Search

Magistrate judges function as a shadow judiciary, assisting U.S. district court judges--and sometimes standing in their shoes--in managing caseloads, resolving disputes, making law, and choosing winners and losers. Yet we lack basic knowledge about magistrates themselves, the rules that govern their activity, and the ways in which they execute their duties. To fill those gaps, this Article offers a detailed typology of the district-level local rules and standing orders that govern magistrate operations in civil cases. It also describes a case study of ten years of magistrate practice in a single federal district court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in resolving summary judgment motions. The case study reveals that the involvement of a magistrate makes a difference to the outcome, and that the way that a magistrate became involved (by automatic operation of court rules, by consent of the parties, or by the discretion of the district judge) matters as well. Further, case characteristics such as claim complexity and plaintiffs' pro se status amplify magistrate judge effects while others weaken it. We also observe the effects of district judges' race, age, and experience on the bench on case referrals and adoptions of magistrates' recommendations. These findings suggest multiple avenues for future research, nationwide, to understand the complexities of the interactions between magistrates and district judges, and the role of magistrates more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article announces several appointments, awards and hirings which include Raymond E. Patricco, Jr. for appointment as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Idaho; Andrew Brassey awarded for Carl P. Burke Award and appointment of attorney Kyle Brekke for Hawley Troxell & attorneys .

The article discusess how Texas exploited divisional judge-assignment systems for securing favorable judges challenging former U.S. President Obama administration initiatives. Topics discussed icnlude survey of the judge assignment procedures used in district courts; challenges of divisional judge-shopping; and Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor court case on Fair Labor Standards Act.

The common law style of judging appears to be on its way out. Trial courts rarely shape legal policymaking by asserting decisional autonomy through distinguishing, limiting, or criticizing higher court precedent. In an earlier study, we demonstrated the reluctance of lower court judges to assert decisional autonomy by invoking the holding-dicta dichotomy. In this Article, we make use of original empirical research to study the level of deference U.S. district court judges exhibit toward higher courts and whether the level of deference has changed over time. Our analysis of citation behavior over an eighty-year period reveals a dramatic shift in judges' practices. In the first fifty years included in our study, district court judges were not notably deferential to either their federal court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court. District court judges regularly assessed the relevance and scope of precedents from those higher courts and asserted their prerogative to disregard many of them. Since then, judges have become far more likely to treat a given higher court precedent as dispositive. In so doing, lower courts have embraced a hierarchical view of judicial authority at odds with the common law style of judging. The causes of this shift are multifold and likely permanent; we discuss several of them, including dramatic changes in legal research, the proliferation of law clerks throughout the legal system, the growing docket of lower court judges, the growth of the administrative state, and the Supreme Court's increasing embrace of judicial hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author talks about the recollections of how the circuit and district court functioned in courthouse at Seventh and Mission Streets in San Francisco. Topics discussed include his experience as U.S. Ninth Circuit judge; mention of Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. court case; and functioning of the courthouse.

In the wake of United States v. Booker and Gall/Kimbrough v. United States, sentencing researchers and legal scholars conducted research designed to identify their impact on the federal sentencing process, with a focus on determining whether the decisions increased unwarranted disparity. In this article, we extend this body of research. Using 10 years of data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission and data from other sources, we assess whether and how these decisions influence sentence severity. Results indicate that sentence severity declined following Booker and, especially, Gall/Kimbrough, but that the decisions’ effects on sentence severity varied significantly across U.S. District Courts. Most importantly, the impact of Gall/Kimbrough sentence severity was conditioned by districts’ percent Black population, level of socioeconomic disadvantage, and degree of political conservatism; each of these factors moderated the decisions’ effects on the harshness of the sentences imposed by the districts’ judges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an essay that discusses the career of Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Topics discussed include his views on the use of class actions to deal with mass torts; his use of tactics described by writer Walter Murphy to attain influence for his opinions; and presentation of the Edward J. Devitt Award to Weinstein's achievements.

The article discusses the decision of Jack B. Weinstein, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in the case 'In re Agent Orange'. Topics discussed include his contribution in the construction of the tort laws in the U.S.; judicial responsibility concerning tort laws; and implications of the Agent Orange litigation on the U.S. tort laws.

Gossip about judges is an essential source of information to civil litigators. Hearing third-party assessments of a judge's personality, demeanor, intelligence, curiosity, and openness to new interpretations of the law can substantially affect a lawyer's strategic decisions during the course of litigation, and sometimes whether litigation occurs at all. Yet gossip about judges rarely merits mention and has evaded serious study. This Article brings attorney gossip about judges out into the open, identifying its strategic benefits and drawbacks and explaining how attorneys use gossip (and other secondhand information on judges) to anticipate the likely outcome of judicial decisions. It further explains how common attorney practices in modern civil litigation unintentionally compromise the accuracy and reliability of gossip about judges and offers some thoughts on restoring the full value of this little-discussed resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the views of the author at a swearing-in ceremony in the Michigan District Court in which he reflects on transitioning from lawyer to judge. In the ceremony he also shares examples of the necessary challenges, humility, and compassion that come with being a judge in the U.S., and discussed role of judges the in bringing justice.

The article discusses several pending changes involving U.S. District Courts, including information about Judge Ronald E. Bush who begins his seven-year term as the Chief Magistrate Judge for the District of Idaho on October 1, 2015. According to the article, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho implemented a prisoner electronic filing (e-filing) pilot project for legal documents on September 1, 2015. A U.S. judicial emergency is examined in relation to judgeship vacancies.