NCJ Number
97710
Journal
Detroit College of Law Review Volume: 1983 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1983) Pages: 1129-1136
Date Published
1983
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Several alternative dispute resolution methods have been implemented successfully by U.S. courts, including the summary jury trial, mediation, and compulsory arbitration for certain types of civil cases. Origins and success of these methods are reviewed.
Abstract
The most innovative approach to handling burgeoning litigation activity is the summary jury trial concept used in products liability, personal injury, contract, age/sex/race discrimination, and antitrust cases. The summary trial deviates from a regular trial in that no sworn testimony is taken from witnesses; counsels are expected to summarize the anticipated testimony from witnesses and submit relevant exhibits; statements, reports, and depositions can be read; and formal objections are not encouraged. A jury of six persons is used, and the proceedings are not open to the public nor formally recorded. Another highly successful alternative is use of the mediation process. In the Eastern District of Michigan where it originated, any Federal judge may direct the parties to submit their dispute to mediation in any diversity case capable of being resolved by a money judgement. The issue is then placed before a tripartite panel of attorneys designated and supervised by the Mediation Tribunal Association. A third alternative was originated in 1978 by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court established local rule requiring compulsory arbitration for those civil cases where only a money judgment is being sought in an amount no greater than $50,000 and the claim is (1) for injury or death of a seaman under the Jones Act, (2) on a negotiable instrument or contract, (3) for personal injury or property damages, or (4) falls under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Eight footnotes are included.