Use of Adjuncts to Supplement Judicial Resources in Six Jurisdictions, 1983-1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8979)

Published: Jan 12, 2006

Cite this Study |

Principal Investigator(s):
Alexander Aikman; Mary Elsner Oram; Frederick Miller

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08979.v1

Version V1

Summary

This multi-site data collection evaluates the impact of judicial adjunct attorneys and referees on the court system at the county and state levels in six jurisdictions: (1) Pima County, Arizona, (2) Multnomah County, Oregon, (3) King County, Washington, (4) Hennepin County, Minnesota, (5) Phoenix, Arizona, and (6) the state of Connecticut. There are three different units of observation in this study: (1) civil trial cases, (2) trial judges, including regular judges and adjunct attorneys, and (3) litigating attorneys. The court case data include information on type of case, date of trial, type of judge, type of disposition, and date of disposition. For the questionnaire data obtained on judges, adjuncts, and litigating attorneys, information includes experience with the program, satisfaction, and ideas for changes.

Citation

Aikman, Alexander, Elsner Oram, Mary, and Miller, Frederick. Use of Adjuncts to Supplement Judicial Resources in Six Jurisdictions, 1983-1986:  [United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-01-12. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08979.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

Funding

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (83-IJ-CX-0021)

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Time Period(s)

1983 -- 1986

Date of Collection

1985 -- 1986

Sample

Sampling procedures varied by site. In Tucson all the civil court trial cases disposed by judicial adjuncts or regular judges between January 1984 and March 1985 were selected. The first 50 civil cases disposed each quarter that requested jury trials also were included in the sample. In Portland 10 percent of the cases with motions for summary judgments heard by judicial adjuncts and regular judges between January 1983 and December 1985 were selected for the sample. In Minneapolis the sample consisted of all the civil cases referred to arbitration hearings conducted by adjunct attorneys from September 1985 to June 1986. In Seattle the sample included regular judges, adjunct attorneys, and litigating attorneys who responded to a mailed questionnaire. In Phoenix the sample included civil appeals that were disposed by adjunct attorneys and judges between 1983 and 1985. In Connecticut a sample was selected from all the civil cases referred to the trial reference program in three Superior Courts from January 1984 through June 1985. For Connecticut there is also a sample of regular judges, trial adjunct attorneys, litigating attorneys, and clients who responded to a mailed questionnaire.

Data Source

court records and mailed questionnaires

Data Type(s)

event/transaction data

Original Release Date

1989-01-10

Version Date

2006-01-12

Version History

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 11 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.

Notes

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.
NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.