. 839 (1976). Daniel N. Hoffman, Nonpublication of Federal Appellate Court Opinions, 6 JUST. SYS. J. 405 (1981). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 358 1993-1994 1994] BIBLIOGRAPHY 359 Patrick R. Hugg, Judicial Style: An Exemplar, 33 Loy. L. REV. 865 (1987). J. Myron Jacobstein, Some Reflections on the Control ofthe Publication ofAppellate Court Opinions, 27 STAN. L. REV. 791 (1975). Charles W. Joiner, Limiting Publication of Judicial Opinions, 56 JUDICATURE 195 (1972). J. Edward Lumbard, Current Problems of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 Cornell L. Rev. 29 (1968). Charles M. Merrill, Could Judges Deliver More Justice if They Wrote Fewer Opinions?, 64 JUDICATURE 435 (1981). Dorothy W. Nelson, Why Are Things Being Done This Way?, JUDGES J., Fall 1980, at 13. Philip Nichols, Jr., Selective Publication of Opinions: One Judge's View, 35 AM. U. L. REv. 909 (1986). Michael S. Obennan, Coping with Rising Caseload: A New Model of Appellate Review, 46 BROOK. L. REV. 841 (1980). Edwin R. Render, On Unpublished Opinions, 73 Ky. L.J. 145 (1984-85). William L. Reynolds & William M. Richman, An Evaluation ofLimited Publication in the United States Courts of Appeals: The Price of Reform, 48 U. CHI. L. REv. 573 (1981). William L. Reynolds & William M. Richman, Limited Publication in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, 1979 DUKE L.J. 807. William L. Reynolds & William M. Richman, The Non-Precedential Precedent-Limited Publication and No-Citation Rules in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 78 COLUM. L. REv. 1167 (1978). Lauren K. Robel, The Myth of the Disposable Opinion: Unpublished Opinions and Government Litigants in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 87 MICH. L. REv. 940 (1989). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 359 1993-1994 360 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Philip Shuchman & Alan Gelfand, The Use ofLocal Rule 21 in the Fifth Circuit: Can Judges Select Cases of"No Precedential Value"?, 29 EMORY L.J. 195 (1980). Donald R. Songer, Criteria for Publication of Opinions in the U.S. Courts ofAppeals: Formal Rules versus Empirical Reality, 73 JUDICATURE 307 (1990). Donald R. Songer et al., Nonpublication in the Eleventh Circuit: An Empirical Analysis, 16 FLA. ST. U.L. REv. 963 (1989). Herbert J. Stem, The Enigma of Unpublished Opinions, 64 A.B.A. J. 1245 (1978). Joseph Vining, Justice, Bureaucracy, and Legal Method, 80 MICH. L. REV. 248 (1981). Patricia M. Wald, The Problem with the Courts: Black-Robed Bureaucracy, or Collegiality Under Challenge?, 42 MD. L. REv. 766 (1983). David L. Walther, The Noncitation Rule and the Concept of Stare Decisis, 6 MARQ. L. REv. 581 (1978). George M. Weaver, The Precedential Value of Unpublished Judicial Opinions, 39 MERCER L. REV. 477 (1988). Irving Younger, On Judicial Opinions Considered as One of the Fine Arts: The Coen Lecture, 51 U. COLO. L. REv. 341 (1980). D. Case Management Techniques AMERICAN BAR Assoc., JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, STANDARDS RELATING TO APPELLATE DELAY (1988). AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). JAMES B. EAGLIN, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE PRE-ARGUMENT CONFERENCE PROGRAM IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF ApPEALS (1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 360 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 361 LARRY C. FARMER, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., ApPEALS EXPEDITING SYSTEMS: AN EVALUATION OF SECOND & EIGHTH CIRCUIT PROCEDURES (1981). JERRY GoLDMAN, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PREAPPEAL PROGRAM: AN EVALUATION (1982). ROBERT A. LEFLAR, INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES OF ApPELLATE COURTS (1976). ANTHONY PARTRIDGE & ALLAN LIND, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., A REEVALUATION OF THE CIVIL ApPEALS MANAGEMENT PLAN (1983). NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, INTERMEDIATE ApPELLATE COURTS: IMPROVING CASE PROCESSING (1990). Griffin B. Bell, Toward a More Efficient Federal Appeals System, 54 JUDICATURE 237 (1971). Jerry Goldman, The Civil Appeals Management Plan: An Experiment in Appellate Procedural Reform, 78 COLUM. L. REv. 1209 (1978). Irving R. Kaufman, Must Every Appeal Run the Gamut? - The Civil Appeals Management Plan, 95 YALE L.J. 755 (1986). Irving R. Kaufman, New Remedies for the Next Century of Judicial Reform: Time as the Greatest Innovator, 57 FORDHAM L. REv. 253 (1988). Irving R. Kaufman, The Pre-Argument Conference: An Appellate Procedural Reform, 74 COLUM. L. REV. 1094 (1974). Eve Lieber, Maximum Case Management with Minimum Judge Time, JUDGES' J., Fall 1986, at 14. John H. Martin, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Pre-Argument Conference Program, 69 JUDICATURE 312 (1986). Pamela Mathy, Experimentation in Federal Appellate Case Management and the Prehearing Conference Program of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 61 CHI-KENT L. REV. 431 (1985). Stuart Nagel et al., Optimum Sequencing of Court Cases to Reduce Delay, 37 ALA. L. REv. 583 (1986). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 361 1993-1994 362 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Robert W. Rack, Jr., Pre-Argument Conferences in the Sixth Circuit Court ofAppeals, 15 U. TOL. L. REV. 921 (1984).· E. Staffing Developments AMERICAN BAR Assoc., COMM'N ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO ApPELLATE COURTS (1977). AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). ROBERT BANTA, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., CENTRAL LEGAL STAFFS IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS. PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). JOHN W. MAcy, JR., FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE FIRST DECADE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT EXECUTIVE: AN EVALUATION (1985). DANIEL J. MEADOR, ApPELLATE COURTS - STAFF AND PROCESS IN THE CRISIS OF VOLUME (1974). JOHN BILYEAU OAKLEY & ROBERT S. THOMPSON, LAW CLERKS AND THE JUDICIAL PROCESS: PERCEPTIONS OF THE QUALITIES AND FuNCTIONS OF LAW CLERKS IN AMERICAN COURTS (1980). REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF THE UNITED STATES. DONNA STIENSTRA & JOE S. CECIL, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE ROLE· OF STAFF ATTORNEYS AND FACE-TO-FACE CONFERENCING IN NON ARGUMENT DECISIONMAKING (1989). Paul R. Baier, The Law Clerks: Profile ofan Institution, 26 VAND. L. REV. 1125 (1974). David J. Brown, Facing the Monster in the Judicial Closet: Rebutting a Presumption ofSloth, 75 JUDICATURE 291 (1992). Heather Bupp-Habuda, LAW CLERK'S ETHICAL BOUNDARIES, 38 FED. B. NEWS & J. 187 (1991). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 362 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 363 James Duke Cameron, The Central Staff: A New Solution to an Old Problem, 23 UCLA L. REv. 465 (1976). David S. Clark, Adjudication to Administration: A Statistical Analysis ofFederal District Courts in the Twentieth Century, 55 S. CAL. L. REV. 65 (1981). David Crump, How JlJ,dges Use Their Law Clerks, N.Y. ST. B.J., May 1986, at 43. David Crump, Law Clerks: Their Roles and Relationships with Their Judges, 69 JUDICATURE 236 (1986). Steven Flanders, Court Executives and Decentralization ofthe Federal Judiciary, 70 JUDICATURE 273 (1987). Steven Flanders & Jerry Goldman, Screening Practices and the Use of Para-Judicial Personnel in a U.S. Court ofAppeals: A Study in the Fourth Circuit, JUST. SYS. 1., Mar. 1975, at 1. Timothy E. Gammon, The Central Staff Attorneys' Office in the United States Court ofAppeals, Eighth Circuit -A Five Year Report, 29 S.D. L. REV. 457 (1984). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Obligation to Reason Why, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 205 (1985). Arthur D. Hellman, Central Staff in Appellate Courts: The Experience of the Ninth Circuit, 68 CAL. L. REV. 937 (1980). John G. Kester, The Law Clerk Explosion, 9 LITIG. 20 (1983). Alex Kozinski, Confessions ofa Bad Apple, 100 YALE L.J. 1707 (1991). J. Daniel Mahoney, Law Clerksfor Better orfor Worse?, 54 BROOK. L. REV. 321 (1988). G. Larry Mays & William A. Taggart, Local Court Administration: Findingsfrom a Survey ofAppointed Managers, 69 JUDICATURE 29 (1985). Wade H. McCree, Bureaucratic Justice: An Early Warning, 129 U. PA. L. REV. 777 (1981). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 363 1993-1994 364 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Abner J. Mikva, Judicial Clerkships: A Judge's View, 36 J. LEGAL EDUC. 150 (1986). Cornelius J. Moynihan, Jr., Ghostwriters in the Courts, LITIG., Spring 1991, at 37. Jonathan P. Nase, The Growth ofthe Federal Judicial Labor Force: A Budget-Based Perspective, 70 JUDICATURE 157 (1986). Chester A. Newland, Personal Assistants to Supreme Court Justices: The Law Clerks, 40 OR. L. REv. 299 (1961). Louis F. Oberdorfer & Michael N. Levy, On Clerkship Selection: A Reply to the Bad Apple, 101 YALE LJ. 1097 (1992). Richard A. Posner, Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Survive Until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization ofthe Judicial Function, 56 S. CAL. L. REV. 761 (1983). Edward D. Re, The Administration of Justice and the Courts, 18 SUFFOLK V. L. REV. 1 (1984). William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Appellate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship, 21 V. MICH. J.L. REF. 623 (1988). Lauren K. Robel, Caseload and Judging: Judicial Adaptations to Caseload, 1990 B.Y.V. L. REV. 3. Alvin B. Rubin, Bureaucratization ofthe Federal Courts: The Tension Between Justice and Efficiency, 55 NOTRE DAME LAW. 648 (1980). Kenneth W. Starr, The Courts ofAppeals and the Future ofthe Federal Judiciary, 1991 WIS. L. REV. 1. Donald P. Vbell, Evolution and Role of Appellate Court Central Staff Attorneys, 2 COOLEY L. REv. 157 (1984). Donald P. Ubell, Report on Central Staff Attorney's Offices in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 87 F.R.D. 253 (1980). Joseph Vining, Justice, Bureaucracy, and Legal Method, 80 MICH. L. REV. 248 (1981). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 364 1993-1994 1994] BIBLIOGRAPHY 365 Patricia M. Wald, The Problem with the Courts: Black-Robed Bureaucracy, or Collegiality Under Challenge?, 42 MD. L. REV. 766 (1983). Patricia M. Wald, Selecting Law Clerks, 89 MICH. L. REv. 152 (1990). Joseph R. Weisberger, A Profile ofAppellate Staff, JUDGES J., Summer 1985, at 31. Eugene A Wright, Observations of an Appel/ate Judge: The Use of Law Clerks. 26 VAND. L. REv. 1179 (1974). VII. PROPOSED INTRAMURAL REFORMS: WHAT ELSE THE COURTS OF ApPEALS MIGHT Do TO HELP THEMSELYES A. Uses of Technology Eldridge Adams, Courts and Computers (1972). GORDON BERMANT, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., PREPARING A UNITED STATES COURT FOR AUTOMATION (1985). J. MICHAEL GREENWOOD & LARRY FARMER, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR.• THE IMPACT OF WORD PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL ON UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS (1979). MANAGING ApPEALS IN FEDERAL COURTS (Federal Judicial Ctr. ed., 1988). A REPORT OF THE CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING: CREATING OpPORTUNmES AND MEETING CHALLENGES (Mar. 1993). Isaac Asimov, The Next 70 Years for Law and Lawyers, AB.A 1., January 1985, at 57. Cristin Birch, Automation in the U.S. Courts, 36 FED. B. NEW. & J. 238 (1989). Nicholas J. Blend et al., Use ofElectronic Mail in Appel/ate Couns, 10 ST. COURT 1., Summer 1986, at 5. HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 365 1993-1994 366 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Jessica Copen, Courts of the Future, A.B.A. 1., June 1991, at 74. B. Paul Cotter, Jr., When the Electronic Judge Meets the Electronic Lawyer, JUDGES' J., Spring 1988, at 2. Brian Forst, Overburdened Courts and Underutilized Information Technology: A Modern Prescription for a Chronic Disorder, 68 JUDICA TURE 30 (1984). Cheryl Frank, The Rush Is On, A.B.A. 1., Feb. 1985, at 32. Robert S. Gerstein, Appeal by Video, Los ANGELES LAW., Aug.-Sept. 1990, at 21. Jeffrey Jackson, Judicial Independence, Adequate Court Funding, and Inherent Judicial Powers, 52 MD. L. REv. 217 (1993). Richard B. Klein & Patricia R. Lykos, What Computer Support Should a Judge Have?, JUDGES' 1., Fall 1989, at 16. Jane B. Lucal, The Quiet Revolution: Computerization ofCourt Systems for the 21st Century, 14 OHIO N.U. L. REv. 169 (1987). Ward Mundy, Automation in the Federal Courts, 33 FED. B. NEWS & J. 112 (1986). Stuart S. Nagel, Computer-Aided Law Decisions, 21 AKRON L. REv. 73 (1987). Charles W. Nihan & Russell R. Wheeler, Using Technology to Improve the Administration of Justice in the Federal Courts, 1981 B.Y.U. L. REV. 659. Symposium, Technology Drives the Future; Now is the Time to Automate, JUDGES 1., Spring 1989. J. Clifford Wallace, Our Judicial System Needs Help: A Few Inside Thoughts, 12 U.S.F. L. REV. 3 (1977). Stephen L. Wasby, Technology and Communication in a Federal Court: The Ninth Circuit, 28 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 1 (1988). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 366 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 367 Joseph F. Weis, Jr. & Gordon Bennant, Automation in the Federal Courts: Progress. Prospects and Problems, JUDGES' J., Fall 1987, at 14. Douglas E. Winter, Down-Time: A Fable, LITIG., Fall 1986, at 48. B. Reforms ofCourt Administration and the En Bane Court AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). RESTRUCTURING JUSTICE - THE INNOVATIONS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE FuTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (Arthur D. Hellman ed., 1990). WILLIAM W SCHWARZER & ALAN HIRSCH, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE ELEMENTS OF CASE MANAGEMENT (1991). Thomas E. Baker, A Primer on Precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, 34 MERCER L. REV. 1175 (1983). Steven Bennett & Christine Pembroke, "Mini" In Bane Proceedings: A Survey of Circuit Practices, 34 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 531 (1986). Richard H. Deane & Valerie Tehan, Judicial Administration in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, 11 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 1 (1981). Daniel Egger, Note, Court ofAppeals Review of Agency Action: The Problem ofEn Bane Ties, 100 YALE L.J. 471 (1990). Douglas H. Ginsburg & Donald Falk, The Court En Bane: 1981-1990, 59 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1008 (1991). Arthur D. Hellman, Breaking the Bane: The Common-Law Process in the Large Appellate Court, 23 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 915 (1991). Irving R. Kaufman, Do the Costs ofthe En Bane Proceeding Outweigh Its Advantages?, 69 JUDICATURE 7 (1985). Jon O. Newman, In Bane Practice in the Second Circuit: The Virtues ofRestraint, 50 BROOK. L. REv. 365 (1984). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 367 1993-1994 368 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Note, Playing with Numbers: Determining the Majority of Judges Required to Grant En Bane Sittings in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 70 VA. L. REv. 1505 (1984). Robert Oliphant, En Bane Polarization in the Eighth Circuit, 17 WM. MITCHELL L. REv. 701 (1991). Christopher E. Smith, Polarization and Change in the Federal Courts: En Bane Decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 74 JUDICATURE 133 (1990). C. More Differentiated Case Management HOLLY BAKKE & MAUREEN SOLOMON, CASE DIFFERENTIATION: AN ApPROACH TO INDNIDUALIZED CASE MANAGEMENT, 73 JUDICATURE 17 (1989). Wayne D. Brazil, Case Management: The Panacea Has Its Side Effects, JUDGES' J., Fall 1985, at 32. - Richard H. Deane & Valerie Tehan, Judicial Administration in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, 11 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 1 (1981). Steven Flanders, Blind Umpires - A Response to Professor Resnik, 35 HASTINGS L.J. 505 (1984). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Obligation to Reason Why, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 205 (1985). Connie Hanes, Staff Attorneys' Instructions to Case Managers RE: Checking for Jurisdictional Defects, 10 FIFTH CIR. RPTR. 609 (1993). Arthur D. Hellman, Central Staff in Appellate Courts: The Experience of the Ninth Circuit, 68 CAL. L. REV. 937 (1980). James C. Hill & Thomas E. Baker, Dam Federal Jurisdiction!, 32 EMORY LJ. 3 (1983). Donald P. Lay, Reconciling Tradition with Reality: The Expedited Appeal, 23 UCLA L. REv. 419 (1976). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 368 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 369 Harold Leventhal, Appel/ate Procedures: Design, Patchwork, and Managed Flexibility, 23 UCLA L. REv. 432 (1976). Eve Lieber, Maximum Case Management with Minimum Judge Time, JUDGES' J., Fall 1986, at 14. Richard McMillan, Jr. & David B. Siegel, Creating a Fast-Track Alternative Under the Federal Rules 0/ Civil Procedure, 60 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 431 (1985). Daniel J. Meador, Appel/ate Case Management and Decisional Processes, 61 VA. L. REV. 255 (1975). Daniel J. Meador, The Federal Judiciary and Its Future Administration, 65 VA. L. REV. 1031 (1979). Bernard S. Meyer, Justice, Bureaucracy, Structure, and Simplification, 42 MD. L. REV. 659 (1983). Stuart Nagel et aI., Optimum Sequencing 0/ Court Cases to Reduce Delay, 37 ALA. L. REv. 583 (1986). John B. Oakley, The Screening 0/ Appeals: The Ninth Circuit's Experience in the Eighties and Innovations/or the Nineties, 1991 B.Y.U. L. REV. 859. John M. Perry III, The Fast Track: Accelerated Disposition 0/ Civil Appeals in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, 6 OKLA. OTY U. L. REv. 453 (1981). Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, 96 MARV. L. REv. 374 (1982). Alvin B. Rubin & Gilbert Ganucheau, Appellate Delay and Cost - An Ancient and Common Disease: Is It Intractable? 42 MD. L. REV. 752 (1983). Steven Stentz, Improving Weighted Caseload Studies in Limited Jurisdiction Courts, 13 JUST. SYs. J. 379 (1988-89). William L. Whittaker, Differentiated Case Management in United States Courts 0/ Appeals, 63 F.R.D. 457 (1974). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 369 1993-1994 370 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 John W. Winkle, III, Preappeals Programs in American Courts, 13 JUST. SYs. J. 142 (1988). D. Greater Emphasis on Oral Argument AMERICAN BAR Assoc., ACTION COMM'N TO REDUCE COURT COSTS AND DELAY, ATTACKING LITIGATION COSTS AND DELAY (1984). AMERICAN BAR Assoc., ATTACKING LmGATION COSTS AND DELAY: PROJECT REPORTS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ACTION COMM'N TO REDUCE COURT COSTS AND DELAY (1984). ROBERT J. MARTINEAU, ApPELLATE JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (1990). Daniel J. Meador, Toward Orality and Visibility in the Appellate Process, 42 MD. L. REv. 732 (1983). E. Maintaining and Improving Judicial Productivity JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, THE INTELLIGIBLE CONSTITUTION (1992). A.B.A. ApPELLATE JUDGES CONFERENCE, JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING MANUAL (1991). Shirley S. Abrahamson, Judging in the Quiet of the Storm, 24 ST. MARy's L.J. 965 (1993). Shirley S. Abrahamson, Susan M. Fieber & Gabrielle Lessard, Judges on Judging: A Bibliography, 24 ST. MARY'S LJ. 995 (1993). Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 HARv. L. REv. 1400 (1987). Saul Brenner & Jan Palmer, the Time Taken to Write Opinions as a Determinant of Opinion Assignments, 72 JUDICATURE 179 (1988). Stephen Breyer, The Donahue Lecture Series: "Administering Justice in the First Circuit", 24 SUFFOLK U. L. REv. 29 (1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 370 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 371 Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts 0/ Appeals: The Threat to the Function 0/Review and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Frank M. Coffin, Grace Under Pressure: A Call/or Judicial Self-Help, 50 OHIO ST. L.J. 399 (1989). Harry T. Edwards, The Role 0/ a Judge in Modern Society: Some Reflections on Current Practice in Federal Appellate Adjudication, 32 CLEV. ST. L. REv. 385 (1983-84). Elizabeth A. Francis, A Faster Better Way to Write Opinions, JUDGES' J., Fall 1988, at 26. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Obligation to Reason Why, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 205 (1985). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Reflections on the Independence, Good Behavior and Workload 0/ Federal Judges, 55 U. COLO. L. REv. 1 (1983). John C. Godbold, Fact Finding by Appellate Courts-An Available and Appropriate Power, 12 CUMBo L. REV. 365 (1982). Sheldon Goldman, Conflict on the U.S. Courts 0/ Appeals 1965-1971: A Quantitative Analysis, 42 U. ON. L. REv. 635 (1973). James C. Hill & Thomas E. Baker, Dam Federal Jurisdiction!, 32 EMORY L.J. 3 (1983). Lewis A. Kornhauser & Lawrence G. Sager, The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts, 81 CAL. L. REV. I (1993). Ronald R. Hofer, Standards 0/ Review - Looking Beyond the Labels, 74 MARQ. L. REv. 231 (1991). Douglas O. Linder, How Judges Judge: A Study 0/Disagreement on the United States Court 0/Appeals/or the Eighth Circuit, 38 ARK. L. REV. 479 (1985). Thomas B. Marvell & Carlisle E. Moody, The Effectiveness o/Measures to Increase Appellate Court Efficiency and Decision Output, 21 U. MICH. 1. L. REF. 415 (1988). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 371 1993-1994 372 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Daniel J. Meador, Appellate Case Management and Decisional Processes, 61 VA. L. REV. 255 (1975). Stuart S. Nagel & Miriam K. Mills, Using Management Science to Assign Judges to Case types, 40 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1317 (1986). John O. Newman, A Study ofAppellate Reversals, 58 BROOK. L. REV. 629 (1992). . Kenneth J. O'Connell, Patterns of Decision-Making: A Device for Teaching Appellate Judges et al., 70 OR. L. REv. 57 (1991). Michael S. Quinn & H. Michelle Caldwell, The Unruly Judge, 12 REV. LITIG. 1 (1992). Maurice Rosenberg, Let's Everybody Litigate?, 50 TEx. L. REv. 1349 (1972). Patricia M. Wald, The Problem with Courts, TRIAL, June 1984, at 28. Patricia M. Wald, The Problem with the Courts: Black-Robed Bureaucracy, or Collegiality Under Challenge?, 42 MD. L. REV. 766 (1983). Patricia M. Wald, Some Real-Life Observations About Judging, 26 IND. L. REv. 173 (1992). Charles Alan Wright, The Doubtful Omniscience ofAppellate Courts, 41 MINN. L. REv. (1957). Charles Alan Wright, The Overloaded Fifth Circuit: A Crisis in Judicial Administration, 42 TEx. L. REV. 949 (1964). F. Using Two-Judge Panels AMERICAN BAR Assoc., COMM'N ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO COURT ORGANIZATION (1974). AMERICAN BAR FOUND., ACCOMMODATING THE WORKLOAD OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS (1968). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 372 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 373 Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts of Appeals: The Threat to the Function of Review and the National Law, 82 HARv. L. REV. 542 (1969). G. Developing Advisory Staff HARRy O. LAWSON & BARBARA J. GLETNE, WORKLOAD MEASURES IN THE COURT (1980). THOMAS B. MARVEL, ApPELLATE COURTS AND LAWYERS (1978). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Stephen H. Anderson, Toward Eradication of Delay in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 3 UTAH BJ. 26 (1990). Thomas E. Baker, The Impropriety ofExpert Witness Testimony on the Law, 40 KAN. L. REv. 325 (1992). Edward V. DiLello, Note, Fighting Fire with Firefighters: A Proposal for Expert Judges at the Trial Level, 93 COLUM. L. REV. 473 (1993). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Obligation to Reason Why, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 205 (1985). Arthur D. Hellman, Central Staff in Appellate Courts: The Experience of the Ninth Circuit, 68 CAL. L. REV. 937 (1980). Harold Leventhal, Environmental Decisionmaking and the Role of the Courts, 122 U. PA. L. REv. 509 (1974). Bernard S. Meyer, Justice, Bureaucracy, Structure, and Simplification, 42 MD. L. REV. 659 (1983). Dorothy W. Nelson, Why Are Things Being Done This Way?, JUDGES J., Fall 1980, at 13. John B. Oakley, The Screening of Appeals: The Ninth Circuit's Experience in the Eighties and Innovationsfor the Nineties, 1991 B.Y.U. L. REv. 859. Alvin B. Rubin, Views from the Lower Court, 23 UCLA L. REV. 448 (1976). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 373 1993-1994 374 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Carroll Seron, Magistrates and the Work of Federal Courts: A New Division ofLabor, 69 JUDICATURE 353 (1986). John K. Setear, Comments on Judges' Opinions on Procedural Issues, 69 B.U.L. REv. 765 (1989). Robert S. Thompson & John B. Oakley, From Information to Opinion in Appellate Courts: How Funny Things Happen on the Way Through the Forum, 1986 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1. H. Dealing With Frivolous Appeals AMERICAN BAR ASsoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). THOMAS E. BAKER, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., A PRIMER ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. COURTS OF ApPEALS (1989). WARREN FREEDMAN, FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AND FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES - UNJUSTIFIABLE LITIGATION (1987). ROBERT L. STERN ET AL., SUPREME COURT PRACTICE (6th ed. 1986). Bennett Boskey & Eugene Gressman, The Supreme Court Bids Farewell to Mandatory Appeals, 121 F.R.D. 81 (1988). Thomas Y. Davies. Gresham's Law Revisited: Expedited Processing Techniques and the Allocation ofAppellate Resources, 6 JUST. SYs. J. 372 (1981). David A. Davis, The Frivolous Appeal Reconsidered, 26 CRIM. L. BULL. 305 (1990). Michael C. Lamb, Comment, Awards of Attorneys' Fees Against Attorneys: Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 60 B.U. L. REv. 950 (1980). Harold Lowenstein, Frivolous Appeals, Not Frivolously Granted: A Practical Analysis, 60 UMKC L. REv. 491 (1992). J. Edward Lumbard, Current Problems of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 CORNELL L. REv. 29 (1968). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 374 1993-1994 1994] BIBLIOGRAPHY 375 Robert J. Martineau. Frivolous Appeals: The Uncertain Federal Response. 1984 DUKE L. J. 845. Michael J. Mueller. Note. Abusive Pro Se Plaintiffs in the Federal Courts: Proposals for Judicial Control. 18 U. MICH. J.L. REF. 93 (1984). .. Philip Nichols. Jr.• Selective Publication of Opinions: One Judge's View. 35 AM. U. L. REv. 909 (1986). Michaela ¥. Nicolarsen. Note. The Supreme Court Dismissal of State Court Appeals for Want ofa Substantial Federal Question. 15 CREIGHTON L. REV. 749 (1982). Note. Disincentives to Frivolous Appeals: An Evaluation of an ABA Task Force Proposal. 64 VA. L. REv. 605 (1978). Michael S. Obennan. Coping with Rising Caseload: A New Model' of Appellate Review. 46 BROOK. L. REV. 841 (1980). Howard B. Prossnitz, Fines Against the Trial Lawyer. LITIG.• Fall 1983. at 36. Judith Resnik. Precluding Appeals. 70 CORNELL L. REV. 603 (1985). Paul A. Teschner. Judges Close the Courts: "Frivolous" Cases, Judicial Immunity, and Our Endangered Common Law Tradition. 35 FED. B. NEWS & J. 23 (1988). Michael Vitiello. The Appellate Lawyer's Role in the Caseload Crisis. 58 MISS. LJ. 437 (1988). Mary Van Vort, Note. Controlling and Deferring Frivolous in Forma Pauperis Complaints. 55 FORDHAM L. REv. 1165 (1987). Fred Woods. Sanctions - Stepchild or Natural Heir to Trial and Appellate Court Delay Reduction?, 17 PEPP. L. REv. 665 (1990). I. Miscellaneous JOE S. CECn... FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR.• ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A LARGE ApPELLATE COURT: THE NINTH CIRCUIT INNOVATIONS PROJECT (1985). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 375 1993-1994 376 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE FEDERAL ApPELLATE JUDICIARY IN THE 21sT CENTURY (Cynthia Harrison & Russell R. Wheeler eds., 1989). RITA M. NOVAK & DOUGLAS K. SOMERLOT, DELAY ON ApPEAL: A PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING CAUSES AND CURES (1990). Stephen H. Anderson, Toward Eradication of Delay in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 3 UTAH BJ. 26 (1990). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts of Appeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Edward R. Becker et al., Why the Numbers Don't Add Up, A.B.A. 1., Oct 1987, at 83. Peter W. Davis, The Rush to Justice, Los ANGELES LAW., Aug.-Sept. 1990, at 32. John J. Gibbons, Illuminating the Invisible Court ofAppeals, 19 SETON HALL L. REv. 484 (1989). Cathy Jackson Lennan, Mass Appeals: Are There Too Many Cases Going to the Appellate Courts?, BRIEF, Spring 1988, at 26. Howard T. Markey, On the Present Deterioration of the Federal Appellate Process: Never Another Learned Hand, 33 S.D. L. REV. 371 (1988). Thomas B. Marvel, Abbreviated Appellate Procedure: An Evaluation of the New Mexico Summary Calendar, 75 JUDICATURE 86 (1991). Thomas B. Marvell, State Appellate Court Responses to Caseload Growth, 72 JUDICATURE 282 (1989). Pamela Mathy, Experimentation in Federal Appellate Case Management and the Prehearing Conference Program of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 61 CHI-KENT L. REV. 431 (1985). Roger J. Miner, Federal Courts, Federal Crimes, and Federalism, 10 HARV. 1.L. & PuB. POL'y 117 (1987). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 376 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 377 John B. Oakley, The Screening of Appeals: The Ninth Circuit's Experience in the Eighties and Innovations for the Nineties, 1991 B.Y.V. L. REV. 859. Panel Discussion, The Drugging ofthe Courts: How Sick is the Patient and What is the Treatment?, 73 JUDICATURE 314 (1990). Stephen Reinhardt, A Plea to Save the Federal Courts - Too Few Judges, Too Many Cases, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1993, at 52. William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Appellate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship, 21 V. MICH. J.L. REF. 623 (1988). Kenneth F. Ripple, The Article III Judiciary in Its Third Century, 34 Loy. L. REV. 469 (1988). Lauren K. Robel, Caseload and Judging: Judicial Adaptations to Caseload, 1990 B.Y.V. L. REV. 3. Kenneth W. Starr, The Courts ofAppeals and the Future ofthe Federal Judiciary, 1991 WIS. L. REV. 1. Charles Alan Wright, The Federal Courts-A Century AfterAppomattox, 52 A.B.A. 1. 742 (1966). VIII. EXTRAMURAL REFORMS OF THE PAST A. Reducing Original Jurisdiction AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, STUDY OF THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS (Official Draft 1969). HENRY J. FRIENDLY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION: A GENERAL VIEW (1973). WILLIAM P. MCLAUCHLAN, FEDERAL COURT CASELOADS (1984). ANTHONY PARTRIDGE, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF POSSIBLE CHANGES IN DIVERSITY JURISDICTION (1988). RICHARD A. POSNER, THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM (1985). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 377 1993-1994 378 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 MARTIN H. REDISH, THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE POLffiCAL ORDER: JUDICIAL JURISDICTION AND AMERICAN POLITICAL THEORY (1991). MARTIN H. REDISH, FEDERAL JURISDICTION: TENSIONS IN THE ALLOCATION OF POWER (2d ed. 1990). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). MINIMUM STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (Arthur T. Vanderbilt ed., 1949). Thomas E. Baker, The History and Tradition of the Amount in Controversy Requirement: A Proposal to "Up the Ante" in Diversity Jurisdiction, 102 F.R.D. 299 (1984). Thomas E. Baker, Some Preliminary Thoughts on Long-Range Planning for the Federal Judiciary, 23 TEx. TECH L. REV. 1 (1992). George D. Brown, Nonideological Judicial Reform and Its Limits-The Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee, 47 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 973 (1990). Abram Chayes, How Does the Constitution Establish Justice, 101 HARV. L. REV. 1026 (1988). Erwin Chemerinsky & Larry Kramer, Defining the Role ofthe Federal Couns, 1990 B.Y.U. L. REv. 67. Edward Dumbauld, The Task ofthe Federal Judiciary, 22 DUQ. L. REV. 449 (1984). Harry T. Edwards, The Rising Work Loadand Perceived''Bureaucracy" of the Federal Courts: A Causation-Based Approach to the Search for Appropriate Remedies, 68 IOWA L. REv. 871 (1983). Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The Ideologies of Federal Courts Law, 74 VA. L. REV. 1141 (1988). Victor Eugene Flango & Craig Boersema, Changes in Federal Diversity Jurisdiction: Effects on State Court Caseloads, 15 U. DAYTON L. REv. 405 (1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 378 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 379 Barry Friedman, Federal Jurisdiction and Legal Scholarship: A Reply, 85 Nw. U. L. REV. 478 (1991). Marc Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 MD. L. REV. 3 (1986). James A. Gazell, Federal District Court Caseloads in the Burger Era: Rear-guard Tactics in a Losing War?, 13 Sw. U. L. REv. 699 (1983). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Reflections on the Independence. Good Behavior and Workload ofFederal Judges, 55 U. COLO. L. REv. 1 (1983). Gerald Gunther, Congressional Power to Curtail Federal Court Jurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide to the Ongoing Debate, 36 STAN. L. REV. 895 (1984). Louis Harris & Assocs., Judges' Opinions on Procedural Issues: A Survey ofState and Federal Trial Judges Who Spend at Least Half Their Time on General Civil Cases, 69 B.U. L. REv. 731 (1989). Charles R. Haworth, Screening and Summary Procedures in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 1973 WASH. U. L.Q. 257. James C. Hill & Thomas E. Baker, Dam Federal Jurisdiction!, 32 EMORY L.J. 3 (1983). Charles W. Joiner, Corporations as Citizens ofEvery State Where They Do Business: A Needed Change in Diversity Jurisdiction, 70 JUDICATURE 291 (1987). Nancy Levit, The Caseload Conundrum. Constitutional Restraint andthe Manipulation ofJurisdiction, 64 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 321 (1989). Patrick McGuigan, Withdrawing Jurisdiction from Federal Courts, 7 MARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'y 17 (1984). Jon O. Newman, Restructuring Federal Jurisdiction: Proposals to Preserve the Federal Judicial System, 56 U. CHI L. REV. 761 (1989). Note, Resolving Prisoners' Grievances out of the Court: 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, 104 MARV. L. REv. 1309 (1991). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 379 1993-1994 380 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Lori Carver Praed, Note, Reducing the Federal Docket: An Exclusive Administrative Remedy for Prisoners Bringing Tort Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 24 IND. L. REV. 439 (1991). Martin H. Redish, Reassessing the Allocation of Judicial Business Between State and Federal Court: Federal Jurisdiction and "The Martian Chronicles", 78 VA. L. REv. 1769 (1992). William H. Rehnquist, Reforming Diversity Jurisdiction and Civil RICO, Address at the Eleventh Seminar on the Administration of Justice (Apr. 7, 1989), in 21 ST. MARY'S LJ. 5 (1989). Stephen Reinhardt, Limiting Access to the Federal Courts: Round Up the Usual Victims, 6 WHITTIER L. REV. 967 (1984). Judith Resnik, Housekeeping: The Nature and Allocation of Work in Federal Trial Courts, 24 GA. L. REv. 909 (1990). Maurice Rosenberg, The Federal Courts in the 21st Century, 15 NOVA L. REV. 105 (1991). Alvin B. Rubin, Bureaucratization ofthe Federal Courts: The Tension Between Justice and Efficiency, 55 NOTRE DAME LAW. 648 (1980). David D. Siegel, Changes in Federal Jurisdiction and Practice Under the New Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, 123 F.R.D. 399 (1989). Michael E. Solimine, Rethinking Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, 52 V. PITT L. REv. 383 (1991). Symposium, Article III and the Judiciary Act of 1789, 138 V. PA. L. REV. 1499 (1990). Mark Tushnet, General Principles of the Revision ofFederal Jurisdic tion: A Political Analysis, 22 CONN. L. REV. 621 (1990). Mark Tushnet & Jennifer Jaff, Why the Debate Over Congress' Power to Restrict the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts is Unending, 72 GEO. L. J. 1311 (1984). Michael Wells, Congress's Paramount Role in Setting the Scope of Federal Jurisdiction, 85 Nw. V.L. REV. 465 (1991). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 380 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 381 Victor Williams, Help Wanted - Federal Judges: Judicial Gridlock; Solving an Immediate Problem and Averting a Future Crisis, 24 Loy. U. CHI. L.J. 1 (1992). Victor Williams, Solutions to Federal Judicial Gridlock, 76 JUDICATURE 185 (1993). B. Alternative Dispute Resolution AMERICAN BAR Assoc., LAWYERS CONFERENCE TASK FORCE ON REDUCTION OF LITIGATION COST AND DELAY, DEFEATING DELAY DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A COURT DELAY REDUCTION PROGRAM (1986). CHRISTINE B. HARRINGTON, SHADOW JUSTICE - THE IDEOLOGY AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO COURT (1985). E. ALLAN LIND & JOHN E. SHAPARD, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., EVALUATION OF COURT-ANNEXED ARBITRATION IN THREE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS (1981). JOHN S. MURRAY ET AL., PROCESSES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION; THE ROLE OF LAWYERS (1989). PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS, AGENDA FOR CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM IN AMERICA (Aug. 1991). DORIS MARIE PROVINE, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., SETTLEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES (1986). Addresses Delivered at the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice (Apr. 7-9, 1976), in 70 F.R.D. 79. Albert W. Aischuler, Mediation with a Mugger: The Shortage of Adjudicative Services and the Need for a Two-Tier Trial System in Civil Cases, 99 MARv. L. REV. 1808 (1986). Holly Bakke & Maureen Solomon, Case Differentiation: An Approach to Individualized Case Management, 73 JUDICATURE 17 (1989). Griffin B. Bell, Crisis in the Courts: Proposals for Change, 31 VAND. L. REV. 3 (1978). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 381 1993-1994 382 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Equal. Accessible, Affordable Justice Under Law: The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 1 CORN. 1. L. & PUB. POL'y 1 (1992). Robert H. Bork, Dealing with the Overload in Article III Courts, Address at the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfac tion with the Administration ofJustice (Apr. 7-9, 1976), in 70 F.R.D. 231. Stephen Breyer, Administering Justice in the First Circuit, 24 SUFFOLK U. L. REv. 29 (1990). Robert A. Baruch Bush, Dispute Resolution Alternatives and the Goals ofCivil Justice: Jurisdictional Principles for Process Choice, 1984 WIS. L. REV. 893. Kim Dayton, The Myth ofAlternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal Couns, 76 IOWA L. REv. 889 (1991). Don J. DeBenedictis, An Experiment in Reform, A.B.A.J., Aug. 1992, at 16. Leo Dreyer, Litigation Management Proposals: Storm Clouds for Voluntary ADR?, 1990 J. DISP. RESOL. 293. Harry T. Edwards, The Rising Work Loadand Perceived''Bureaucracy" of the Federal Courts: A Causation-Based Approach to the Search for Appropriate Remedies, 68 IOWA L. REv. 871 (1983). Marc Galanter, The Life and Times of the Big Six; Or the Federal Couns Since the Good Old Days, 1988 WIS. L. REV. 921. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Reflections on the Independence. Good Behavior and Workload ofFederal Judges, 55 U. COLO. L. REv. 1 (1983). Philip J. Harter, Negotiating Regulations: A Cure for Malaise, 71 GEO. L.J. 1 (1982). Wolf Heydebrand & Carroll Seron, The Rising Demand for Court Services: A Structural Explanation ofthe Caseload of U.S. District Courts, 11 JUs~ SYs.J. 303 (1986). Irving R. Kaufman, Reform for a System in Crisis: Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal Couns, 59 FORDHAM L. REV. 1 (1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 382 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 383 Marjorie Lakin & Elie Perkins, Note, Realigning the Federal Court Caseload, 12 Loy. L.A. L. REv. 1001 (1979). Thomas D. Lambros, The Swnmary Jury Trial and Other Alternative Methods ofDispute Resolution, 103 ER.D. 463 (1984). A. Leo Levin & Deirdre Golash, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Federal District Courts, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 29 (1985). E. Allan Lind & Benjamin R. Foster, Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal Courts: Public and Private Options, 33 FED. B. NEWS & J. 127 (1986). Thomas B. Marvell, Caseload Growth - Past and Future Trends, 71 JUDICATURE 151 (1987). Linda S. Mullenix, The Counter-Reformation in Procedural Justice, 77 MINN. L. REv. 375 (1992). Linda S. Mullenix, Unconstitutional Rulemaking: the Civil Justice Reform Act and the Separation ofPowers, 77 MINN. L. REV. 1283 (1993). Paul Nejelski & Andrew S. Zeldin, Court-Annexed Arbitration in the Federal Courts: The Philadelphia Story, 42 MD. L. REV. 787 (1983). Dan Quayle, Civil Justice Reform, 41 AM. V. L. REV. 559 (1992). Lauren K. Robel, Caseload and Judging: Judicial Adaptations to Caseload, 1990 B.Y.V. L. REv. 3. Maurice Rosenberg, Devising Procedures that Are Civil to Promote Justice that Is Civilized, 69 MICH. L. REv. 797 (1971). Michael J. Saks, Do We Really Know Anything About the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System - and Why Not?, 140 V. PA. L. REv. 1147 (1992). Austin Sarat, The Litigation Explosion, Access to Justice, and Court Reform: Examining the Critical Assumptions, 37 RUTGERS L. REv. 319 (1985). Austin Sarat, The Role ofCourts and the Logic ofCourt Reform: Notes on the Justice Department's Approach to Improving Justice, 74 JUDICATURE 300 (1981). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 383 1993-1994 384 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 William K. Slate, II, Early Implementation Districts: Pioneers and a Plethora ofNew Local Rules, 11 REv. LITIG. 367 (1992). Carl Tobias, Executive Branch Civil Justice Reform, 42 AM. U. L. REV. 1521 (1993). Patricia M. Wald, The Problem with the Courts: Black-Robed Bureaucracy, or Collegiality Under Challenge?, 42 MD. L. REV. 766 (1983). Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Are Courts Obsolete?, 67 NOTRE DAME L. REv. 1385 (1992). C. Creating Circuit Judgeships ADVISORY BD. ON THE USE OF VOLUNTEER LAWYERS AS SUPPLEMENTAL JUDICIAL RESOURCES, NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF LAWYERS TO SUPPLEMENT JUDICIAL RESOURCES (1984). ALEXANDER B. AIKMAN ET AL., NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, FRIENDS OF THE COURT - LAWYERS AS SUPPLEMENTAL JUDICIAL RESOURCES (1987). AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). CARL BAAR, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., JUDGESHIP CREATION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: OPTIONS FOR REFORM (1981). GORDON BERMANT, ET AL., FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE CASES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT (1982). GoRDON BERMANT, WILLIAM W SCHWARZER, EDWARD SUSSMAN & RUSSELL R. WHEELER, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES: AN ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS (1993). PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL 1. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 384 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 385 HENRY J. FRIENDLY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION: A GENERAL VIEW (1973). J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). WILLIAM P. McLAUCHLAN, FEDERAL COURT CASELOADS (1984). RICHARD A. POSNER, THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM (1985). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF THE UNITED STATES. 13 CHARLES ALQN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCE DURE §§ 3501-3510 (2d ed. 1984 & Supp. 1992). Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals Reorganization Act of1980, 1981 B.Y.U. L. REv. 523. Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 917 (1990). John H. Barton, Behind the Legal Explosion, 27 STAN. L. REV. 567 (1975). Robert H. Bork, Dealing with the Overload in Article III Courts, 70 F.R.D. 231 (1976). Stephen Breyer, Administering Justice in the First Circuit, 24 SUFFOLK U. L. REv. 29 (1990). Quentin N. Burdick, Federal Courts of Appeals: Radical Surgery or Conservative Care, 60 Ky. L.J. 807 (1972). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 385 1993-1994 386 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). David S. Clark, Adjudication to Administration: A Statistical Analysis ofFederal District Courts in the Twentieth Century, 55 S. CAL. L. REV. 65 (1981). Richard H. Deane & Valerie Tehan, Judicial Administration in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, 11 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 1 (1981). Harry T. Edwards, The Rising Work Loadand Perceived''Bureaucracy" of the Federal Courts: A Causation-Based Approach to the Search for Appropriate Remedies, 68 IOWA L. REv. 871 (1983). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Reflections on the Independence, Good Behavior and Workload ofFederal Judges, 55 U. COLO. L. REv. 1 (1983). Howell Heflin, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 - Overdue Relieffor an Overworked Court, 11 CUMBo L. REv. 597 (1980-81). Patrick E. Higginbotham, Bureaucracy - The Carcinoma ofthe Federal Judiciary, 31 ALA. L. REv. 261 (1980). Robert Kastenrneier & Michael Remington, Court Reform and Access to Justice: A Legislative Perspective, 16 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 301 (1979). Irving R. Kaufman, New Remedies for the Next Century of Judicial Reform: Time as the Greatest Innovator, 57 FORDHAM L. REv. 253 (1988). J. Edward Lumbard, Current Problems of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 CORNELL L. REv. 29 (1968). J. Earl Major, Why Not Mandatory Retirementfor Federal Judges? 52 A.B.A. 1. 29 (1966). Howard T. Markey, On the Present Deterioration of the Federal Appellate Process: Never Another Learned Hand, 33 S.D. L. REV. 371 (1988). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 386 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 387 Wade H. McCree, Bureaucratic Justice: An Early Warning, 129 V. PA. L. REV, 777 (1981). Daniel J. Meador, The Federal Judiciary-Inflation, Malfunction, and Proposed Course ofAction, 1981 B.Y.V. L. REV. 617. Abner J. Mikva, More Judgeships-But Not All at Once, 39 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 23 (1982). • Leonard J. Nelson, III, Federalism and the Judicial Process: A Survey ofJudicial Administration in the United States Courts ofAppeals, 18 GoNZ. L. REV. 53 (1982-83). Jon O. Newman, 1,000 Judges - The Limit for an Effective Federal Judiciary, 76 JUDICATURE 187 (1993). Richard A. Posner, Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Survive Until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization ofthe Judicial Function, 56 S. CAL. L. REV. 761 (1983). Stephen Reinhardt, A Plea to Save the Federal Courts - Too Few Judges. Too Many Cases, AB.A J., Jan 1993, at 52. Virginia L. Richards, Temporary Appointments to the Federal Judiciary: Article II Judges?, 60 N.Y.V. L. REv. 702 (1985). Lauren K. Robel, Caseload and Judging: Judicial Adaptations to Caseload, 1990 B.Y.V. L. REV. 3. John M. Slack, Commentary - Funding the Federal Judiciary, 82 W. VA. L. REV. 1 (1979). Delores K. Sloviter, The Judiciary Needs Judicious Growth, NAT'L L.J., June 28, 1993, at 17. William French Smith, The Role ofthe Federal Courts, CASE & COM., Jan.-Feb. 1983, at to. Elliot A. Spoon, Note, Compensation of the Federal Judiciary: A Reexamination, 8 V. MICH. J.L. REF. 594 (1975). Robert A Sprecher, The Threat to Judicial Independence, 51 IND. L.J. 380 (1976). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 387 1993-1994 388 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Albert Tate, Jr., The Last Year ofthe "Old" Fifth (1891-1981), 27 Loy. L. REV. 689 (1981). Gerald Bard Tjoflat, More Judges, Less Justice, A.B.A. J., July 1993, at 70. J. Clifford Wallace, Working Paper - Future of the' Judiciary, 94 F.R.D. 225 (1981). Michael Wells, Against an Elite Federal Judiciary: Comments on the Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee, 1991 B.Y.U. L. REV. 923. Charles Alan Wright, The Overloaded Fifth Circuit: A Crisis in Judicial Administration, 42 TEX. L. REV. 949 (1964). D. Dividing Courts ofAppeals PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). RESTRUCTURING JUSTICE - THE INNOVATIONS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE FuTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (Arthur D. Hellman ed., 1990). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts of Appeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. LJ. 917 (1990). Quentin N. Burdick, Federal Courts of Appeals: Radical Surgery or Conservative Care, 60 Ky. L.J. 807 (1972). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 388 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 389 Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, The Geographical Boundaries of the Several Judicial Circuits: Recommenda tions for Change, 62 F.R.D. 223 (1973). Cheryl Frank, Split 9th Circuit? It's Doing Fine as Is, Chief Says, A.B.A. 1., Jan. 1985, at 30. Thomas G. Gee, The Imminent Destruction ofthe Fifth Circuit; Or, How Not to Deal with a Blossoming Docket, 9 TEx. TECH L. REV. 799 (1978). Howell Heflin, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 - Overdue Relieffor an Overworked Court, 11 CUMBo L. REv. 597 (1980-81). Arthur D. Hellman, Legal Problems ofDividing a State Between Federal Judicial Circuits, 122 U. PA. L. REv. 1188 (1974). Donald P. Lay, The Federal Appeals Process: Whither We Goest? The Next Fifty Years, 15 WM. MITCHELL L. REv. 515 (1989). Donald P. Lay, Observations ofTwenty-Five Years as a United States Circuit Judge, 18 WM. MITCHELL L. REv. 595 (1992). Wade H. McCree, Bureaucratic Justice: An Early Warning, 129 U. PA. L. REV. 777 (1981). Alvin B. Rubin, Views from the Lower Court, 23 UCLA L. REV. 448 (1976). Arthur Stanley & Irma Russell, The Political and Administrative History of the United States Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit, 60 DENV. L. J. 119 (1983). J. Clifford Wallace, The Nature and Extent ofIntercircuit Conflicts: A Solution Needed for a Mountain or a Molehill?, 71 CAL. L. REv. 913 (1983). J. Clifford Wallace, Working Paper - Fugitive of the Judiciary, 94 F.R.D. 225 (1981). John Minor Wisdom, Requiemfor a Great Court, 26 Loy. L. REV. 787 (1980). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 389 1993-1994 390 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Charles Alan Wright, The Overloaded Fifth Circuit: A Crisis in Judicial Administration, 42 TEX. L. REV. 949 (1964). E. Creating Specialized Appellate Courts REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). 17 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCE DURE § 4105 (2d ed. 1988 & Supp. 1992). CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS (4th ed. 1983). Harold H. Bruff, Specialized Courts in Administrative Law, 43 ADMIN. L. REV. 329 (1991). Robert M. Cooper, The Proposed United States Administrative Court (pts. 1 & 2), 35 MICH. L. REv. 193 (1936), 35 MICH. L. REV. 565 (1937). James R. Elkins, The Temporary Emergency Court ofAppeals: A Study in the Abdication ofJudicial Responsibility, 1978 DUKE L. J. 113. Erwin N. Griswold, Cutting the Cloak to Fit the Cloth: An Approach to Problems in the Federal Courts, 32 CATH U. L. REv. 787 (1983). Erwin N. Griswold, The Needfor a Court ofTax Appeals, 57 HARv. L. REV. 1153 (1944). Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., Improving the Handling ofCriminal Cases in the Federal Appellate System, 59 CORNELL L. REv. 597 (1974). Patrick E. Higginbotham, Bureaucracy - The Carcinoma ofthe Federal Judiciary, 31 ALA. L. REv. 261 (1980). J. Edward Lumbard, Current Problems of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 CORNELL L. REv. 29 (1968). Daniel J. Meador, An Appellate Court Dilemma and a Solution Through Subject Matter Organization, 16 U. MICH. J.L. REF. 471 (1983). Daniel J. Meador, Appellate Case Management and Decisional Processes, 61 VA. L. REV. 255 (1975). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 390 1993-1994 1994] BIBLIOGRAPHY 391 Daniel J. Meador, Appellate Subject Matter Organization: The German Designfrom an American Perspective, 5 HASTINGS INT'L & COMPo L. REV. 27 (1981). Daniel J. Meador, A Challenge to Judicial Architecture: Modifying the Regional Design of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 56 U. CHI. L. REv. 603 (1989). Daniel J. Meador, The Federal Judiciary-Inflation, Malfunction, and Proposed Course ofAction, 1981 B.Y.U. L. REV. 617. Stuart S. Nagel, Systematic Assignment of Judges - A Proposal, 70 JUDICATURE 73 (1986). Ben F. Overton, A Prescription for the Appellate Caseload Explosion, 12 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 205 (1984). Harold C. Petrowitz, Federal Court Reform: The Federal Courts Improvement Act of1982 - And Beyond, 32 AM. U. L. REV. 543 (1983). Simon Rifkins, A Special Court for Patent Litigation: The Danger of a Specialized Judiciary, 37 A.B.A. J. 425 (1951). Symposium. Celebrating the Tenth Anniversary ofthe Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit, 14 GEO. MASON U. L. REV. 499 (1992). John T. Willis, The United States Court of Military Appeals - "Born Again", 52 IND. LJ. 151 (1976). F. Improving Federal Legislation ROBERT ALLEN LEFLAR, INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES OF ApPELLATE COURTS (1976). Warren E. Burger, The State of the Federal Judiciary - 1972, 58 A.B.A. J. 1049 (1972). Comm. on Federal Legislation, The Impact of Civil Expediting Provisions on the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 REc. A.B. CITY N.Y. 19 (1982). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 391 1993-1994 392 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Harry T. Edwards, The Role of a Judge in Modern Society: Some Reflections on Current Practice in Federal Appellate Adjudication, 32 CLEV. ST. L. REv. 385 (1983-84). Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Peter W. Huber, The Intercircuit Committee, 100 MARV. L. REV. 1417 (1987). Bernard S. Meyer, Justice, Bureaucracy, Structure, and Simplification, 42 MD. L. REV. 659 (1983). Alvin B. Rubin, Bureaucratization ofthe Federal Courts: The Tension Between Justice and Efficiency, 55 NOTRE DAME LAW. 648 (1980). IX. POSSIBLE EXTRAMURAL REFORMS FOR THE FuTURE A. Assumptions about the Future AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE FEDERAL ApPELLATE JUDICIARY IN THE 21ST CENTURY (Cynthia Harrison & Russell R. Wheeler eds., 1989). FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE, WORKING PAPERS AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS (July 1, 1990). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. LJ. 917 (1990). George D. Brown, Nonideological Judicial Reform and Its Limits-The Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee, 47 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 973 (1990). Donald P. Lay, Observations ofTwenty-Five Years as a United States Circuit Judge, 18 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 595 (1992). William K. Slate, II, Report ofthe Federal Courts Study Committee: An Update, 21 SETON HALL L. REv. 336 (1991). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 392 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 393 Symposium, The Federal Court Docket: Issues & Solutions, 22 CONN. L. REV. 615 (1990). Joseph F. Weis, Jr., The Federal Courts Study Committee Begins Its Work, 21 ST. MARy'S LJ. 15 (1989). B. Substituting Discretionary Review for the Statutory Right ofReview AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). STEVEN ALAN CHILDRESS & MARTHA S. DAVIS, STANDARDS OF REVIEW (2d ed. 1992). SAMUEL ESTREICHER & JOHN SEXTON, REDEFINING THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL PROCESS (1986). FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE, WORKING PAPERS AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS (July 1, 1990). J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). ROSCOE POUND, ApPELLATE PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES (1941). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Marc M. Arkin, Rethinking the Constitutional Right to a Criminal Appeal, 39 UCLA L. REv. 503 (1992). John R. Bartels, United States District Courts En Bane - Resolving the Ambiguities, 73 JUDICATURE 40 (1989). Bennett Boskey & Eugene Gressman, The Supreme Court Bids Farewell to Mandatory Appeals, 121 F.R.D. 81 (1988). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Paul D. Carrington, The Function ofthe Civil Appeal: A Late-Century View, 38 S.C. L. REV. 411 (1987). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 393 1993-1994 394 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Harlan Lee Dalton, Taking the Right of Appeal (More or Less) Seriously, 95 YALE L.J. 62 (1981). Alex S. Ellerson, Note, The Right to Appeal and Appellate Procedural Reform, 91 COLUM. L. REv. 373 (1991). Melinda Gann Hall, Docket Control as an Influence on Judicial Voting, 10 JUST. SYS. J. 243 (1985). Charles R. Haworth, Screening and Summary Procedures in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1973 WASH. U. L.Q. 257. Donald P. Lay, The Federal Appeals Process: Whither We Goest? The Next Fifty Years, 15 WM. MITCHELL L. REv. 515 (1989). Donald P. Lay, A Proposal for Discretionary Review in the Federal Courts ofAppeals, 34 Sw. L.J. 1151 (1981). Graham C. Lilly & Antonin Scalia, Appellate Justice: A Crisis in Virginia?, 57 VA. L. REv. 3 (1971). J. Edward Lumbard, Current Problems of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 CORNELL L. REv. 29 (1968). Robert J. Martineau, Frivolous Appeals: The Uncertain Federal Response, 1984 DUKE L. J. 845. Thomas B. Marvell, Appellate Capacity and Caseload Growth, 16 AKRON L. REV. 43 (1982). David Newbern & Douglas L. Wilson, Rule 21: Unprecedent and the Disappearing Court, 32 ARK. L. REv. 37 (1978). Jon O. Newman, Restructuring Federal Jurisdiction: Proposals to Preserve the Federal Judicial System, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 761 (1989). Remarks by J. Clifford Wallace, 68th Annual Meeting ofthe American Law Institute 1 (May 13, .1991). Judith Resnik, Precluding Appeals, 70 CORNELL L. REV. 603 (1985). Michael Vitiello, The Appellate Lawyer's Role in the Caseload Crisis, 58 MISS. LJ. 437 (1988). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 394 1993-1994 1994] BIBLIOGRAPHY 395 Irving Wilner, Civil Appeals: Are they Useful in the Administration of Justice?, 56 GEO. LJ. 417 (1968). C. Alternative Structures to the Present Circuit System 1. Multiple Small Circuits REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Alvin B. Rubin, Views from the Lower Court, 23 UCLA L. REV. 448 (1976). 2. A Four-Tiered System AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). AMERICAN BAR FOUND., ACCOMMODATING THE WORKLOAD OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS (1968). DEP'T OF JUSTICE COMM. ON REVISION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THE NEEDS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (1977). SAMUEL ESTREICHER & JOHN SEXTON, REDEFINING THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL PROCESS (1986). FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE, WORKING PAPERS AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS (July 1, 1990). FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., REPORT OF THE STUDY GROUP ON THE CASELOAD OF THE SUPREME COURT, reprinted at 57 F.R.D. 573 (1972). ARTHUR D. HELLMAN, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., UNRESOLYED INTERCIRCUIT CONFLICTS: THE NATURE AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM, FINAL REPORT: PHASE I (Dec. 1991). INTERCIRCUIT PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES ACT: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMM. ON COURTS OF THE SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 395 1993-1994 396 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 THE SUPREME COURT AND ITS WORKLOAD CRISIS: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMM. ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMIN. OF JUSTICE OF THE HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 99th Cong.• 2d Sess. (1986). Thomas E. Baker, Siskel and Ebert at the Supreme Court, 87 MICH L. REV. 1472 (1989). Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 HARv. L. REv. 1400 (1987). John R Bartels, United States District Courts En Bane-Resolving the Ambiguities, 73 JUDICATURE 40 (1989). Bennett Boskey & Eugene Gressman, The Supreme Court Bids Farewell to Mandatory Appeals, 121 F.RD. 81 (1988). Stephen Breyer, Administering Justice in the First Circuit, 24 SUFFOLK U. L. REv. 29 (1990). Michael J. Broyde, Note, The Intercircuit Tribunal and Perceived Conflicts: An Analysis ofJustice White's Dissentsfrom Denial ofCertiorari During the 1985 Term. 62 N.Y.U. L. REV. 610 (1987). Warren E. Burger. Annual Report on the State of the Judiciary, 69 A.B.A. J. 442 (1983). Warren E. Burger, The Time is Now for the Intercircuit Panel, A.B.A. J., April 1985, at 86. James Duke Cameron, Federal Review, Finality of State Court Decisions, and a Proposal for a National Court of Appeals - A State Judge's Solution to a Continuing Problem. 1981 B.Y.V. L. REV. 545. Paul D. Carrington, The Function of the Civil Appeal: A Late-Century View, 38 S.C. L. REv. 411 (1987). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, The Geographical Boundaries of the Several Judicial Circuits: Recommenda tions for Change, 62 F.RD. 223 (1973). Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, 67 F.R.D. 195 (1975). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 396 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 397 Edward Dumbauld, A National Court of Appeals, 29 GEO. L.J. 461 (1941). James A. Gazell, The National Court of Appeals Controversy: An Emerging Negative Consensus, 6 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 1 (1986). Arthur D. Hellman, Jumboism and Jurisprudence: The Theory and Practice of Precedent in the Large Appellate Courts, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 541 (1989). Arthur D. Hellman, The Proposed Intercircuit Tribunal: Do We Need It? Will It Work?, 11 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 375 (1984). Seth Hufstedler & Paul Nejelski, ABA Action Commission Challenges Litigation Cost and Delay, 66 A.B.A. J. 965 (1980). Shirley M. Hufstedler, Bad Recipes for Good Cooks - Indigestible Reforms for the Judiciary, 27 ARIZ. L. REv. 785 (1985). Paul A. LeBel, Legal Positivism and Federalism: The Certification Experience, 19 GA. L. REV. 999 (1985). Regina C. McGranery, Random Justice: Shortening the Circuits, 37 FED. B. NEWS c.J. 358 (1990). Robert B. McKay, Comm. on Federal Courts, The Inter-Circuit Tribunal, 41 REc. A.B. CITY N.Y. 247 (1986). Jon O. Newman, Restructuring Federal Jurisdiction: Proposals to Preserve the Federal Judicial System, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 761 (1989). Note, Of High Designs: A Compendium of Proposals to Reduce the Workload of the Supreme Court, 97 HARv. L. REv. 307 (1983). Louis H. Pollak, Amici Curiae, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 811 (1989). Herbert Pope, The Federal Courts and a Uniform Law, 28 YALE L.J. 647 (1919). Maurice Rosenberg, Enlarging the Federal Court's Capacity to Settle the National Law, 10 GoNZ. L. REv. 709 (1975). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 397 1993-1994 398 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 John Paul Stevens, The Life Span ofaJudge-Made Rule, 58 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1 (1983). Robert L. Stem, Remedies for Appellate Overloads: The Ultimate Solution, 72 JUDICATURE 103 (1988). Suetonius, Judiciary Committee Report, 2 BENCHMARK 185 (1986). Symposium, The Supreme Court Workload, 11 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 353 (1984). Todd E. Thompson, Increasing Uniformity and Capacity in the Federal Appellate System, 11 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 457 (1984). Frederick Bemays Wiener, Federal Regional Courts: A Solutionfor the Certiorari Dilemma, 49 A.B.A. J. 1169 (1963). Richard H. Winters, An Intercircuit Panel of the United States Courts ofAppeals: The Costs ofStructural Change, 70 JUDICATURE 31 (1986). Alexander Wohl, The Dry Docket, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1991, at 44. 13 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCE DURE §§ 3501-3510 (2d ed. 1984 & Supp. 1992). 3. National Subject Matter Courts AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). GORDON BERMANT, ET AL., FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., THE CASES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF ApPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT (1982). FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., REPORT OF THE STUDY GROUP ON THE CASELOAD OF THE SUPREME COURT, reprinted at 57 F.R.D. 573 (1972). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Lawrence Baum, Specializing the Federal Courts: Neutral Reforms or Efforts to Shape Judicial Policy?, 74 JUDICATURE 217 (1991). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 398 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 399 Harold H. Bruff, Specialized Courts in Administrative Law, 43 ADMIN. L. REV. 329 (1991). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Edward V. DiLello, Note, Fighting Fire With Firefighters: A Proposal for Expert Judges at the Trial Level, 93 COLUM. L. REV. 473 (1993). J. Patrick Galvin, Jr. & Peter J. Reilly, Note, An Intercircuit Tribunal or a Court ofTax Appeals: A Tax Litigation Perspective, II J. LEGIS. 473 (1984). Gary A Hengstler, Scalia Seeks Court Changes: Discounts Intercircuit Panel in Favor ofSpecial Courts, AB.A J., Apr. 1987, at 20. James P. Holden, Comment, The Federal Courts Study Committee Has Not Made the Case for Its Proposed Overhaul of the Tort Litigation Process, 40 CATH. U. L. REV. 639 (1991). Brian C. Murphy & John D. Plaschkes, A Portrait of the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit, 33 FED. B. NEWS & J. 124 (1986). Stuart S. Nagel, Systematic Assignment of Judges - A Proposal, 70 JUDICATURE 73 (1986). S. Jay Plager, The United States Courts ofAppeals, The Federal Circuit, and the Non-Regional Subject Matter Concept: Reflections on the Search for a Model, 39 AM. U. L. REV. 853 (1990). Richard L. Revesz, Specialized Courts andthe AdministrativeLawmaking System, 138 U. PA. L. REV. llIl (1990). 4. Consolidated Intermediate Appellate Courts REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries - Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 917 (1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 399 1993-1994 400 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Thomas E. Baker & Douglas D. McFarland, The Need for a New National Court, 100 MARv. L. REV. 1400 (1987). Quentin N. Burdick, Federal Courts of Appeals: Radical Surgery or Conservative Care, 60 Ky. L.J. 807 (1972). Paul D. Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts ofAppeals: The Threat to the Function ofReview and the National Law, 82 HARV. L. REV. 542 (1969). Paul D. Carrington, The Function of the Civil Appeal: A Late-Century View, 38 S.C. L. REv. 411 (1987). Richard H. Deane & Valerie Tehan, Judicial Administration in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, 11 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 1 (1981). 1. Edward Lumbard, Current Problems of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 CORNELL L. REv. 29 (1968). Daniel J. Meador, An Appellate Court Dilemma and a Solution Through Subject Matter Organization, 16 U. MICH. J.L. REF. 471 (1983). Daniel J. Meador, Appellate Subject Matter Organization: The German Designfrom an American Perspective, 5 HASTINGS INT'L & COMPo L. REV. 27 (1981). Daniel J. Meador, Toward Orality and Visibility in the Appellate Process, 42 MD. L. REv. 732 (1983). Charles M. Merrill, Could Judges Deliver More Justice if They Wrote Fewer Opinions?, 64 JUDICATURE 435 (1981). Stuart S. Nagel, Systematic Assignment of Judges - A Proposal, 70 JUDICATURE 73 (1986). Ben F. Overton, A Prescription for the Appellate Caseload Explosion, 12 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 205 (1984). Maurice Rosenberg, Planned Flexibility to Meet Changing Needs ofthe Federal Appellate System, 59 CORNELL L. REv. 576 (1974). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 400 1993-1994 1994] BIBUOGRAPHY 401 Michael F. Sturley, Observations on the Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction in lntercircuit Conflict Cases, 67 TEx. L. REV. 1251 (1989). J. Clifford Wallace, The Nature and Extent ofIntercircuit Conflicts: A Solution Needed for a Mountain or a Molehill?, 71 CAL. L. REV. 913 (1983). J. Clifford Wallace, Working Paper - Fugitive of the Judiciary, 94 F.R.D. 225 (1981). Edward M. Wise, The Legal Culture ofTroglodytes: Conflicts Between Panels of the Courts ofAppeals, 37 WAYNE L. REv. 313 (1991). 5. De Jure Jumbo Courts ofAppeals REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). Mary M. Schroeder, Jim Browning as a Leader ofJudges: A View from a Follower, 21 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 3 (1989). D. Retaining the Present Structure ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 1991, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMM. ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRA TION OF THE HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (May 21, 1991). ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL 1. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., REPORT OF THE STUDY GROUP ON THE CASELOAD OF THE SUPREME COURT, reprinted at 57 F.R.D. 573 (1972). HARRY O. LAWSON & BARBARA J. GLETNE, WORKLOAD MEASURES IN THE COURT (1980). Wn..LIAM P. McLAUCHLAN, FEDERAL COURT CASELOADS (1984). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 401 1993-1994 402 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Levin H. Campbell, Into the Third Century: Views of the Appellate System from the Federal Courts Study Committee, 74 MAss. L. REv. 292 (1989). Wade H. McCree, Bureaucratic Justice: An Early Warning, 129 U. PA. L. REV. 777 (1981). Dorothy W. Nelson, Why Are Things Being Done This Way?, JUDGES J., Fall 1980, at 13. Kenneth W. Starr, The Supreme Court and the Future of the Federal Judiciary, 32 ARIZ. L. REv. 211 (1990). E. Miscellaneous FEDERAL JUDICIAL CTR., REPORT OF THE STUDY GROUP ON THE CASELOAD OF THE SUPREME COURT, reprinted at 57 F.R.D. 573 (1972). Arthur D. Hellman, Deciding Who Decides: Understanding the Realities of Judicial Reform, 15 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY 343 (1990) (reviewing DEBORAH J. BARROW & THOMAS G. WALKER, A COURT DMDED - THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF ApPEALS AND THE POLmcs OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988». Kenneth W. Starr, The Courts ofAppeal and the Future ofthe Federal Judiciary, 1991 WIS. L. REV. 1. X. How REFORM MIGHT PROCEED AMERICAN BAR Assoc., STANDING COMM. ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ApPEALS: REEXAMINING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS AFTER A CENTURY OF GROWTH (1989). PAUL D. CARRINGTON, DANIEL J. MEADOR & MAURICE ROSENBURG, JUSTICE ON ApPEAL (1976). FELIX FRANKFURTER & JAMES M. LANDIS, THE BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT -A STUDY IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1927). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 402 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 403 J. WOODFORD HOWARD, COURTS OF ApPEALS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (1981). JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS: TOWARD INSTITUTIONAL COMITY (ROBERT A. KATZMAN ED., 1988). JOHN A. MARTIN & ELIZABETH A. PRESCOTT, ApPELLATE COURT DELAY (Michael J. Hudson ed., 1981). RICHARD A. POSNER, THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM (1985). PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COMPETffiVENESS, AGENDA FOR CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM IN AMERICA (Aug. 1991). REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITTEE (Apr. 2, 1990). G. EDWARD WHITE, THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL TRADffiON (2d ed. 1988). RUSSELL R. WHEELER & CYNTHIA HARRISON, FED. JUDICIAL CTR., CREATING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1989). Thomas E. Baker, A Compendium of Proposals to Reform the United States Courts ofAppeals, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 225 (1985). Thomas E. Baker, Some Preliminary Thoughts on Long-Range Planning for the Federal Judiciary, 23 TEx. TECH L. REV. 1 (1992). Stephen Breyer, Administering Justice in the First Circuit, 24 SUFFOLK U. L. REv. 29 (1990). Gregory Brian Butler & Brian David Miller, Fiddling While Rome Burns: A Response to Dr. Hensler, 75 JUDICATURE 251 (1992). Joy A. Chapper, Activating the Process of Change in Our Courts, JUDGES 1., Fall 1984, at 8. Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, The Geographical Boundaries of the Several Judicial Cir.cuits: Recommenda tions for Change, 62 F.R.D. 223 (1973). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 403 1993-1994 404 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:335 Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, Structure andInternal Procedures: Recommendationsfor Change, 67 F.R.D. 195 (1975). Lars Fuller & Craig Boersma, Judging the Future: How Social Trends Will Affect the Courts, 69 DENVER L. REV. 201 (1992). Arthur D. Hellman, Deciding Who Decides: Understanding the Realities of Judicial Reform, 15 LAW & Soc. INQUIRY 343 (1990) (reviewing DEBORAH J. BARROW & THOMAS G. WALKER, A COURT DMDED: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF ApPEALS AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988)). Deborah R. Hensler, Taking Aim at the American Legal System: The Council on Competitiveness's AgendaforLegal Reform, 75 JUDICATURE 244 (1992). A. Leo Levin, Adding Appel/ate Capacity to the Federal System: A National Court of Appeals or an Intercircuit Tribunal?, 39 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1 (1982). Edward B. McConnell, Planning for State and Federal Courts, 78 VA. L. REV. 1849 (1992). Edward B. McConnell, Managing Courts: What Does the Future Hold for Judges, JUDGES' J., Summer 1991, at 9. Daniel J. Meador, The Federal Judiciary-Inflation, Malfunction, and Proposed Course ofAction, 1981 B.Y.D. L. REV. 617. Note, Of High Designs: A Compendium of Proposals to Reduce the Workload of the Supreme Court, 97 HARv. L. REv. 307 (1983). William M. Richman &. William L. Reynolds, Appel/ate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship, 21 U. MICH. 1. L. REF. 623 (1988). Lauren K. Robel, Caseload and Judging: Judicial Adaptations to Caseload, 1990 B.Y.D. L. REV. 3. Symposium, The Federal Courts: The Next 100 Years, 38 S.C. L. REV. 363 (1987). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 404 1993-1994 1994] BIBliOGRAPHY 405 Michael E. Tigar, 2020 Vision: A Bifocal View, 74 JUDICATURE 89 (1990). J. Clifford Wallace, the Future ofthe Judiciary: A Proposal, 27 CAL. W. L. REV. 361 (1991). lIVing Wilner, Civil Appeals: Are They Useful in the Administration of Justice, 56 GEO. L.J. 417 (1968). Charles Alan Wright, Procedural Reform: Its Limitations and Its Future; 1 GA. L. REV. 563 (1967). HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 405 1993-1994 HeinOnline -- 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 406 1993-1994