FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1521072359> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1521072359 startingPage "1733" @default.
• W1521072359 abstract "I. IntroductionCertain publication practices, especially dependence on issuing unpublished opinions, are one major response of federal courts the increasing number of appeals. Few observers have assessed how specific tribunals employ these practices, although a recent study elucidates them. The Commission on Structural Alternatives the Federal Courts of Appeals (Commission) gathered much useful data, which have remained strikingly constant, on each court.1 Because Fourth Circuit's publication practices and reliance on unpublished decisions allow the court manage a large docket and suggest that it may not enunciate the common law, this Article scrutinizes those practices.The Article first describes the Commission's background and study and then examines that work improve appreciation of the modern Fourth Circuit. The Commission assembled, evaluated, and synthesized voluminous data, some of which indicated that the tribunal could operate better. Most critically, the court now publishes opinions in a tenth of its appeals, which is the lowest percentage among the twelve regional circuits. This small percentage might show that the tribunal has ceased articulating the common law. However, the data lack sufficient refinement and breadth ascertain precisely how the court functions. The last part of this Article offers suggestions, which emphasize greater study, and ideas that should ameliorate the common law heritage's apparent decline.II. A Brief Analysis of the Commission and Its WorkThe Commission history warrants limited review, it has been analyzed elsewhere.2 Congress authorized the Commission mainly in response concerns about the Ninth Circuit.3 The court's size has led calls bifurcation.4 Since 1983, lawmakers have attempted divide the court.5 In 1997, Congress prescribed a study,6 granting the Commission a year assess the appellate system, with an emphasis on the Ninth Circuit, and requiring the Commission issue a report and proposals such changes as may be appropriate for fair, expeditious and effective caseload disposition.7The Commission carefully followed the mandate.8 It sought written input and held six hearings,9 but no one urged major Fourth Circuit reforms.10 The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) assisted the Commission. FJC staff performed numerous analyses and helped fashion surveys requesting judges' and lawyers' views.12 The Commission also collected statistical data, including the oral arguments and published opinions granted, the time disposition (TTD), and the measures courts used treat docket increases which have modified the tribunals since 1970.13 The Commission examined all of the material that it received, issued a draft report and proposals,14 and afforded thirty days public comment.15 Little input addressed the Fourth Circuit.16 After the Commission scrutinized the public views, it released a final document that proffered a divisional approach the Ninth Circuit and the remaining courts they grow.17 The Commission also assembled much information on the Fourth Circuit.III. Analysis of the Commission's Fourth Circuit SnapshotA. Descriptive Analysis1. An Introductory WordThe Commission gathered, assessed, and synthesized objective empirical data and other relevant material, primarily from the 1997 fiscal year (FY), the most recent year that the information was available, although much of the data remains similar today.18 The data relate numerous factors, including how many opinions tribunals publish, and what standards courts apply to measure the [courts'] performance and efficiency.19 The Commission also used subjective criteria, namely circuit law's consistency, that defy analysis in part by surveying judges and counsel.20 Review of all the material a court offers a composite picture. Comparing the statistics on each tribunal with others and the national average indicates how the court works, subject applicable caveats. …" @default.
• W1521072359 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1521072359 creator A5075852761 @default.
• W1521072359 date "2005-10-01" @default.
• W1521072359 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1521072359 title "Fourth Circuit Publication Practices" @default.
• W1521072359 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1521072359 type Work @default.
• W1521072359 sameAs 1521072359 @default.
• W1521072359 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1521072359 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1521072359 hasAuthorship W1521072359A5075852761 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C2776034101 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C2776244770 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C2777438998 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C66487177 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C121332964 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C127413603 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C144024400 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C17744445 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C18762648 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C199539241 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C24890656 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C2776034101 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C2776244770 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C2777438998 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C2778272461 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C66487177 @default.
• W1521072359 hasConceptScore W1521072359C78519656 @default.
• W1521072359 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1521072359 hasLocation W15210723591 @default.
• W1521072359 hasOpenAccess W1521072359 @default.
• W1521072359 hasPrimaryLocation W15210723591 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W121851156 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W1481828979 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W1515008824 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W1547321818 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W1566127647 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W1585643847 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W1969598690 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2005236663 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2182728232 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2334528763 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2474171023 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W262554788 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2895064782 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2993584502 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W3004087004 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W3121215184 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W3123737523 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W3124813141 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W581996754 @default.
• W1521072359 hasRelatedWork W2181388030 @default.
• W1521072359 hasVolume "62" @default.
• W1521072359 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1521072359 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1521072359 magId "1521072359" @default.
• W1521072359 workType "article" @default.