No Adjudication

ABSTRACT Using the complete record of all federal civil docket sheets for cases filed in a two‐year period, recently made available by the SCALES‐OKN project, we find that most cases that enter the federal system—about 60%–68%—are resolved without any dispositive motion filed for consideration by a neutral arbiter (judge or magistrate) or a trial. Only 30%–40% include a filing of a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment) or, in the rare case, trial. An additional 8% exit the system, mostly by remand or transfer. The majority of cases resolved at the Complaint or Answer stage end quickly (often within 90 days) and with few docket entries (often fewer than 12). While there is heterogeneity in adjudication rates across case types, the pattern of non‐adjudication is widespread, and aggregate results are not driven by outliers. We find considerable heterogeneity in the level of non‐adjudication among individual judges, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion to case processing. Further study of the consequences of the lack of dispositive motion practice in most federal cases for the functioning of the legal system and for the larger society is warranted.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70007
Primary Topic
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

No Adjudication

Alexandra D. Lahav, Nathan Dahlberg, Peter Siegelman, Charlotte S. Alexander
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
article

No Adjudication

Alexandra D. Lahav, Nathan Dahlberg, Peter Siegelman, Charlotte S. Alexander
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Using the complete record of all federal civil docket sheets for cases filed in a two‐year period, recently made available by the SCALES‐OKN project, we find that most cases that enter the federal system—about 60%–68%—are resolved without any dispositive motion filed for consideration by a neutral arbiter (judge or magistrate) or a trial. Only 30%–40% include a filing of a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment) or, in the rare case, trial. An additional 8% exit the system, mostly by remand or transfer. The majority of cases resolved at the Complaint or Answer stage end quickly (often within 90 days) and with few docket entries (often fewer than 12). While there is heterogeneity in adjudication rates across case types, the pattern of non‐adjudication is widespread, and aggregate results are not driven by outliers. We find considerable heterogeneity in the level of non‐adjudication among individual judges, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion to case processing. Further study of the consequences of the lack of dispositive motion practice in most federal cases for the functioning of the legal system and for the larger society is warranted.

Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesVol. 22(4)
University of Hartford (US), Cornell University (US), Connecticut Science Center (US), Atlanta Technical College (US), Duke Raleigh Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.