NCJ Number
90496
Date Published
1983
Length
27 pages
Annotation
Scholars have used court caseloads as surrogates for other measures, which should be made explicit in their research.
Abstract
The four basic theories of court caseloads are the utilitarian approach, the functional approach, the system approach, and the normative evolution approach. The utilitarian approach focuses on costs and benefits of decisions regarding litigation. Caseloads represent the price at which the market is cleared and thus reveal expectations. Using primary, direct data on calculations involved in the decisions to file and persist with a case would be more useful. The functional approach views litigation as a product of social conditions and a regular byproduct of social transitions. Caseloads thus gauge the 'temperature' of a society. However, caseloads are really substituting for the underlying activity and social tendencies. The system approach suggests that capacity and workload dominate caseloads. In the normative evolution view, caseloads are assumed to reflect the stage of clarity of rules. New legislation or regulation opens up litigation to clarify the norms. The real focus, however, is on the cycles involved in introducing or changing norms. Adherents of different views are aware of other views, but emphasize those in which they are most interested. All these approaches show that litigation is a byproduct of transactions, a product of the social propensities to litigate, and is effected by changes in the decision system or outside alternative opportunity. Further research on caseloads should free itself from ideological commitments and should include exploration of alternative forms of dispute resolution. Two tables and eight reference notes are provided.