28 U.S.C. § 471

Requirement for a district court civil justice expense and delay reduction plan

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

There shall be implemented by each United States district court, in accordance with this chapter, a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. The plan may be a plan developed by such district court or a model plan developed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The purposes of each plan are to facilitate deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitor discovery, improve litigation management, and ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions of civil disputes.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 93 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc. (2003) azd “See, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq. . Rule 16(f) reads: .”

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp. (1997) ca11 “See 28 U.S.C. § 471 (1994) (requiring district courts to implement plans intended in part to "ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions of civil disputes”).”

Jerome D. Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (1996) cadc “early involvement of a judicial officer in planning the progress of a case, controlling the discovery process, and scheduling hearings, trials, and other litigation events_” 5 In conformance with the legislative findings, the Final Report of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory…”

Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance (1997) wash “, 28 U.S.C.A. § 471 (West 1993) (historical and statutory notes; congressional statement of findings).”

Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. (1993) nysd “In view of the amount of time and money already spent in pursuing this matter, as well as the established national policy of expediting the completion of pre-trial proceedings in civil cases (see Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq.), further extending this…”

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co. (2008) mdd “Comparing these recent lamentations about the costs of civil litigation to those voiced eighteen years ago when the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 471 et seq., was passed, and comprehensive changes to the discovery rules enacted, reflects that little has changed,…”

Hose v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. (1994) iasd · cites it 2× “at 497 , Congress recently passed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq. This legislation mandates that each of the 94 district courts, following study by an advisory group, implement “a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan.”

Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd. (1992) iasd · cites it 2× “6 Indeed, Congress recently passed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq. This legislation mandates that each federal district coprt, after study by an advisory group, implement a plan to reduce the expense and delay in civil litigation in federal courts…”

Schering-Plough Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission (2005) ca11 “” 5 Schering sued ESI in United States District Court, and, as part of the pretrial process, the trial judge prompted the parties to engage a court-supervised mediation, pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq. (1991). The trial court appointed U.”

Harleysville Mutual Insurance v. Sussex County (1993) ded · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 471 . Delaware has been designated under the CJRA as a Pilot District responsible for developing a program to implement an expense and delay reduction plan that will be reviewed and evaluated in a report the Judicial Conference is to submit to the Committees on the…”

Kathy Stupak-Thrall,plaintiffs-Appellees v. Daniel Glickman,defendants, the Wilderness Society, Proposed Intervenors-App (2000) ca6 “In an effort to get federal district courts to resolve cases more quickly, Congress enacted the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 471 et seq. This Act required district courts to adopt a "Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan.”

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc. (2001) nyed “See Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 § 102(2), 28 U.S.C. § 471 (“Evidence suggests that an effective litigation management and cost and delay reduction program should incorporate several interrelated principles, including the differential treatment of cases that provides for…”

Show all 93 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.