No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Perceptions of the Independent Trial Judge Role in the Seventh Circuit
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The federal trial judge works in a court system which is rapidly modernizing by developing central administrative structures and procedures to monitor and expedite his tasks. The new structures are creating new expectations for the federal judicial role. For the incumbent judge the demand to change his role definition and his pattern of action breeds tension and resistance. The Chandler case (1970), involving the sanctioning of a trial judge by his circuit judicial council, which Justice Douglas characterized as “the most controversial contest involving a federal judge in modern United States history,” epitomizes the stress upon a trial judge, nurtured in a period of mild bureaucracy, finding himself at the end of his career in an organization with new norms and stronger instruments of enforcement.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1972 The Law and Society Association
Footnotes
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article is a revision of one section of a paper entitled “Federal District Judges in the Seventh Circuit: Trial Judge Roles in the Courtroom and the Court System,” delivered at the Sixty-sixth Annual Meeting of The American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, California, September 8, 1970. The research for this study was done under faculty grants from The Social Science Research Council and The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Graduate School.
References
References
BAAR, Carl (1970) “The Growth of Federal Judicial Administrative Structures: Implications for Judicial Behavior.” Paper delivered to the 28th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
CARP, Robert A. (1970) “The Scope and Function of Intra-Circuit Judicial Communication: A Case; Study of the Eighth Circuit.” Paper delivered to the 28th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
CHANDLER, Stephen S. (1964) “The Role of the Trial Judge in the Anglo-American Legal System,” 50 American Bar Association Journal 125.Google Scholar
COOK, Beverly Blair (1971) “The Socialization of New Federal Judges: Impact on District Court Business,” 1971 Washington University Law Quarterly 253.Google Scholar
EISENSTADT, Shmuel N. (1966) Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
FISH, Peter G. (1970) “The Circuit Councils: Rusty Hinges of Federal Judicial Administration,” 37 University of Chicago Law Review 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRANKFURTER, Felix, and James M., LANDIS (1927) The Business of the Supreme Court. New York: MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES (1969) “Report of the Proceedings.” Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, Fred P. (1970) “Burger Warns New Issues May Overload U.S. Courts,” (August 11) New York Times 1.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, Richard J., and Kenneth N., VINES (1970) The Politics of Federal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Rutgers Law Review [Comment] (1966) “Judicial Responsibility,” 21 Rutgers Law Review 153.Google Scholar
Senate Committee on Appropriations (1959) Field Study of the Operations of the U.S. Court [Cotter Report] Staff of the Senate Committee on Appropriation, 86th Congress, 2nd Session.Google Scholar
Stanford Law Review [Note] (1967) “The Chandler Incident and Problems of Judicial Removal,” 19 Stanford Law Review 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Third Branch, A Bulletin of the Federal Courts (January-February 1972) “State-Federal News” and “A Message from the Chief Justice,” 4 The Third Branch 2.Google Scholar
University of California, Los Angeles, Law Review [Note] “Removal of Federal Judges — New Alternatives to an Old Problem,” 13 UCLA Law Review 1385.Google Scholar
CASE LIST
You have
Access