Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T13:13:42.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Federal Judicial Conference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Norman J. Padelford
Norman J. Padelford
Affiliation:
Colgate University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Conference held its ninth annual meeting in Washington on October 1-3, 1931. Authorized by the Judiciary Act of September 14, 1922, the conference of the senior circuit judges with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General has become an established part of the judicial system of the United States. The reports of these conferences are to be found in the annual reports of the Attorney-General, beginning in 1924. The 1922 and 1923 reports may best be found in the Texas Law Review, Vol. II, pages 445 and 448, and in the Journal of the American Judicature Society, Vol. VIII, pages 85 and 92. In view of the general inaccessibility of the reports of the Attorney-General to the legal profession, it has been suggested that they be published in the Supreme Court Reports. The suggestion has not as yet, however, been adopted.

Type
Judicial Organization and Procedure
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , June 1932 , pp. 482 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See U. S. Daily, Oct. 7, 1931.

2 42 Stat. 837, 838; Sec. 218, Title 28, U. S. Code.

3 62 Cong. Rec., 203.

4 Mr. Lea of California, 62 Cong. Rec., 204.

6 U. S. Daily, Oct. 7, 1931.

7 67 Cong. Rec., 10946.

8 See report of 1928 conference, in Attorney-General's Report (1928), p. 4. Congress partially met this request. The 1930 conference urged the Attorney-General to make a thorough investigation of the entire judiciary and its work.

9 See 1926 report, p. 7. The 1927 meeting found 40.73 per cent of cases inactive.

10 See 1927 and 1928 reports.

11 See 1931 report. Fears of a “flying squadron,” “carpet bag,” judiciary have been at rest. 62 Cong. Rec., 204.

12 Recommendations of 1931. U. S. Daily, Oct. 7, 1931.

13 Approved 1930, 1931. Adopted, though not ordered by law.

14 See 1925 report, pp. 7-8. Congress complied with the request.

15 Not yet provided for. Requested for the last four years.

16 See 1928 report, p. 4.

17 See 1925 report, p. 6.

18 See 1927 report, p. 7.

19 See 2 Texas Law Rev., 449; Kurczak v. U.S., 14 Fed. (2d) 109 (6th Cir.).

20 See 1927 report, p. 7. It is interesting to note the adoption of this rule by Judge Wilkerson in the Capone income tax evasion case. N. Y. Times, Oct. 25, 1931.

21 See 1931 report.

22 See 1924 report, p. 1.

23 See 49 Am. Bar Assoc. Reports, 461. In 1925, the Supreme Court ordered several of these recommendations to be enforced. See 267 U.S. 613; 268 U.S. 709.

24 See 1924 report, p. 1.

25 Report for 1931. See also editorial on report of Solicitor-General Thacher regarding defects and proposals, N. Y. Times, Oct. 13, 1931.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.