FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W606993> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W606993 startingPage "277" @default.
• W606993 abstract "I. BACKGROUND For decades courts across the country have struggled to stay on top of ever-expanding caseloads. As Thomas Marvell observed, [t]he caseload explosion and the resulting pressures on the courts are hard to exaggerate. Appeals have been doubling about every decade since World War II, placing extreme demands on judges to increase output. (1) By way of comparison, the rate of growth in dockets between 1973 and 1983 far outstripped increases in the nation's population (ten times faster), the number of trial judgeships (four times faster), and the number of judgeships (three times faster). (2) States have experienced stunning growth during this decade: the total number of state appeals increased by 112%, with some individual state dockets leaping by 305% (Alaska). (3) Many approaches to managing burgeoning dockets have been tried, including creating intermediate courts, requiring unpublished opinions, limiting access via petitions of certiorari, and encouraging parties to waive oral argument. (4) In the first nationwide study of court changes, Marvell chronicled the experience of forty-five states from 1968 to 1984, and concluded that each state had tackled its individual caseload crisis in its own fashion, according to the local culture and with no one approach uniformly accepted. (5) Responses to growing state dockets not only derive from local culture, but also from a reviewing court's role in the United States system of justice. Appellate review is recognized as having two distinct functions: first, fixing relatively clear-cut errors made by courts of original jurisdiction, and second, making new law and systematizing it. (6) In that first capacity, appellate courts serve as the instrument of accountability for those who make the basic decisions in trial courts and administrative agencies. (7) In the second role, reviewing courts announce, clarify, and harmonize the rules of decision employed by the legal system in which they serve. (8) Attempts at expediting review with an eye toward addressing heavy dockets must account for this traditional duality (9) because efficiency gained in processing appeals may pit one of these functions against the other. For example, decreasing backlog via unpublished or summary opinions could compromise the second function by not announcing, clarifying, and harmonizing legal rules publicly in writing. Even though creating intermediate courts is the most expensive option for expediting appeals, most states have gone this way in the past forty years because of the efficiency in processing appeals this measure offers. (10) In 1957, only thirteen states operated mid-level courts of appeals. (11) By 1987, twenty-five more states had created an intermediate court. (12) As of January 2002, only eleven states and the District of Columbia lack an intermediate court of appeals, as listed below in Table 1. Notably, these states tend to have relatively small populations and caseloads. Other states have responded to the delays caused by caseload growth by having the state's high court sit in panels. According to Marvell's study, as of 1984, thirteen state supreme courts have sat in panels, and another eleven did so until an intermediate court was created or expanded. (13) Clearly panels serve as an intermediate step to the creation of a formal intermediate court for some states. (14) II. THE ROCKET DOCKET Small jurisdictions like Vermont have sought creative approaches to their growing caseloads short of creating new courts. After studying other states' caseload management innovations, (15) Vermont developed a summary disposition procedure (16) fondly nicknamed the Rocket Docket. (17) This expedited appeals process determines which kind of reviewing function a case presents and then uses two distinct tracks for reviewing trial court decisions. …" @default.
• W606993 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W606993 creator A5083395497 @default.
• W606993 date "2002-03-22" @default.
• W606993 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W606993 title "To Expediency and Beyond: Vermont's Rocket Docket" @default.
• W606993 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W606993 type Work @default.
• W606993 sameAs 606993 @default.
• W606993 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W606993 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W606993 hasAuthorship W606993A5083395497 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C46415393 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W606993 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C11413529 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C139621336 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C144024400 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C149923435 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C17744445 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C185592680 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C199539241 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C2776949292 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C2908647359 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C41008148 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C46415393 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C48103436 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C55493867 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C87501996 @default.
• W606993 hasConceptScore W606993C98184364 @default.
• W606993 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W606993 hasLocation W6069931 @default.
• W606993 hasOpenAccess W606993 @default.
• W606993 hasPrimaryLocation W6069931 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W136884514 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W1529703052 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W1582983256 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W15921328 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W1990065594 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W2343120289 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W236660561 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W252909883 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W273166844 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W294047458 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W301539970 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W3124457426 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W3124586706 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W3135494627 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W313890666 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W3146650419 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W3147519368 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W315255825 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W344162868 @default.
• W606993 hasRelatedWork W854022742 @default.
• W606993 hasVolume "4" @default.
• W606993 isParatext "false" @default.
• W606993 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W606993 magId "606993" @default.
• W606993 workType "article" @default.