Civil Trial Delay in State Courts

By Cohen, Thomas H. | Judicature, January/February 2012 | Go to article overview

Civil Trial Delay in State Courts

Cohen, Thomas H., Judicature

The effect of case and litigant level characteristics

Civil case delay is a costly and prominent challenge in America's justice system.


For I venture to say that our system of courts is archaic and our procedure behind the times. Uncertainty, delay, and expense ... have created a deep seated desire to keep out of court, right or wrong, on part of every sensible businessman in the community.1

Over a hundred years ago, Roscoe Pound in a seminal speech to the American Bar Association meeting titled the "The Popular Causes of Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice" spoke about civil court delay as being one of the most prominent challenges facing America's justice system.2 Unlike the criminal arena, where the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees defendants a right to a speedy trial, there is no similar constitutional requirement in the civil justice system.3 Some scholars have characterized civil case delay as being "ceaseless and unremitting,"4 while others have remarked that "delay in the disposition of civil cases is a phenomenon with a long and notorious history."5

Civil case delay is a topic that is of substantial concern to the legal community, the judges and administrators running state courts, and the general populace. Examining civil case processing time is crucial because delay creates important impediments to adjudicating civil disputes in a fair and efficient manner.6 As delay increases, so too does the cost of litigation. Furthermore, the evidence needed to establish negligence and support damages is diminished by delay as "memories fade, evidence spoils, and witnesses and litigants die."7 Delay also erodes public trust and confidence in the civil justice system as injured litigants seeking compensation through lawsuits become increasingly frustrated by continuances and postponements. The general public could also develop a dim view of the civil justice system if delay is perceived as a means for forestalling payouts to injured parties or groups.8

The problem of civil, and court, delay in general was considered so substantial that it generated numerous efforts aimed at understanding its causes and examining its possible solutions. These efforts culminated in the development of several principles and techniques aimed at reducing court delay that fall under the "caseflow management" framework. Caseflow management involves the active monitoring and control of cases from initial filing through final disposition in a way that ensures their prompt and just resolution.9 Through a variety of multisite research projects that took place from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s, several core elements of caseflow management were discerned as having an effective impact on reducing case delay. These essentials of caseflow management included the early intervention and control by the court of overall case progress, the implementation of differentiated case management methods, the utilization of realistic case schedules and pretrial events, the establishment of credible trial dates, and the effective management of trials and post-trial activities.10

Among these elements of caseflow management, the construction of differentiated case management [DCM) systems has been one in need of additional research. DCM essentially involves the deployment of a system that allows courts to ascertain the amount of time judges and other court personnel should expend on a particular case and the creation of reasonable expectations regarding the amount of time cases with certain characteristics should take to be disposed.11 Although advocacy of DCM systems are strongly encouraged by groups seeking to expedite civil case processing, there have been few national attempts to examine the types of case and litigant level components courts might consider when contemplating the institution of DCM systems. Key issues that could be critically important to producing an effective DCM system including the influence of different civil causes of action, the presence of organizational or multiple litigants, the certification of a class action status group, the request for a jury or bench trial, and the impact of various outcomes such as the amount of monetary damages requested and awarded have not been adequately explored with more recent, national, and comprehensive civil case processing data. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)


1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article

Civil Trial Delay in State Courts


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.