Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Aspects of judicial administration in California, Ohio and New Jersey
(USC Thesis Other)
Aspects of judicial administration in California, Ohio and New Jersey
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ASPECTS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
IN OALIFOEINIA, OHIO: AND NEW JERSEY:
by
Helen Clarice Schmitz
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
(Political Science)
August I960
UMI Number: EP63796
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Aaoiismng
UMI EP63796
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GRADUATE SCHOOL
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LOS AN G ELES 7. C A LIFO R N IA
? a I S i £ S
This thesis, w ritte n by
.................Hel_en_.Cl_arlqe___S_qhml ^
under the direction of h.e.T ..Thesis Com m ittee,
and approved by a ll its members, has been p re
sented to and accepted by the Graduate School,
in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements fo r the
degree of
Master of Arts
Dean
SIS COMMWTE
airman
: TABLE OF CONTENTS
!
I
CHAPTER :RAGE
I. INTRODUCTION ............... ........ 1
The Problem .......... ........... 1
I
I Statement of the Problem . 1 '
I I
I Importance of the Problem . . ......... 1
! Basic Purposes ...... ........ . . 3
Problems Involved ....................... 3
Outline of the Study .......... 4
i II. JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN CALIFORNIA .... 6 !
! I
Early Developments ........ 6
Authority, Composition and Functions
of the Judicial Council ............... 6
1
i Survey of the Needs for Judicial
Administration and Integration of
the Courts............................ 8
I Study of Other Judicial Councils .... 12
I Arbitration .............................. 13 i
Formulation of Rules and Summary
Judgment Procedure ................... 15
Assignment of Judges ................... 16 ,
Jury Reform; the Eey-Number System . . . 18
Selection of Judges ............... 20
Appellate Courts................... 22
First Decade of Accomplishment........ 24
CHAPTER PAGE i
I
Later Developments • . . 24 |
I
Administrative Agencies ................. 24
Reorganization of the Lower Courts . . . 28
Traffic Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 '
Rule-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Pre-trial and Discovery Procedure .... 39 |
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Divisions 41 I
Judicial Salaries and Retirement .... 44 .
Relations with the Bar and Other Groups . 46 ■
Metropolitan Los Angeles . 47 ;
Summary ....................... 52
III. JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN OHIO 55 :
Early Developments ..................... 55
Authority, Composition and Functions
of the Judicial Council.............. 55
Beginnings of Judicial Administration: |
I
the Cleveland Municipal Court ........ 57
Survey of Criminal Justice in Cleveland . 58
The Integrated Court of Common Pleas
in Cleveland 59 ’
Purposes and Early Activities of the
Judicial Council ........... 64
Survey of Needs for Judicial
Administration: The Johns Hopkins
University Study....................... 69
CHAPTER PAGE
The Municipal Court Act ........ 71
Appellate Court Reform ................. 76
The Federal Rules and Procedural Reform . 77
Relation to the Administrative Agencies . 80
Later Developments..................... . 81
Movement for a State Court Administrator 81
Movement for a Judicial Conference . . . 85
Divisions of Juvenile and Domestic
Relations and the Family Courts .... 86
Judicial Salaries and Retirement .... 89
Court Reorganization ................. 93
Constitutional and Code Revision .... 94
Summary Judgment Procedure ....... 98
Role of the Bar............... .......... 99
Calendar Status....................... . 101
Summary.................................. 101
IV. JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN NEW JERSEY .... 103
Early Developments................ 103
Authority, Composition and Functions
of the Judicial Council ........ 103
Purposes .............................. 104
Survey of the Needs for Judicial
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Statistics....................... 107
CHAPTER PAGE :
I
Constitutional Revision ........... . . . 109
Jury Reform... 123
Discovery and Summary Judgment Procedure 124 '
Administrative Agencies ......... 125 I
The Federal Rules and Procedural Reform . 127 j
Reorganization and Decline of the
Judicial Council .................. 128
Later Developments .............. 131
Constitutional Convention of 1947 .... 131
The New Judiciary . ... . . . . . . . . . 133 '
The Administrative Office ............... 135
The Judicial Conference ............... 137
Rule-making and Law Revision ........... 141 '
Efficiency in the Courts . 143
Court Organization ...... ........... 149
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Divisions 156
Relations with the Bar and Other Groups . 158
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 ■
V. ANALYSIS ..... .............................. 161 '
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 168
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I The judiciary is the guardian of our federal,
republican form of government and of our individual free-»
dom* Delay in our courts threatens to undermine our form
of government and destroy our freedom unless effective
judicial administration can be achieved.
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem. The purpose of this
study was 1) to present significant developments in judi
cial administration in three representative states, 2) to
explore basic purposes and principles underlying effective
judicial administration, 5) to study problems involved,
4) to observe methods and techniques used, 5) to note
progress made, and 6) to compare the effectiveness of
judicial administration in California, Ohio, and New
Jersey.
Importance of the Problem. The problem is of the
utmost importance for individual citizens and for the
preservation and development of democracy in our federal
republic. "Justice delayed is juêtice denied" in most
cases holds true today as it has in the past. Rights of
citizens under the bill of rights, the independence of the
2
•judiciary, separation of powers and intergovernmental
relations are intricately involved in judicial administra
tion. Under our check and balance system, the judiciary
is dependent on the legislative or executive branches for
authorization of an adequate number of judges, for the
appointment or confirmation of judges, for outlining the
jurisdiction of some of the courts, and for legislation
affecting procedural or other matters in the courts.
The rapid advance in urbanization has created a
greater need for efficiency in the courts. Not only has
our population increased, but our society has increased in
complexity. Divorce, juvenile delinquency, and crime have
in some instances increased more rapidly than the popular
tiom There has been a dynamic change in our economy and
our standard of living. There has been a tremendous ex
pansion in business, industry, trade, communication and
transportation. All these developments have called for
better organization and new methods.
There was a time lag in the adjustment of the
judiciary to cope with the increased litigation consequent
on these developments. From 1940 to 1958 in the federal
courts, the number of judges increased 26 per cent; civil
actions commenced, 96 per cent; civil actions terminated,
66 per cent; and civil cases pending, 132 per cent. In
some metropolitan areas, litigation has been increasing by
an average of 10 per cent a year.
3
Basic Purposes. Most basic among the purposes of
judicial administration are fairness and justice to liti
gants and contribution of the judiciary, as the third
branch of our republican form of government, to democracy.
! Other purposes are efficiency, accessibility, speediness,
■and inexpensiveness. Woodrow Wilson has stated: "the
speediness of justice, the inexpensiveness of justice, the
ready access of justice, is the greater part of justice
itself."^ The first of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro
cedure, in describing the scope of the rules, states that
they "shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
Inexpensive determination of every action."^
Problems Involved. The problems involved in judi
cial administration are manifold. Dean Roscoe Pound, in
his address at St. Paul on August 29, 1906;, stated most
clearly and concisely six basic needs of judicial adminis
tration, namely;
1) The need for a simplified and integrated court
system.
2) The need for flexibility in the assignment of
judges and the distribution of judicial business.
3) The need for taking the selection of judges out
of the arena of partisan politics.
4) The need for reform of procedural law to elimi
nate or minimize its obstruction to the decision of
8 Journal of the American Judicature Society 63,
August, 1924.
Sule 1.
controversies on their basic merits.
5) The need for improving popular interest in jury
service.
6) The need for strengthening bar association
responsibility.
Fifty years later, six more needs were added:
1) The need for restoring or reasserting the
fundamental rule-making power of the courts, to
supplant and simplify legislative-made codes of
practice and procedure.
2) The need to develop pre-trial and discovery
procedures to reduce lawsuits to their basic issues,
to minimize the elements of surprise, and to shorten
the over-all time of trial by stipulations as to
evidence and witnesses.
3) The need for a centralized administrative office,
functioning under a responsible head of the judicial
system, such as the chief justice. (Office should
include house-keeping functions and compilation of
statistics.)
4) The need for adequate judicial salaries and
retirement benefits. (Merely taking judges out of
politics is not sufficient; they also need economic
independence.)
5) The need for judicial councils and conferences.
6) The need for the more effective organization and
functioning of traffic courts and justices of the
peace.
Outline of the Study. This approach to the study
of judicial administration was not that of law alone, but
rather that of political science more generally. The
principal method used was the study of the documents,
reports and other publications of the judicial councils,
judicial conferences, administrative offices, and courts
5
Arthur L. Harding, ed., The Administration of
Justice in Retrospect (Dallas; Southern Methodist Univer
sity Press, 1 9 5 7 PP* 43-44.
4
Ibid., p. 44.
5
of these states, and to some extent of other states and the
nation, and the basic and pertinent literature on the sub
ject. Through interviews and observation of the judicial
process, particularly in Los Angeles and in San Francisco,
the author was able to gain some first-hand information.
Specific information was received from the Judicial Council
of California, the Administrative Assistant to the Supreme
Court of Ohio, the Administrative Office of the Courts of
New Jersey, Presiding Justices and Judges, the County Clerk
and Clerk of the Superior Court in Los Angeles, adminis
trative officers, clerks, and others.
Following the introduction, a separate chapter is
devoted to each of the states studied, namely: California,
Ohio, and New Jersey. In the following chapter, an ahalysis
is made in regard to the progress made in these three states
in achieving, effective judicial administration.
CHAPTER II
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN CALIFORNIA
I. EARLY DEVELOPMENTS
The Authority. Composition and Functions of the
Judicial Council. The judicial council of California was
created by constitutional amendment on November 2, 1926,^
for the purpose of unification of the entire judicial
system of the state. It is composed of the chief justice
or acting chief justice who presides as chairman, one
associate justice of the supreme court, three justices of
district courts of appeals, four judges of superior courts,
one judge of a municipal court, and one judge of a justice
court, assigned by the chief justice to sit thereon for
terms of two years. No act of the council is valid unless
concurred in by six members.
The first duty of the council was to make a scien
tific study of the judicial system "with a view to simpli
fying and improving the administration of justice." The
council is empowered to adopt and amend rules of practice
and procedure for the several courts and to submit to the
legislature recommendations for changes in laws relating
to practice and procedure. The council is required to
2
Gal. Const., Art. VI, sec. la (Amend. 1926).
7
submit such suggestions to the courts as may seem in the
interest of uniformity and the expedition of business,
report to the governor and legislature at the commencement
of each regular session with such recommendations as it
may deem proper, and exercise such other functions as may
be provided by law. The chairman is required to expedite
judicial business, to equalize the work of the judges and
to provide for the assignment of any judge to another
court of like or higher jurisdiction.
The several judges are required to cooperate with
the council, to sit and hold court as assigned and to
report to the chairman at such times and in such manner as
I
he shall request respecting the condition and manner of
disposal of judicial business in their respective courts.
A judge assigned to a higher court receives the salary
thereof; a judge assigned to another county receives nec
essary expenses for travel, board and lodging.
The amendment creating the judicial council had
been proposed by the regular session of the legislature in
1925 and ratified by the vote of the people on November 2,
1926 by a vote of 2 to 1. The bar associations and the
press had cooperated. The first meeting was held at San
Francisco at the supreme court on December 10, 1926 and
the second meeting was held at Los Angeles on February 11,
12, 1927.
The clerk of the supreme court is secretary to the
8
judicial council. A statistical, legal, and clerical staff
employed by the council are directly appointed thereby and
,are exempt from civil service requirements. The chairman
of the council is also authorized to appoint advisory com
mittees of justices or judges to assist in the performance
;Of the council’s duties, but although such committees may
I
make recommendations, they can not exercise any of the
powers of the council.
Survey of the Needs for Judicial Administration and
Integration of the Courts. Judge Harry A. Hollzer under
took a study of the judicial business of the courts of the
state. It was found that on December 31, 1926 more than
2100 criminal proceedings and in excess of 44,400 ordinary
civil actions (not including divorce, probate, juvenile or
miscellaneous proceedings) were pending in the superior
p
court throughout the various counties of the state.
There was considerable inequitability In the work in the
superior courts• For instance, the number of civil and
criminal eases in San Mateo County exceeded that of 15
other counties. Accurate information on the condition of
the courts and on delay and congestion in the civil
dockets was needed. The cooperation and comments of the
bar, especially of the board of governors, was invited.
2
First Report of the Judicial Council of California
(Sacramento; 1927), p. 12.
9
Beginning July 1, 1927, the clerks of all courts were re
quired to prepare weekly and monthly summaries of Judicial
business.
When the Judicial council began to function early in
>1927, it took 16 to 18 months to bring civil actions to
3
trial in Los Angeles Superior Court. This was the worst
congested center of the state. It was found necessary to
apply to the management of the courts those principles
which large industrial enterprises had found essential to
the efficient and economical operation of business. The
assignment of Judges and use of the master calendar
greatly improved the situation. All criminal proceedings
up to the point of trial were handled in one department
called the master calendar department of the criminal
division. As a result of its success in the criminal
division, the master calendar was established a few months
later for the civil departments. By February 1928, and
for approximately six months thereafter, an average of 56
departments of the superior court was in daily session:
in Los Angeles County, with the aid of assigned Judges.
By the summer of 1928, civil actions could be tried within
approximately 13 months after they were at issue, while
a defendant in a criminal proceeding could be tried within
3
Second Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
CalifornTa (Sacramento; 1929), p. 18.
10
three weeks after entry of his plea. There v?as an increase
of 154 per cent in contested cases disposed of in 1928 over
1927. Los Angeles County handled 45 per cent of the liti
gation of the superior courts of the state and accordingly
should have had 65 Judges instead of the 45 that it had.
The studies made with respect to the superior court
in Los Angeles County showed rather convincingly that
efficiency could be obtained by methods less costly than
by Increasing the number of Judges and other court
officials. It was stated in the second report of the
Judicial council:
The saving effected in one year for the State and
Los Angeles County, through the adoption;of the
"Master Calendar" plan for the regulation of the crim
inal departments of the superior court in that county,
amounted to more than seventeen times the sum annually
disbursed for the expenditures of the Judicial
Council.^
This example in savings is ample Justification for an
efficient Judicial council and, to a certain degree, for
the position; that increased Judges are not always neces
sary for efficiency in the courts. The practice of using
the master calendar spread to other counties and in May of
1928 the Judicial council, by rule, established the master
calendar plan for the superior courts in all counties
having 3 or more Judges; these counties handled approxi
4
Ibid. , p. 20.
11
mately 82 per cent of the Judicial business of the supe
rior courts. Judge John P. Wood, formerly of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, said:
Experience has demonstrated that in the big cities
with a large number of Judges of equal rank, some too
often Jealous of their prerogatives and some over
zealous as to the sort of work that they will do, the
average efficiency decreases with the number of
Judges. The law of diminishing return operates most
effectively. It can be overcome only by coherent,
effective business administration with a head vested
with adequate powers. It must be somebody’s sole
business to get results from the particular judicial
machine. What is everybody’s business is soon
nobody* s business.b
The Cleveland assignment system and the idea of
court integration under a presiding Judge had spread to
California. The same year that the Judicial council was
created, another amendment to the constitution was
approved, stating:
The Judges of each superior court in which there
are more than two Judges sitting, shall choose, from
their own number, a presiding Judge, who may be re
moved as such at their pleasure. Subject to the
regulations of the Judicial Council, he shall dis
tribute the business of the court among the Judges,
and prescribe the order of business.6
At first, seniority was the principal consideration in
choosing the presiding Judge in the Los Angeles Superior
Court, but for the past several years seniority is con
sidered secondary to the ability of the Judge. Greater
Ibid.. p. 30.
6
Cal. Const., Art. VI, sec. 7 (Amend. 1926).
12
efficiency was assured by these business-like methods
and better organization for the administration of the
courts.
Congestion and delay was largely eliminated in the
Los Angeles Municipal Court by use of the master calendar
and other techniques. It was reported in 1933 that
The Calendar has been cleared of all dead wood by
a vigorous policy of either go to trial or show a
legal cause for a continuance, with the alternative of
being placed off the calendar. This has made room for
the early hearing of trials actually ready and anxious
for hearing. It has also had the effect of dis
couraging the practice of filing of sham answers for
the purpose of stalling the case.7
An additional 30 hours per day of trial work were set. In
a year, civil trials were set 60 days instead of 9 months
distant. Los Angeles received 4823 days of service from
Judges of other counties.
Study of Other Judicial Councils. The Judicial
council reported a Summary of Research Studies of Judicial
Systems in Other Jurisdictions in February, 1929. It
included studies of the federal system and other Judicial
councils in eleven states — Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. The study covered
the Cleveland Plan, under which the chief Justice of the
7
Fourth Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1933), p. 28.
13
court of common ! pleas, as superintendent of the business
of the court over a five year period, used the master
calendar or general docket system. In California, where
the population:was increasing rapidly, the need for more
Judges was felt. In Massachusetts however, where Judges
had been added, the cases were two to three years behind
and the courts were more clogged than before. The study of
the experience of other systems has continued to be helpful
to the Judicial council and to the courts. Judge Harry A.
Hollzer of the Los Angeles Superior Court, who submitted
the studies, was chosen chairman of the National Conference
of Judicial Councils soon thereafter and the Judicial
council lost one of its most valuable members. There has
been further opportunity for research helpful to the
council through the cooperation of the Bureau of Public
Administration and School of Jurisprudence of the Univer
sity of California, the University of California at Los
Angeles, Stanford University, University of Southern
California, and the State Bar of California.
Arbitration. The Judicial council made a study of
arbitration as a possible method of relieving the courts
and of expediting court business. It was considered that
o
Second Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1929), pp. 33-37.
14
arbitration", if legally sanctioned and properly conducted,
would afford a plain, speedy and adequate procedure for the
settlement of a very large percentage of controversies,
particularly those arising in the business world. The
,council took the position that a law of arbitration would
■be sound, provided the rights of the parties were properly
safeguarded. A committee appointed by the judicial council
made an inquiry into the use of arbitration. Alameda
County reported no use of it in 1926; Los Angeles County
reported three cases in 1926 and three early in 1927; and
9
San Francisco made no answer to the inquiry. The com
mittee reported and proposed certain amendments to sections
providing for arbitration in the code of civil procedure.
With the support of the judicial council, arbitration
legislation was passed, effective July 29, 1927, modelled
on the New Jersey Act. The United States Arbitration Act
had been passed on February 12, 1925 and laws had been
passed in New York in 1920; New Jersey, in 1923; and
Oregon and Massachusetts, in 1925» By 1929, 42 states
had passed some kind of arbitration legislation.^^
%irst Report of the Judicial Council of California
(Sacramento; 19275,'P* 20.
10
William Franklin Willoughby, Principles of
Judicial Administration (Washington; The Brookings
Institution, 1929), p. 64.
15
Formulation of Rules and Summary Judgment Pro
cedure. The judicial council early exercised its rule-
making power, then directory only, when it adopted in May,
1928, rules for the supreme court and district courts of
appeals, effective September 1, 1928, and for the superior
courts, effective February 1, 1929. A commission on
criminal procedure had been created by the legislature in
1925. In 1929, the State Bar Judicial Council Committee
was created for advice, cooperation and assistance in
revising rules; such cooperation is essential for success
of the rules.
The state bar association, at its annual meeting
in October, 1928, recommended that summary judgment be
authorized in California. The procedure had already been
adopted in Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. Dean Clark
of Yale University Law School estimated the value of this
procedure when he stated:
Summary judgment g.ffords a means whereby judgment
may be entered summarily in specified types of cases,
including commercial oases and other recurring but
simple forms of actions, where it appears from affi
davits of the parties that no real defense to the
plaintiff's claim exists. The only persons to whom
the new procedure should not appeal are those who aim
to profit from the court's delay. All others should
find it a most valuable addition to the existing
court processes.11
11
Third Biennial Report, Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 191l), p. 63.
16
The granting of the motion rests in the sound discretion
of the court. After study by the judicial council, legis
lation for summary judgment was passed in California,
applicable to municipal courts and justice courts of
30,000 population in 1929,^^and applicable to superior
courts in 1933.^^
Assignment of Judges. The assignment of judges is
a most significant power of the chief justice as chairman
of the judicial council. Judges of sparsely populated
counties spend a large part of every, year under assignment
to courts with congested calendars; where there are long
term assignments, the judge's county must, by statute, be
reimbursed by the county making use of his services. The
number of special assignments of judges decreased from
over seven hundred in the early years of the council to
504 in 1933, due mainly to two factors : first, the practi
cal elimination of congestion in the trial courts by
mobilization of the judicial manpower since the creation
of the council and by the increased jurisdiction in muni
cipal courts and justices* courts as recommended by the
judicial council in 1928 to #2,000, effective August 14,
1929; second, the disinclination of local authorities in
12
Gal. Gode of Civil Procedure, sec. 83Id.
13
Gal. Gode of Civil Procedure. sec. 437c.
17
those courts, where manpower could have been utilized to
advantage, to incur the expense incident to an assignment
when available funds were low and other demands were
great.
; When municipal judges were assigned to superior
courts, they became entitled under the constitution to the
difference between their regular salaries and the salary
of a superior court judge, four-ninths of which was charge
able to the state and five-ninths to the county. In the
Los Angeles Superior Court, criticism arose about the
utilization of judges from inferior courts by the Los
Angeles Bar Association, a representative of which pre
sented the council with a resolution requesting its
I termination, possibly reflecting attitudes of a number of
judges of the superior court. When the policy changed to
only such assignments as were necessary to meet emergencies
and situations which could not be cared for otherwise, the
time between application to set and trial date increased
15
to approximately 13 months again. The reluctance of the
fiscal authorities of Los Angeles County to provide funds
to meet constitutional allowances to judges of other
14
Fifth Biennial Report, Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1934), p. 6.
15
Third Biennial Report, Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1931), p. 16.
18
courts assisting in the superior court of that county has
at times greatly limited such assistance, it was reported
in 1 9 4 0 . Several judges have waived extra compensation
from the state to serve in Los Angeles.
The judicial council reported in 1941 that work
I loads of judges of superior courts ranged from as low as
17
21 to as high as 571 cases disposed of per judge per year.
Such inequality needed to be considered in regard to
salaries, increase in the number of judges authorized,
redistricting, and court reorganization,as well as in
regard to assignment of judges. During the 1958 fiscal
year, there were 1000 assignments.
Jury Reform; the Key-Number System. The key-number
system for selection of jurors spread from Cleveland to
Detroit and then to Los Angeles. Names are obtained from
voters* lists by a key-number system to get a cross-
section of the population and a qualified jury. As used
in Los Angeles, actually there is a combination of two
separate numbers; for instance, from every fifth precinct
every eighth name is taken. About ten times as many names
are taken as there are jurors needed because many are
16
Eighth Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1941), p. 16.
17
Loc. cit.
I 19
: unable to serve. A mas ter roll of jurors needed is made
'up every six months and adopted by the judges in January
and July of each year.^^ Jurors report for service for
I thirty-five days or serve on cases for twenty days, which
ever period is shorter.
The single master jury panel is based on the need
I for 500 to 600 jurors a month, with half of them being
'called every two weeks to assure a sufficient number
'available in the pool at one time. When this plan was
adopted in 1933, there: was a saving of $19,955 and trial
j of 51 more cases than in the preceding year; about one-
fifth of civil cases were jury cases at that time. In
the last seven months of 1933, pooling of jurors in the
criminal branches saved $60,856.73, or more than 49 per
' ^ 4. 19
cent.
In California, a demand for a jury must be accom
panied by the cost of one day’s use of a jury. Presiding
^ Judge Bowron reported in 1939 that he found the use of
I mental tests for jurors a successful addition to the key-
number system; there was a dismissal of three out of four
prospective jurors after the tests. He said that since
1 Q
James G-. Holbrook, A Suhvey of Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Los Angeles Area (Los Angeles : University of
Southern California, 1956), p. 101.
19Hprouipt Trial in Los Angeles Court,” Journal of
the American Judicature Society, 17: 1?1, April, 1934.
20
litigants have paid a considerable part of the increased
cost of trial, they/are entitled to as good a jury as the
20
community can produce.
Selection of Judges. In 1954, reform was brought
■about in the method of selection of judges. Since 1904,
I
judges had been elected on a non-partisan ticket in
California. The Commonwealth Club of California proposed
a plan in 1915 by which all judges in the courts of record
nright file a declarationi before the end of their term to
remain in office and run on a ballot unopposed for the
people to vote yes or no on their retention in office. If
the vote was no, the governor would appoint to f&ll the
vacancy another judge to hold office until the next
election; or two years later, when his name would go on
the ballot unopposed for approval of the people to remain
out the term. It was not until 1928, that the state bar
association approved the plan. Another Commonwealth Club
plan provided for appointment of judges by the governor,
confirmation by the electorate at the next election after
appointment, and twelve year terms for judges.
A plan essentially the same as that of the Common
wealth Club was proposed by the state bar association.
”Jurors * Mental Tests Succeed in Los Angeles,”
Journal of the American Judicature Society. 22: 265-266,
April, 1939.
21
received the required number of signatures by August 1934,
was placed on the ballot as a constitutional amendment,
and was approved by the people in November 1 9 3 4 . Under
this plan, the justices of the supreme court and the
justices of the district courts of appeals are appointed
by the governor subject to the approval of the Commission
Old Qualifications, consisting of the chief justice of the
supreme court, the presiding or senior justice of the
district court of appeals, and the attorney general.
After completing their twelve year terms, all of these
justices may run for re-election on a ballot unopposed.
The judges of the superior court of any county may come
under the law when a majority of the voters of such county
voting on the question of the adoption of the provision
vote in favor of it.
The judges of the superior, municipal, and justice
courts are elected on a non-partisan ballot for six year
terms. Because of vacancies which occur between elections,
about 80 per cent of all judges originally came to the
judiciary on appointment by governor, and without approval
of a commission, the senate or the people. Efforts have
been made to enlarge the commission and require all
appointments to be approved by it.
21
Gal. Const., Art. VI, sec. 26 (Amend. 1934).
22
Appellate Courts. From the beginning, the judicial
council has been relatively successful in getting its pro
posals enacted into law. For example, of fifty legisla
tive measures recommended in 1929, thirty-six were passed.
One was the establishment of appellate departments of the
superior court for the purpose of determining appeals, the
effect of which was to relieve the district courts of
appeal of much litigation : involving money demands of less
than $2,000, later established at $3,000 when the juris
diction of the municipal courts was raised in 1949* Rules
on appeal to the superior court were adopted by the
judicial council in 1932, amended in 1938, and became
effective in 1945.
In 1935, the senate proposed a constitutional
amendment to create a court of criminal appeals. The
judicial council opposed the proposal and issued a thir
teen page Special Report on the Proposed Court of Criminal
Appeals on June 30, 1936. In November 1936, the people
rejected the amendment by a vote of 1,191,361 to 246,604.
In 1946, the people defeated at the polls a pro
posed constitutional amendment which would have provided
for a court of tax appeals vested with jurisdiction on
appeal from the superior court in tax eases and with
authority, if granted by the legislature, to review deter
minations of state taxing agencies. The journal of the
23
state bar association published arguments for and against
the proposal. Chief Justice Gibson said the cost to the
state would be $4,464 for each tax case decided, a cost
per case far in excess of that in any appellate court in
the United States, and the court would be required to hold
sessions in at least six cities to give comparable service
22
to that rendered by the district courts of appeals. The
judicial council published its unanimous recommendation
against the proposed amendment and circulated the pamphlet
among the judiciary and organizations and groups active in
state governmental problems. The council opposed the
measure on the ground that the proposed court would delay
rather than accelerate disposition of tax cases, that
trial jurisdiction in such a court was neither necessary
nor desirable, and that the added cost would be substan
tial. The council pointed out that appeals cannot be
arbitrarily divided into subject classifications and
warned that such a measure might start a dangerous trend
toward special tribunals in other fields that could lead
to a breakdown of the state’s unified system of courts.
This amendment, as well as the 1936 amendment, would have
added to the expense and complexity of the court system.
22
Chief Justice Phil S. Gibson, "The Tax Court
Amendment Should Be Defeated." Journal of the State Bar of
California, 21: 112, May-June, 1946.
24
First Decade of Accomplishment. The fifth report
of the judicial council emphasized some of the accomplish
ments of the first decade of judicial administration as
follows :
. . . the formulation, adoption and promulgation of
rules for all the courts of record of the State; the
development of the master calendar plan, which is now
operating with most gratifying euccess in the larger
counties of the State, notably Los Angeles County; the
plan for the pooling of jurors under which thousands of
dollars are being saved monthly (in Los Angeles County
a saving of over 44 per cent in the cost of jurors for
criminal trials is khown and an aggregate saving for
the last fiscal year of over $150,000); and legisla
tive adoption of our recommendation permitting dis
position of uncontested probate matters upon proof by
affidavit, dispensing with personal presence of
parties and, in Los Angeles County, permitting one
judge to conduct all such proceedings whereas they
previously occupied two.
The central authority for judicial administration and in
tegrated trial courts had been established and were
operating efficiently. Methods of selection and qualifica
tion of judges and jurors had improved but these did not
go far enough; the improved jury system did not extend
throughout the state and was not uniform. Progress made
in methods and techniques continued into the next decade.
II. LATER DEVELOPMENTS
Administrative Agencies. As a request failed in
23
Fifth Biennial Report, Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1934), p. 5*
25
1941 due to lack of funds, the 1943 legislature directed
the judicial council to undertake a study of the procedure
of California administrative agencies and of the judicial
review of their decisions. The increasing complexity of
economic relationships had resulted in a rapid extension
of the field of administrative law and an incre@,sing need
for the development of an administrative procedure, in
cluding the review of administrative decisions, to pro
tect citizens while expediting the transaction of the
p4
public business. Besides the legislature, the attorney
general’s office, the various state agencies, and the
State Bar of California had attempted to improve adminis
trative procedure. There had been a nation-wide attempt
to improve the operation of both federal and state
agencies. Among the organizations which engaged in this
type of work were: the United States Attorney General’s
Committee on Administrative Procedure, the American Bar
Association, the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws, a staff working under Commissioner
Robert M. Benjamin in New York, the Revisor of Statutes
in Minnesota, the Ohio Administrative Law Commission and
the Illinois Administrative Practice and Review Com
mission.
24
Cal. Stats..(1945). chap. 991.
26
A committee of three and a research staff of four
were appointed. As it was not feasible to study the more
than a hundred state agencies, those agencies whose
activities were mainly quasi-legislative or rule-making in
nature were omitted, and emphasis was placed on administra
tive adjudication. The practices and procedure of repré
sentât ive licensing agencies were studied, hearings were
held at which twenty-one state agencies appeared, and
members of the research staff attended a number of agency
proceedings of state licensing agencies. The decisions of
the supreme court of California and of the various dis
trict courts of appeal were analyzed and abstracted.
Comparable federal and state studies, texts, law review
comments and bar journal discussions were studied. The
sixteen month survey, begun on August 1, 1943, terminated
with the drafting of legislative proposals on December 1,
1944, after the tentative draft in September 1944 had been
distributed to state agencies, bar associations and other
interested groups, constructive comments had been re
ceived, hearings and meetings had been held and revisions
had been made.
The investigation indicated that the greatest
single defect in the existing procedure of state adminis-
25
Tenth Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
: 1944)7 pp. 48-49.
I 27 ‘
: tratlve agencies was the lack of uniformity in their ;
I . '
'proceedings. The major reason for this diversity, in the
icouncil’s judgment, was the fact that no single state
•department had been charged with the duty of devoting con-
Itinuous, expert attention to-the operation and procedure i
I i
I of the state's administrative agencies. The statute i
jproposed by the council had two major purposes: 1) to |
: provide for the continued improvement of administrative ,
procedure, and 2) to maintain a staff of qualified hearing
' 26
officers available to all state agencies. ' The council '
I
! recommended legislation creating a Department of Adminis- '
^trative Procedures, anCAdministrative Procedure Act, and
Î
I Procedure for Judicial Review by Mandamus. These three
recommendations were substantially enacted into law. The
I Administrative Procedure Act was passed which required
'uniform rules of practice and procedure of state-wide,
; statutory agencies in issuing, suspending, and revoking
I professional and business licenses or similar rights and |
i i
privileges. The legislature provided for a Division of
Administrative Procedures in the Department of Vocational
.and Professional Standards, consisting of hearing
: officers whose qualifications are prescribed by the
Government Code and charged with the continuous study of
, p. 11.
28
all phases of administrative law and procedure.The
State Bar assisted in the study which led to enactment of
a statute allowing the writ of mandate to he issued to
pQ
review administrative orders and decisions. Since its
enactment, the California legislation has been considered
in at least fourteen states as a model and California has
been acclaimed as the first state to establish an agenoy^
specifically charged with the continued improvement of
administrative procedure.
Reorganization of the Lower Courts. The most
sweeping reform during the past 100 years of the state * s
judicial history was the reorganization of the lower
courts. Pursuant to a request of the legislature in
29
1947, the council entered on a study of the organiza
tion, jurisdiction and pra,ctice of the California courts
exercising jurisdiction inferior to the superior courts,
with the purpose of recommending a plan for uniform reor
ganization. As a result of study for several years by the
State Bar, its board of governors had proposed a plan of
revision in 1946 called the County Court Plan, under which
each county was to have a county court to have the same
27
Gal. Business and Professions Code. sec. 110.5»
110. 6.
28
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure. sec. 1094.5*
29
Gal. Statutes, (1947), chap. 47, p. 3448.
29
j.ürisdlction as the existing municipal courts and to he
presided over by circuit-riding judges elected on a
county-wide bôâis.^^ The Justices' and Constables*
Association proposed a program in 194? providing for
raising the standards of future justices of the peace
I through a qualifying examination, increasing the criminal
jurisdiction of Class B justices' courts to the existing
Class A level, enlarging judicial townships with a view
toward creating a greater number of full-time justices ,
"51
and other changes. The Commonwealth Club of California
had studied the problem over a period of years and made
32
proposals for reorganization. At various times efforts
had been made to revise the inferior court system in a
particular county. The judicial council used some of the
excellent features of these proposals, incorporating them
into its recommendations.
The study made by the judicial council covered the
number, location and types of courts with jurisdiction
below the superior court; the authority for their exist-
'ence and means by which they were established; the juris-
30
"Committee on County Courts to the Board of
Governors of the State Bar of California," Journal of the
State Bar of California, 21; 244-262, July-August, 1946. .
31
Twelfth Biennial Report, Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1948), p. 16.
Ibid.. p. 14.
30
diction, both subject matter and territorial, conferred
upon such courts; the manner of selection, terms, number,
qualifications and compensation of the judges thereof; the
provisions made regarding the financial support and dis
position of revenue; the procedure in the various courts;
and the method of reviewing the judgments of these courts.
For this purpose, constitutional provisions, statutes,
county and city charters, and local ordinances were
examined, and the case law on the subject was analyzed.
A survey was conducted among all the judges throughout
the lower court system through the medium of personal
interviews and questionaires. The purpose of this survey
was twofold: 1) to obtaini the opinions of those most re
sponsible for the administration of justice in the lower
courts concerning the defects in the existing system, to
determine their views in regard to specifications for a
proposed plan of reorganization, and to learn their eval
uation of the feasibility of previously advanced sugges
tions for reform; and 2) to appraise the physical facil
ities of the courts and to gather factual data or informa
tion which was not available from published sources. Over
two hundred judicial officers were personally inter-
33
viewed.
, pp. 14-15.
31
The judicial council found that the principal
defect of the lower court system was the multiplicity of
tribunals and their duplication of functions, a defect
inherent in the court structure. There were six separate
and distinct types of lower courts including: 7 municipal
courts under Article VI, section,11, of the Constitution;
465 township justices* courts; 4 city justices* courts;
47 police courts; 2 municipal courts under Article XI,
section 8 l/2 of the Constitution; and 242 city courts;
making a total of 767 courts. The judicialIcouncil
concluded:
1) Unnecessary duplication!of judicial functions
should be eliminated and therâ should be fewer courts
and fewer types of courts.
2) The court structure should take into account the
varying conditions in the state, both from the stand
point of geography and population, and should be
adaptable to the judicial needs of both metropolitan
and rural or sparsely populated areas.
39 The system should be uniform throughout the
State as far as possible and responsive to changing
conditions.
4) The courts should be kept close to the people
in the sense of accessibility to all communities and
the retention of local election of judges.
5) Reorganization should be accomplished with a
minimum disturbance to the judicial system.
The recommendations of the judicial council were arrived
at after widespread consultations and developed with the
generous cooperation of judges, lawyers, city and county
^^Ibid., pp. 15-16.
3 2
officials, legislators, and civic organizations throughout
the state.
A constitutional amendment and supplementary legis
lation was voted by the legislature after public hearings
were held by the legislature and were attended by repre
sentatives of city and county governments, the State Bar
of California, the Judges*,Marshalls * and Constables*
Association, and by judges of the various courts that
would be affected thereby. The constitutional amendment
was adopted on November 7, 1950 by a vote of more than
four and one-half to one, and it carried in every county
of the state. The state's six different types of lower
courts were replaced by only two, municipal and justice
courts, and the number of lower courts was reduced from
767 to 400. There is now but one type of trial court
below the superior court in any judicial district, the
municipal court in districts with more than 40,000 popu
lation and the justice court in districts with a popula
tion of less than 40,000. County boards of supervisors
were given authority by statute to divide their counties
into judicial districts and they may change the boundaries
and create other districts.The judicial council is
charged by statute with the duty to submit to boards of
38
"^Cal. Government Code, sec. 71040.
33
supervisors its recommendations concerning consolidation
and enlargement of judicial districts with a view toward
creating a greater proportion of full-time, as opposed to
part-time, judicial offices, equalizing the work of the
judges, expediting judicial business, and improving the
administration of justice. The judicial council had
recommended the formation of 266 districts, including 51
municipal courts, and 215 justice courts; the boards of
supervisors, however, created 400, with 51 municipal
courts and 349 justice courts. In some counties the
districts correspond in number and often in area to former
townships.
At the time the new system went into effect,
twenty-five counties made no changes in judicial district
boundaries, but since that time consolidation of districts
has been effected in a few counties and others are con
templated. At the close of the 1958 biennium, the number
of judicial districts in the state were reduced to 390, of
which 329 were served by justice courts and 61, by
37
municipal courts.
All candidates for the office of judge of the
justice courts who are neither incumbents from the old
^^Gal. Government Gode. sec. 71042.
37
Seventeenth Biennial Report, Judicial Gouncil of
Galifornia Tsaoramento: 19597, p. 57*
: 34
^ system nor attorneys are required to pass a qualifying
'examination given under regulations prescribed by the
jjudicial council, in order to be eligible for election or
! appointment. This examination, of an objective type,
lis composed by the council staff and is based on constitu-
!
tion and code provisions under which the bulk of justice
court cases arise. By the end of 1958, there were 84
'justice court judges who were examinees, 78 were attorneys,
!
'and 144 were lay incumbents from the old system.
; The constitutional amendment specifically directs
the legislature to fix the number of judges of Municipal
icourts and authorizes it to provide for the manner of
;fixing the number of justice court judges. Some people
have suggested that there be one judge for each 40,000
population. The judicial council, in making recommenda
tions, considered both the nature and the volume of liti-
!
jgation because experience indicated the time that
'ordinarily had to be allotted to particular kinds of cases
within the jurisdiction of the courts as well as the time
Irequired to handle a given number of cases. For instance,
i
! the average case load carried by each of the 85 municipal
38
Gal. Government Code. sec. 71601.
39
Seventeenth Biennial Report. Judicial Gouncil of
California (Sacramento: 1959), p. 59.
35
court judges in the state during the last fiscal year
before the reorganization was approximately 30,000 cases,
of which almost 90 per cent were traffic cases. For
example, the filings in the Oakland Municipal Court during
the 1950-1952 biennium averaged over 33,000 per judge and
dispositions averaged 30,000 per judge. An average of
over 80 per cent of traffic cases were disposed of by bail
forfeitures, which involved no court appearances in the
40
real sense and required mere clerical entries. As a
result of the reorganization, the total number of judicial
positions in courts below the superior court was reduced
from 838 to 505*
The reorganization afforded an excellent opportu
nity to establish a more economical, as well as a more
efficient, system of lower courts. It was designed to
eliminate the wasteful duplication of judicial functions
and facilities inherent in the former court structures.
The actual cost of the new system is entirely dependent
upon action by local boards of supervisors and the
legislature. In 1952, although complete data was not
available at the time, the council made a comparative
study and found that the cost of the new lower court
system was less than the cost of the former system in
40
Fourteenth Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1953), pp. 20-21.
36
about 30 counties, or over half of them; the cost
Increased after the reorganization in about 10 counties;
and the cost remained substantially the same in approxi
mately a dozen counties. Duplication of judicial func
tions with its attendant confusion and uncertainty in
jurisdiction has been eliminated and uniformity has been
made possible. The establishment of additional municipal
courts greatly increased the number of communities and
people served by full-time courts presided over by judges
who are prohibited from engaging in the private practice
of law. There is higher proportion of legally trained
judges under the new system, and future improvement in
the qualification of judges is ensured. The election of
all judges for fixed terms assured their independence,
and better court facilities have been afforded in many
parts of the state. The ground work was laid for the
development of a sound court structure, and continuing
improvement is possible under the new system; responsi
bility therefor lies with local boards of supervisors and
with the legislature, just as responsibility for the
efficient operation of the new courts rests largely with
their judges. Structural change was essential to in
creased efficiency in the administration of justice by the
lower courts, and the new system offers opportunities for
further improvements through greater uniformity in
37
praetioes and procedures of the courts. The reorganiza
tion was accomplished with the very minimum disturbance
to the judicial system, and every legitimate priority and
protection was accorded the judges and other personnel of
41
superseded courts.
Traffic Survey. A survey of the administration of
justice in traffic cases was undertaken at the request of
the legislature in 1947* The judicial council concluded
that the reorganization of the lower courts would bring
improvement in the administration of justice in traffic
cases, and experience has proved that this conclusion was
justified. The following major recommendations resulted
from this study:
1) A curb upon violations of the written promise
to appear given by a person arrested for an infraction
of a state law regulating the operation of vehicles.
2) The treatment and correction of repetitive
violators identified through state-wide records of
prior violations.
5) Uniformity in schedules of bail and fines to
assure consistent punishment for similar infractions.
4) Uniformity in the form of traffic citations to
furnish the courts with adequate and like Information
in every case, irrespective of which agency issued
the notice to appear.
5) An increase in the jurisdiction of justice
courts to permit them to handle matters involving the
offense of driving without a valid license and of
driving while under the influence of intoxicating .
liquor in cases where prior convictions are alleged.
, p. 28.
42
Fifteehth Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1954), p. 29.
38
Rule-making. The judicial council early employed
ita rule-making powers when it adopted rules for the
superior courts and for the supreme court and district
courts of appeal in 1928. It formulated rules on appeal
to the superior court in criminal cases in 1936 and gen
eral rules on appeal to the superior court in 1945. Rules
for the superior courts were amended effective January 1,
1949, superseding the earlier rules. New rules for the
municipal courts adopted by the council became effective
in January, 1953, at the same time that rules on appeal
to the superior court were amended.
The legislature in 1941 granted to the judicial
council power not merely to recommend or supplement, or
promulgate directory rules, but to itself formulate and
prescribe, with the force of law, rules governing pro
cédure in civil and criminal appeals in all courts of the
state and directed it to report on the rules so formulated
at the 1943 legislative session. The Rules on Appeal to
the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal were
drafted and adopted by the council, which reported thereon
to the legislature. They became effective Jûlylî--, 1943,
and conflicting statutes were repealed at the next legis
lative session. The rules were revised in 1951.
Continuing study by the judicial council of opera
tion under the rules so adopted demonstrated the necessity
39
of amending section:4c of Article VI of the constitution,
which set too short a time limitation for action on
petitions for hearing in the supreme court after decision
by the district courts of appeal. The judicial council
supported a constitutional amendment removing these re-
; strictions and giving the council authority to fix the
time limitation by rule; the amendment was presented to
and adopted by the legislature in 1955 and approved by
the voters at the general election in 1956. The judicial
council thereafter adopted amended rules effective January
1, 1957; further revision:was made in 1958, effective
January 1, 1959.
Pre-trial and Discovery Procedure. In 1955, the
. legislature authorized the judicial council to promulgate
rules providing for and governing pre-trial conferences in
, civil cases in the superior and municipal courts.The
! enactment of this statute was a result of six years of
study by the council through a committee under the ohhir-
manship of Judge Clarence L. Kincaid of the Los Angeles
Superior Court. Studies of the use of the pre-trial
conference in federal courts and other states were made.
Pilot studies were conducted in certain superior courts in
California. Preparatory to adoption of rules, the council
43
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure. see. 575-
40
submitted drafts of proposed rules to judges and lawyers
throughout the state, and public hearings were conducted.
After consideration of suggestions made by a committee of
the board of governors of the State Bar, Rules Relating
to Pre-Trial Conferences were adopted by the council as
amendments to the Rules for the Superior Courts, effective
January 1, 1957* Prior to the effective date of these
rules, a California Manual of Pre-Trial Procedure with
suggestions for conducting pfe-trial conferences was
prepared under the direction of Judge Kincaid and was
published by the council for distribution and in the
publication of the State Bar as a detachable part of its
November-December issue in 1956. Although the pre-trial
conference has not yet been considered to be of sufficient
value to be used in the municipal courts by mandatory
rule as it has been adopted for the superior courts, the
use during the first twelve months in the superior courts
resulted in a 1.5 per cent increase in the tbtal cases
disposed of per judge.
In 1957» under the sponsorship of the State Bar
with the cooperation of the judicial council, legislation
was passed substantially incorporating the federal dis
covery and deposition procedure into state law. Dis
covery and pre-trial procedure, used together as they are
44seventeenth Biennial Report. Judicial Gouncil of
California {Sacramentol 1959)» p. 55*
41
in Detroit and some other jurisdictions, reduce the trial
to a determination of the basic factual and legal issues
that are actually in dispute and eliminate the necessity
of formal proof of facts or documents about which there
is or should be no question between the parties. This
procedure often results in a speedier, more efficient
trial with a great saving of both time and expense to
litigants, witnesses and the courts. Parties to a lawsuit
are required to lay their cards on the table before the
trial begins, thus preparing each other for a contest of
the issues rather than surprises.
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Divisions « After
Michigan in 1919 and Wisconsin in 1933 had passed similar
legislation, 0^,1 if ornia passed its enabling act in 1939,
amended in 1955» providing for the establishing of con-
4 8
ciliation courts.' - ' ^ A conciliation court was established
in a department of the Los Angeles Superior Court on
September 26, 1939.
The conciliation court in Los Angeles has been
effective in a number of cases in which divorce proceed
ings were pending or imminent. During a study made for
the years 1954-1958, filings of 100 per month increased
to 200 a month, but still represent only a small part of
45
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1730972.
42
the divorce problem in Los Angeles County, where over two
thousand divorce matters are filed each month. Statistics
show that réconciliations were effected in 2499 cases, or
43 per cent of the cases heard.By I960, the number had
47
risen to about 50 per cent.
There is no filing fee charged for service in the
conciliation court in Los Angeles County, strict privacy
is observed, files are sealed and communications to coun
selors are privileged by law. The judge who presides in
the domestic relations department also presides in the
conciliation court where counseling is done by five coun
selors, most of whom have master's degrees in social
work or a related field. Parties who bring proceedings
in the domestic relations department are encouraged to
refer to the conciliation court, especially if there are
children under fourteen years of age, and members of the
bar have been cooperative in bringing their clients to
the court.
Parties, sometimes including third parties, may
sign reconciliation agreements and court orders to attempt
a reconciliation over a thirty day period. A party filling
Conciliation Court èf Los Angeles County.
Address of Honorable Louis H. Burke, Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and former Judge
of the Conciliation Court, before the Chicago Bar Associa
tion, February 23, 1959. pp. 2-3.
47
Los Angeles Times, May 17, I960.
43 '
I
j to observe the court order during the thirty days may be ’
jfound in contempt of court and in some Instances jailed. ■
!After the thirty days, either party may file for
divorce or separate maintenance, if reconciliation has ;
! 48 '
; failed. In cases of reconciliation, letters are sent at i
Î .
the end of a year to determine whether parties have ;
j I
I remained reconciled; in three out of four replies, :
I
I reconciliations remain in effect and one out of four fails.^
j I
iIn the 1954-1958 period, there were over 5,000 children I
I '
involved in the families reconciled. ,
Pursuant to a concurrent resolution of the legis
lature in 1949, the judicial council made a study of the
juvenile courts of the state to determine whether it
! would prove desirable to enlarge that court's jurisdic- ;
: 49 '
'tion. A committee of the council conducted the survey
and reported in December 1954 that no fundamental change
in the juvenile court law or in its application or adminis-
jtration by the courts appeared warranted, that adjudica-
,tion of civil actions affecting the interests of a minor
should not be vested in the juvenile courts nor should ;
' I
'their jurisdiction be extended, and that there is an '
! urgent need for improvement in the treatment, care, and
Aft
Louis H. Burke, The Gonciliation Court of Los
Angeles County (Los Angeles; n.d.), p. 7-
49
Cal. Stats. (1949), chap. 15O, p. 3289.
44
training of juveniles both before and after court hearings.
Judicial Salaries and Retirement. In 1953, the
legislature had before it over 160 bills proposing in
creases in the salaries of judges, and each of these
called for independent consideration and action. It was
found that "the establishment of salaries in this manner
wastes the time of the legislators and produces inequities
••50
in judicial compensation. The Senate Special Committee
on Governmental Administration therefore asked the judi
cial council to develop a basic formula for use by the
legislature. Historically, the chief justice has been
allowed §1,000 to §1,500 more than the other justices of
the supreme court because of his extra administrative
duties and for his services as chairman of the judicial
council and chairman of the qualifications commission.
The formula developed by the judicial council was corre
lated with the integrated judicial system of courts of
record, was easy to apply, and consisted of a graduated
salary scale, descending from the supreme court to the
municipal courts, with differentials of $1,500 between
the court levels. Legislation in 1959 changed the differ-
^^Fifteenth Biennial Report. Judicial Council of
California (Sacramento: 1954), p. 30.
45.
ential to §2,000.51 The chief justice of the supreme
court receives $28,000 and all other judicial salaries are
downgraded from it. The associate justices of the supreme
court receive $2,000 less, the justices of the district
courts of appeals receive $4,000 less, the judges in the
superior courts in counties of 100,000 population or over
receive $8,000 less, the judges of the superior courts in
counties of less than 100,000 population receive $10,000
less, judges of municipal courts in counties of 250,000
population or over receive $10,000 less, and judges of
municipal courts in counties of less than 250,000 popu
lation receive $12,000 less. The formula provides a fairly
equitable compensation for judges of the various levels of
courts and facilitates salary increases by the addition
of the same amount, as $500 or $1,000, to the scale.
Legislation passed in 1959 also improved the
judicial retirement system.5^ It facilitates retirement
of a judge at an age earlier than ?0 if he so elects and
provides that a judge with twenty years of service may
retire on 75 per cent of his salary. Provision was made
also for the spouse of a judge to receive one-half of his
retirement under certain conditions. A retired judge
^^Cal. Stats. (1959), chap, 1746.
^^Cal. Stats. (1959), chap. 1363.
46)
may be assigned to a court with his consent and receive
the difference between his retirement allowance and the
compensâtiom of a judge of the court to which he is
53
assigned by the judicial council.
Relations with the Bar and Other Groups. The
judicial council has always worked closely with the State
Bar of California which has rendered to it valuable assist
ance both by its public relations activities in the field
of judicial reform and by the work of its committees in
the actual drafting of legislation. The State Bar of
California was brought into the bar integration movement
54
in 1927• The State Bar is a public corporation composed
of all members of the bar in California and functions as
an administrative arm of the supreme court in matters of
admission and discipline of attorneys at law. The board
of governors of the State Bar is by statute permitted
to aid in matters pertaining to the advancement of the
science of jurisprudence or to the improvement of the
administration of justice.
The California Law Revision Commission is another
body which works in close liaison with the judicial coun
cil in order that duplication of effort may be avoided as
53
Cal. Stats. (1959), chap. 1916.
54
Cal. Business and Professions Code. sec. 6000.
47
well as valuable mutual assistance rendered. This com
mission was created in 1953 by the legislature upon com
pletion of the work of the California Code Commission.
IBy the same legislation, the Legislative Counsel was
directed to continue the study of maintenance of the codes,
and the work of recommendation of substantive changes was
vested in the Law Revision Commission. At each legisla
tive session the commission must submit a calendar of
topics selected for study, as well as a list of studies
in progress and subjects for future consideration. The
commission is limited in its study to the topics approved
by concurrent resolution of the legislature. The Law
Revision Commission's headquarters is at Stanford
University.
The judicial council owes its origin largely to
the efforts of a committee of the Commonwealth Club of
California under the leadership of Professor Samuel G.
May of the department of political science of the Univer
sity of California. The cooperation and planning of the
Commonwealth Club have been influential on many reforms
in judicial administration. The Conference of California
Judges has furnished leadership and influence.
Metropolitan Los Angceles. The study of the metro
politan trial courts of the Los Angeles area made by
Professor James G. Holbrook of the University of Southern
48
1
■California was the second such study in recent years, the
first having been that of Detroit in 1950. As a result of
i
this comprehensive study of all the court systems of the |
I
-area, several recommendations were made, of which eight or ]
I more have been carried out and others have been adopted I
I with modification. One of them v/as the provision for an
I executive officer of the Los Angeles Superior Court. This
I
new officer took his position on September 2, 1958 and
has charge of the non-judicial functions of the court,
j The Los Angeles Superior Court has operated as an
^integrated court system under a presiding judge and master
; calendar system for more than thirty years. Instead of *
ibeing selected by the judicial council or its chairman,
the presiding judge is chosen democratically by all the
judges of the superior court and thus has their confidence
jand cooperation. Pre-trial conferences were used in Los
Angeles long before they became mandatory in civil cases
throughout the state in January, 1957» Studies are con
tinually being made to improve the administration of
! justice in this court, the largest trial court of general
I
I jurisdiction in the nation and one of the most efficient.
] As a result of the large number of automobiles, one :
I '
for every two people, and the tremendous increase in
county population, up 200,000 in 1958 and to 6,000,000
in I960 ; personal injury cases constitute a real problem
49
in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Many litigants demand
a jury in these cases because they fear the prejudice of
a judge. To cope with the backlog of these cases, the
court established on April 21, 1958 a personal injury
non-jury panel of judges, all ten chosen for their impar
tiality. From three lists, ten judges were chosen whose
names had overlapped from one to the other list. If both
parties in a suit decide to waive a jury, each has a right
to choose one exception in the matter of which judge
should try the case. After each party has been permitted
one exception, the next judge available tries the case.
Sometimes there have been as many as four jury waivers in
one day. During June, 1958, this plan saved not less than
56 court dsiys, equivalent to adding two and one-half
; judges to the civil pool, because the average trial time
for a personal Injury case is three and one-half days if
tried by a jury and one day if tried by a judge without
55
a jury. By the end of the year an estimated 350 trial
court days had been saved.
Another technique, one which is closely related or
combined with pre-trial procedure, is that of assigning
to one pre-trial judge seven cases involving the same in
surance company in one day. The plaintiff's counsel
55
Clyde C. Triplett, "Progress Report: Personal
Injury Non-jury Panel," Los Angeles Bar Bulletin, 33: 297,
August, 1958.
50
and the clains manager with his counsel may attend. It
may be used on different days with different judges.
About five out of seven oases can be settled in this way.
The plan saves a great deal of time for the insurance
company, as well as for the courts. A pre-trial settle
ment calendar has developed which parties may voluntarily
choose instead of the regular pre-trial calendar.
Jurisdictional problems have arisen in civil cases
in Los Angeles County because the limited recovery value
In the municipal courts in $3,000 and if the ease is tried
in that court it is limited to that amount. This throws
more personal injury cases into the superior court. It
has been found, however, that 39 per cent of all recover
ies in the superior court of Los Angeles were for less
than $3,000 and should have been filed in the municipal
court. Under present legislation, only the judicial
council can by order transfer these cases to the munici
pal court. It has been proposed that the superior court
be given the power to transfer these cases by order, if
recoveries are estimated to be less than $3,000, to the
municipal court which would be permitted to award over
that amount, if warranted, as it cannot do under the
present law; this provision would be similar to the law
of New Jersey. Another proposal would be to raise the
jurisdictional amount of the municipal court to $10,000;
51
an objection to this proposal would be that litigants
would ask for more than $10,000 and, get the case into the
superior court anyway. It has also been suggested that
the municipal courts of the county be merged with the
superior court. It appears that the transfer of cases to
'the proper jurisdiction as early as possible would be the
better solution, but rights of litigants should be in no
way abridged because of the transfer.
In 1959» legislation was passed permitting the
board of supervisors to provide for a multi-judge regional
branch courts plan for Los Angeles County and to prevent
a further increase in the number of branches of the
superior court except under the plan. Accordingly the
1 board of supervisors passed an ordinance providing for
such a system substantially as recommended by the branch
courts committee of judges. It is a developing program;
but the Long Beach branch was already established in the
fall of 1959 and by January I960 all nine regional branch
courts had been established, replacing the former ten
branches.
The Los Angeles Superior Court has made excellent
pregress considering its many problems, one of which has
been the shortage of judges in comparison with the in-
creaaed case load. Presiding Judge Burke has been of the
opinion that, since new techniques have been developed.
52
the court can get along on one judge for each 60,000
population;statistics show a relative increase in court
business along with the increase in the population over a
great many years. Request was made for 12 more judges at
the legislative session in 1959; the request was granted,
authorizing a total of 102 judges for the superior court.
Legislation could well be enacted to provide for an extra
judge each time the population reaches an increased 60,000
because long-range planning is needed. The backlog in
creased by 5,000 cases in the past two years; however,
the backlog on January 1, I960 of 16,334 cases is a
smaller per cent of the total of 134,933 eases filed
during 1959 than is the percentage in many jurisdictions.
The time from issue to trial for civil cases, on
January 1, I960, was 14 months for juryv cases and 8
months for non-jury cases. The delay is considered by
Presiding Judge Burke to be due mainly to delaying
tactics, inadequate cooperation in pre-trial, and
population increases necèssitating more judges.
Summary. The judicial council of Oalifornia owes
its success first of all to its establishment by consti
tutional amendment and its power over rule-making, thereby
becoming relatively independent of both the legislature
56
Interview with Presiding Judge Burke, March 25,
1959.
53
and the governor. As it is composed entirely of judges,
it has built firmly and solidly and has been independent
of the bar and of other organizations while experiencing
the finest kind of cooperation with them as well as with
the legislature and the governor. While the council has
been definitely active in its support of legislation it
approved, it has been equally active in opposing legisla
tion which it disapproved, as was indicated in two instan
ces above ; nor has it tried to influence legislation
which does not concern it. It has generally been the
practice of governors in recent years to request the
opinion of the judicial council on all bills affecting
courts or judges. For example, in 1955 the governor
■requested the council's opinion on more than 190 measures.
Definite recommendations of approval or disapproval were
given on more than 50 of these bills, and in the case of
most of the remainder it was reported after study that
definite recommendations would not be made for the reason
that the legislation was not particularly the concern of
the council. The judicial Council has always kept the
good of the people uppermost in its mind, has used no
bureaucratic or authoritarian methods, and projects its
policy only after the most careful and detailed study and
with the cooperation of those concerned.
The success of the judicial council of California
54
is due in no small measure to the stature of the two chief
justices who have served as chairmen and to its composi
tion only of judges, and of judges from all levels of the
court system. Chief Justice William H. Waste organized
the council more than thirty years ago and guided it on
the road of study, investigation, administration and
building of confidence, with moderate but ever progressing
Reforms until his death in 1940. Since June 10, 1940,
Chief Justice Phil Sheridan Gibson, the judge and the
statesmanlike administrator, has led the council in
superintending the court system and in outstanding
reforms. The judicial council of California is a model
judicial council and it appears it will remain a model
.in judicial administration as long as it is composed of
Well-qualified judges from all levels of the court
system.
CHAPTER III
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN OHIO
I. EARLY DEVELOPMENTS
Authority. Composition and Functions of the
Judicial Council. Ohio had the first judicial council of
any state in the nation and it has functioned continuously
The judicial council of Ohio was created by an Act of
April 6, 1923*^ The judicial council was organized on
January 25, 1924
. . . for the continuous study of the organization,
rules and methods of procedure and practice of the
judicial system of the State of Ohio, the work
accomplished and the results produced by that system
and its various parts.^
The council was originally composed of the chief justice
of the supreme court, two judges of the supreme court
chosen by that court, the chief justice of the court of
appeals, one judge of the court of common pleas to be
chosen by the judges of the common pleas court at an
annual meeting of those judges, one municipal judge
appointed by the municipal judges of the state at an
^110 Ohio Laws (1923), pp. 364-365; amended, 114
Ohio Laws (193Î7, p. 129; 119 Ohio Laws (1941). p. 720;
121 Ohio Laws (1945), p. 137; 122 Ohio Laws (1947), p. 60;
127 Ohio Laws (1957); Ohio Rev. ^Gpde [1953), and Supp.,
sec. 105.51-105.56.
2
110 Ohio Laws *(1923), p. 364.
56
annual meeting of those judges, and three practicing
attorneys appointed by the governor. Annual meetings of
judges were being held already in the early 1920Is. By
1931, the membership was changed; the two judges of the
supreme court and the chief justice of the court of
i appeals were replaced by one judge of the court of appeals
chosen by the judges of the court of appeals at an annual
meeting of those judges and one probate judge selected by
the probate judges of the state at an annual meeting of
those judges. In 1941, the judicial council recommended
its membership be increased to 13 members, including the
attorney general, the chairmen of the senate and house
judiciary committees, the president of the Ohio Bar, and
the supreme court reporter, all of which were added by
1943. By 1947, there were 14 members with the addition
of a member selected by the League of Ohio Law Schools;
by 1949, a juvenile court judge, chosen by the juvenile
court judges of the state at an annual meeting of those
judges, was added; and in 1957, the addition of the
newly created administrative assistant to the supreme
court brought the membership to 16.
The judicial council is empowered to: report
biennially to the general assembly concerning the work
of the administrative agencies of the state government
and of the various branches of the judicial system with
57
its recommendations for modification of existing condi
tions ; submit such suggestions as it deems advisable for
the consideration of the judges of the various courts and
heads of administrative agencies with relation to rules,
practice and procedure; require clerks of courts and other
officials to make reports to the council on such matters
I
and in such form periodically, as the council prescribes;
and hold public hearings, administer oaths and require
attendance of witnesses and production of documents.
Since 1931, the council may receive gifts, bequests and
devises and expend the same for special research or study
relating to the administration of justice; and it is since
1945 that the functions of the council have included
I recommendations to administrative agencies.
Beps;inninp:s of Judicial Administration: the Cleve
land Municipal Court. Long before the judicial council
; was authorized, a concerted effort had been made for im
proving the administration of justice in Ohio. In 1905,
the Legal Aid Society made a study of the evils of the
justice of the peace system. Patterned after the munici
pal court of Chicago, which Was the first trial court in
the nation with a chief justice having administrative
power to assign judges and classify the business of the
court, the municipal court of Cleveland was established
in 193)0 with the authorization for a chief justice
58
* 5
as an administrative head. On March 15, 1913, a con
ciliation branch to the municipal court of Cleveland was
opened to take care of small claims; one judge was
assigned to the branch two afternoons a week, there were
no lawyers as middlemen, and the cost to litigants was
4
twenty-five to thirty-five cents. The municipal court of
Chicago patterned after this court in establishing its
small claims division. Judge Levine stated that much
criticism applied to the administration of justice in
other courts may be traced to the following sources:
1) Lack of understanding; ignorance on the part of
the people as to the function of the court; failure on
the part of the judges to know or recognize the needs
of the people;
2) Wasteful, lengthy, cumbersome, and out-of-date
procedure; _
3) Heavy and burdensome court costs.^
Survey of Criminal Justice in Cleveland. The Sur
vey of Criminal Justice in Cleveland was the first crime
survey in the United States and the results were reported
in 1922, the year before the judicial council was author
ized and almost two years before it was organized.
5
Ohio Rev. Code. sec. 1901.01 et seq.
^Manuel Levine, "The Branch Court of Conciliation
of the Municipal Court of Cleveland," in American
Judicature Society. Informal Procedure, Bulletin VIII
Chicago: 1915), P* 6.
5
Loc. cit.
59
Several recommendations were made.^ The order and system
of the municipal court was praised and recommendation was
made for a similar system for the common pleas court with
a chief justice as administrative head.' It was stated
that successful judicial administration needs "Sound con-
Q
trolling ideas, sound organization, and sound men."
Evils were found not only in organization and system, but
also in the qualifications of personnel which were
attributed to politics and the method of selection of
Q
judges.’ ' Improper practices in jury services were found
in Cuyahoga County where there was a 6GO per cent increase
in acquittals in seven years. There was a need for
greater civic responsibility.
The Integrated Court of Common Fleas in Cleveland.
The court of common pleas of Cuyahoga County in Cleveland
became in 1923 the first trial court of general juris
diction to have a chief justice with administrative
powers and duties. A law had been passed in Ohio on
March 13, 1923, effective July 3, 1923, permitting
^The Cleveland Foundation, Survey of Criminal
Justice in Cleveland (Cleveland: The Cleveland Foundation,
1922), pp. 354-372.
Ibid., p. 567.
®Ibld., p. 355.
9
Ibid.. pp. 362-363.
60
judges of common pleas courts having more than two judges
to choose an administrative head from their numbers to
serve the remainder of his term.Judge Homer G. Powell
was chosen the first chief justice and served for several
terms, from July 1923 when the new act was adopted by the
judges until December 20, 1946, after which time he served
as associate judge until his death on December 12, 1950.
In the civil division, there was assignment of
judges and also assignment of cases by an assignment com
missioner. The chief justice made a weekly report to all
judges showing the number of cases filed, the number of
cases disposed of by each judge, and the gain or loss of
cases disposed of over the filings for the preceding week.
Each judge knew at all times how much work each of the
other judges was doing and the state of the docket.
During the first year, remarkable progress indicated that
58 per cent more civil cases were tried per judge in
September 1923 than in September 1922.
The judicial council noted in its first report the
efficiency under Chief Justice Homer G. Powell in Cuyahoga
County in the seven year period from 192291929 and
^^Ohio Gen. Code, sec. 1558.
^^Homer G. Powell, "Success of Business Principles
in a City Court," Journal of the American Judicature
Society. 7: 173, February, 1924.
61
resolved: "that public welfare requires and efficiency and
economy demand that there be a unification of the Courts
12
of the State of Ohio with an executive head." The
volume of business increased over 50 per cent, from 13,952
cases filed in 1922 to 21,542 in 1929; the eases tried
I increased from 10,993 to 20,505; the number of judges
remained stationary; but the average number of cases disp
posed of per judge increased from 697 to 1206, or 70 per
cent. The average cost per ease decreased from $38.25 to
$21.30 by 1927. This reduction was achieved even though
the combined increase in judges* salaries advanced from
$17,201.36 in 1923-1924 to $61,821.45 in 1927; considering
the decrease in cost per case, the system saved the people
of the county an estimated $1,039,833*59 in a little over
13
four years.
Some valuable conclusions were drawn after observa
tion of the effectiveness of this court. Chief Justice
Powell concluded that "Ninety per cent of the inefficiency
in the administration of justice can be overcome by the
14
court employing business principles used by business men"
Published reports are necessary for courts as well
12
First Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1931), pp. 13-14.
Court Supervision Wins in Cleveland," Journal of
the American Judicature Society. 12: 12, June, 1928.
^^Powell, op. cit., p. 174.
62
as for administrative agencies of government and no proper
administration of justice can be afforded in a large
center except through a system of supervision and period
ical reporting; the judicial department can no more give
efficient service without knowing what is going on than
15
any other branch of government. The effects produced
were or#er and system, promptness in bringing cases to
16
trial, and a saving of time for judges and others.
Several techniques for efficiency were adopted and
developed. A division of arbitration was created in 1931
to inquire into the possibility of settlements of cases.
Conciliation was early used in Cleveland, though it was
not until about 1936 that it was better perfected. It
has been claimed that the idea of pre-trial actually
originated with the efficient system in Cleveland in
cluding calendar control, much of which was devoted to
pre-trial steps in hearings before the chief justice.
The system lacked only a little of what was later added in
Detroit; that was the essential element of determination
of the issue. Pre-trial procedure w#s first used in
Detroit in 1929; it was adopted by rule in Cleveland
1 R
"Court Supervision Wins in Cleveland," Journal of
the American Judicature Society. 12: 11-12, June, 1928.
"Interest Grows in Cleveland," Journal of the
American Judicature Society. 14: 154-155, February, I931.
63
on July 28, 1939; pre-trial procedure and a consolidated
docket plan, modelled on the Detroit system, became
effective in Boston on September 1, 1935* By Rule 212,
Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt pre-trial
procedure in 1939, while pre-trial was still ignored in
all of Michigan outside Detroit. It was not until about
1942 that it was used more generally throughout Ohio; and
not even all of the eight most populous counties use it
today, on regular basis in all civil cases.
Although names had been taken from polling lists
since 1915, the key-number system for the selection of
17'
jurors originated in Cleveland in 1931* The number of
jurors needed for a year was estimated and used as a
divisor ofIthe number of registered voters; if the number
was 25, every twenty-fifth name was taken and the person
was summoned and examined. No excuse was accepted, but
on good cause a juror could select a more convenient time
for serving* After he had served two weeks, he would not
be called for at least twenty years.
The key-number system spread to Detroit just as
had the calendar and assignment system of Cleveland.
According to the Detroit juror plan, effective July 1,
1932, the number of jurors was estimated for six months
17
"Jury Service Elevated in Cleveland," Journal of
the American Judicature Society. 15= 8 - 9 , June, 1931*
64
st a time.Half the panel was replaced every two weeks
to have an experienced, staggered number of jurors. The
circuit court in Detroit had become integrated somewhat
after the pattârn of Cleveland and Judge Ira W. Jayne had
been chosen executive judge on September 29, 1930.
The idea of court integration under a presiding
judge was incorporated in a California amendment in 1926.
In 1935» under Judge Fletcher Bowron, the Los Angeles
Superior Court adopted the Cleveland assignment system.
The key-number system for the selection of jurors was
also used in Los Angeles already in the 1930's.
Purposes and Early Activities of the Judicial
Council. Among the first members of the judicial council
of Ohio, was Judge Florence E. Allen who was the first
woman to serve on a judicial council and the first woman
to serve on any supreme court in the nation, according to
this author's knowledge. She came to the supreme court
from the lower court in Cleveland and later served in the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit,
in Akron, from which position she retired on October 8,
1959.
In order to carry out the purposes for which it
18 '
"Detroit's New Jury Selection Law," Journal of
the American Judicature Society. 15: 123, December, 1931.
65
was created, the judicial council undertook a three year
program of the study of judicial administration in the
state in cooperation with the Institute of Law of the
Johns Hopkins University and the Ohio Bar Association,
with the following objectives:
1) To study the trends of litigation and to ascer
tain its human causes and effects;
2) To study the machinery and the functioning of
the various agencies and offices which directly and
indirectly have to do with the administration of law;
3) To locate precisely and definitely the reasons
for delays, expenses and uncertainty in litigation;
4) To institute a permanent system of judicial
records and statistics which will provide automatical
ly information now secured after great labor;
5) To detect the points at which changes in sub
stantive law would contribute markedly to social
justice;
6) To consider the results of the aforesaid
analyses and studies and make appropriate recommenda
tions based t h e r e o n . 49
The judicial council was fortunate to have the cooperation
of these groups.
The judicial council took stodk of the benefits of
the constitutional amendments of 1912:
As a result of the limitation of the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, that court has been able to
clear its docket of congestion. Causes are heard as
soon as they.are prepared and decided with a prompt
ness which was impossible under former conditions.
The power to transfer judges of the courts of common
pleas and courts of appeals from one jurisdiction to
another has made it possible to relieve every court
4^Pirst Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1931), p. 11.
66
in the state from congestion and make the proverbial
law's delay an empty name.
The council commented that the "State of Ohio is ten years
ahead of the federal congress," which authorized the
federal judicial conference and its power to assign
PI
judges in 1922.
Already in the early 1920's, organizations of
judges had been formed on the various levèls and were
helping to bring about uniformity in court practices :
Our judges of the municipal, common pleas and pro
bate courts, prosecuting attorneys of the counties
and city solicitors of the cities and villages have
formed organizations which are rendering effective
service and have been the means of solving problems
peculiar to their respective branches of judicial
administration.^^
Control over practice and procedure has been a
primary objective of the judicial council from the
beginning. Effort was early made to restore full rule-
making power to the courts :
One of the cardinal principles of our republic
form of government is that of division of the powers
of government into three separate and distinct
branches. By nearly all students of republic govern
ment this principle of separation of powers has been
considered one of the very essentials of the system,
20
"statement of the Judicial Council of Ohio to
the Ohio Bar Association," 46 Ohio Bar Association Reports
15 (1925), p. 18.
21
Ibid. , p. 20.
22
Ibid., p. 19.
67.
and every good is attributed to this principle and
every evil is attributed to departure from it. And
yet it seems never to have seriously occurred to
those same students of government that by conferring
upon the legislatures the power to provide rules of
practice and procedure we have grossly depa.rted from
this fundamental principle.
At first the judicial council attempted to secure
rule-making power for itself, even though it was not
composed entirely of judges. A proposal was made to amend
the Judicial Council Act by adding thereto :
Sec. 6. The Judicial Council of Ohio shall have
plenary power to prescribe and establish and regulate
by general rudes: the venue of actions and the
joinder of motions and of parties, summons, process,
writs, pleadings, practice and procedure — in civil
actions; and the entry, opening or vacation of
decrees, judgments and orders therein during term or
thereafter.
Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or magnify
the substantive rights of any litigant or statute of
limitations or survival. They shall be submitted to
the General Assembly by the Judicial Council and shall
take effect three months after the adjournment of the
General Assembly to which they have been submitted,
and shall supersede all laws and rules in conflict
therewith except to the extent that they have been
modified or vetoed by such General Assembly.
The Judicial Council shall in the same manner have
the power from time to time to supplement, abridge,
modify or amend such rules.
The council continued to recommend such a plan until about
1935, when Dean H.W* Arant of the Ohio State University
made a study. In its fourth report, the judicial council
, pp. 21-22.
24
First Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1931), p. 24.
68
changed its plan to a recommendation for rule-making
power to be vested in the supreme court, with the judicial
25
council serving as an advisory committee. The judicial
I council has continued to recommend this plan, although
I it has not yet been realized.
!
j During the first year, the judicial council con-
;sidered a number of specific, proposed reforms on a great
^variety of subjects which further reflect the purposes of
I
! the council as follows:
i
To formulate rules of procedure whereby cases may
be brought to trial and disposed of more quickly;
To give to courts more power in formulating rules
of practice and procedure;
To bring about reforms in criminal procedure to do
away with technicalities and to bring about better law
enforcement;
To limit the work of grand juries, or possibly
abolish the grand jury system entirely;
To limit and discourage preliminary motions and
demurrers, and especially those which are apparently
designed for purposes of delay;
To unify the courts of the state ;
To have a uniform code of jurisdiction, practice
and procedure for the municipal courts of the state;
To bring all the trial courts within a single
system with jurisdiction broad enough to cover all
civil, criminal, probate, domestic relations and
insolvency jurisdiction;
To bring about reforms whereby the judges of the
state may not only be elected but nominated on the
non-oartisan basis.
I 25
Fourth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
:(Columbus: 1939), p. 23-
j "statement of the Judicial Council of Ohio to the
: Ohio Bar Association," 46 Ohio Bar Association Reports 15
I(1925), p. 23.
69
Survey of Meeds for Judicial Administration; The
Johns Hopkins University Study. The Institute of Law of
Johns Hopkins University and the committees of the judicial
council and the state bar association, during their three
'year study, produced a steady stream of data and research
'that aided substantially the deliberations of the council
27
in solving its many problems. The study furnished the
. largest mass of information ever gathered, up to that
time, concerning litigation in any American state; it was
the first time an accurate record had been compiled of the
expenditures of public money for the administration of
justice in an American state. Besides several reports
and pamphlets, twelve bulletins and about ten monographs
,resulted from the study; of special significance were
the studies and recommendations on statistics, procedure,
and unification and reorganization of the courts. The
suggested uniform municipal court act grew out of the
study, and also the suggested appellate procedural
reforms.
The system of judicial statistics was devised not
only to meet the needs of Ohio, but also to provide com
parable data from other jurisdictions. In cooperation
27
The Johns Hopkins University, Institute of Law,
Study - of Judicial Administration in Ohio (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1930-32), Bulletins 1-12.
70
with experts and practical workers from other institutions
and states, the Institute of Law developed a standard
‘classification of offenses which was adopted by the United
States Bureau of the Census for penal statistics and by
the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice
for police statistics. The Institute of Law developed
other classifications basic to judicial criminal statis
tics and tested these classifications by extensive field
work. It was hoped that some department of the federal
government would utilize these classifications in collect
ing judicial criminal statistics from cooperating states;
and that, in consequence, the data developed in Ohio would
be studied in the light of comparative data from other
,states. The council cooperated in the gathering of the
; data from the minor courts which appeared in Ohio
Criminal Statistics. 1931, a monograph prepared jointly
by the Institute of Law and the Ohio Institute and the
first integrated report on criminal statistics which had
28
been made for an American state. Professor Leon G.
Marshall of the Institute of Law directed comparative
studies of judicial criminal statistics by comparing
statistics in Ohio with statistics in the state of
28
Institute of Law and the Ohio Institute, Ohio
Criminal Statistics. 1931 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1932), 189 pp.
71
Maryland,and by comparing them with statistics in
: 50
Maryland, New Jersey, Iowa, Delaware and Rhode Island.
'Dr. Ronald H. Beattie, research statistician of the Bureau
of the Census, assisted the secretary of state and the
I judicial council in the gathering of criminal statistics
in an attempt to establish an adequate system that would
be informative and useful throughout the states.
The Municipal Court Act. One of the council’s
primary objectives, as indicated in its first report, was
to study and to continue to study methods of making uni
form, so far as practicable, the jurisdiction, practice
and procedure in the municipal courts. There were many
Iobjections to this reform because the municipal courts
‘ had been established on the basis of ho$e rule, and many
difficulties were encountered because of the differentt
problems in the various communities; but some things
could be standardized and made uniform. Former Governor
Donmhey was of the opinion.that municipal courts should be
organized under a general law and, during his term of
!office, discontinued signing special acts creating such
29
Leon Carroll Marshall, Comparative Judicial
Criminal Statisticsi Ohio and Maryland (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1932), 83 pp.
^^Leon Carroll Marshall, Comparative Judicial
Criminal Statistics : Six States . 1931 (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1932), 61 pp.
72
courts. In 1931, after signing special acts and increas
ing the volume of such acts to more than two hundred pages
in the General Gode, former Governor White urged the
judicial council and the state bar association to draft
a uniform municipal court act.
j Dr. Hessel E. Yntema of the Institute of Law,
cooperating with the committees of the judicial council
and the state bar association, prepared a comparative
study of the then 33 special acts creating municipal
courts and 7 creating municipal police courts. Great
variety was found in the organization, jurisdictional
powers, and practice and procedure of these courts, and
many jurisdictions were concurrent with those of coui?ts
of common pleas. Accordingly, under the same authorship,
a draft was made for a uniform municipal court act for the
31
state of Ohio. There were only two minor criticisms by
the judicial council, but the proposed legislation did not
pass. It was not until June 11, 1951 that a new, uniform
municipal court act was passed and approved and by that
time separate acts had created 39 municipal courts; to
prevent controversies, detailed procedural provisions
^^Hessel E. Yntema, Draft of a Uniform Municipal
Court Act for the State of Ohio Bulletin VII (Baltimore:
n.d.), 47 pp.
73
Judge-Robert L. McBride stressed the importance of
were avoided.
la uniform municipal court act:
Federal and state courts are organized on a uniform
system. The same structure, jurisdiction, and pro
cedure is provided for each court within the system,
This uniformity provides adequate organization,
efficient administration, and coordination of
machinery and procedure. The only courts in Ohio
which do not possess these important considerations
are the municipal courts.
Each municipal court has been established by a
separate act of the Legislature and therefore the
structure, jurisdiction and procedure of each court is
governed by each particular act. There is no uniform
ity, no organization, no system, and no coordination.
Municipal courts have few common threads to hold their
organization and procedure together. . . .
A major portion of all litigation in Ohio is dis
posed of in municipal courts. Intricate, new and
novel questions of genuine public Interest are
constantly decided in cases involving small claims.
Decisions— even on appeal— establish no safe general
precedent because they are based upon divergent
special enactments and are applicable to but one
community. This is organized confusion. . . .
To dispose of one question for all municipal courts
now requires 39 expensive trips through the appellate
courts.
A single procedure will facilitate the disposition
of small claims, minimize costs, economize on time.
It will go far to reduce the volume of litigation in
which honest judicial questions must be decided by
the courts. It will curtail also the expense of 39
appeals presently required by 39 different court acts.
The constant patching that must be done every two
years by the Legislature for 39 local courts is a
reckless situation because each amendment affects the
fundamental oower of some court and disturbs the
32
Robert L. Wills, "The New Ohio Municipal Court
Act," Ohio State Law Journal. 12: 314, Spring, 1951.
74
rights and-z privilege s of the citizens in the community
involved.
The new municipal court act established a municipal
court in about 55 municipalities and provided that these
municipal courts shall have jurisdiction within the
corporate limits of their respective municipal corporations
and that they shall be courts of record though not of
34
general jurisdiction. By the act, the jurisdiction of
justices of the peace was terminated in any part of a
township which was included in the territory of a
municipal court. Terms of all judges were fixed at six
years and judges were required to be residents and to have
practiced law for five years. Provision was made for
presiding judges according to the size of the court. In
municipal courts having twelve or more judges, one of the
judges shall be elected to serve the remainder of his
term as chief justice. In those having three to eleven
judges, the presiding judge shall be selected by the
judges on the second Monday in January of even numbered
years. In those having only two judges, the one whose
term next expires shall be designated presiding judge.
33
Robert L. McBride, ’ ’Municipal Court Reform is
Necessary," 23 Ohio Bar Association Reports 679 (1950),
pp. 679-681.
34“
Richard D. Haney, "The Ohio Municipal Court Act,"
University of Cincinnati Law Review. 21: 285-289,
May, 1952.
Jurisdiction: was established to cover matters up to
$2,000, except in-Cleveland where the amount was $5,000
to which it had been raised in 1935. The municipal judges
were given power to adopt, publish and revise rules not
inconsistent with the law, for the regulation of the
practice and procedure of their respective courts and for
the selection and manner of summoning persons to serve as
jurors. Thus some discretion was permitted in procedure.
Significant was the indirect effect upon justice
of the peace courts. Studies had been made of the justice
of the peace courts as a part of the Johns Hopkins
University study; one was made by Silas A. Harris
While studies were limited during the next few years, due
to lack of funds, the judicial council studied and ap
proved bills proposed by the bar association to abolish
the office of the justice of the peace. To make effec
tive the transfer of the cases from the justice of the
peace courts to the common pleas or municipal courts, it
appeared that it would be necessary to make some change
in trial by jury. To accomplish this, the bar association
advocated that jury trials should be waived unless the
parties, prior to the trial date, file a request for jury
trial and deposit with the court an amount equal to
Third Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1935), pp. 11-23.
76
one-half of one day's jury fees. The Municipal Court Act
of 1951, effective January 1, 1952, automatically dis
placed 67 justices of the peace in the creation of
municipal courts in fifteen additional counties.
Appellate Court Reform. The Johns Hopkins Univer
sity study also resulted in suggested reforms in the
appellate courts. Silas A. Harris wrote a monograph on
appellate courts and appellate procedure in Ohio in which
he analyzed appellate procedure in other states and cases
for review on all pertinent levels of the Ohio court
system including the supreme court, the courts of appea^ls,
and the common pleas courts from the inferior courts. He
then drafted legislation to provide a simplified method
of appellate procedure, with the assistance of the judicial
council committee and the committee on judicial adminis
tration and legal reform of the bar association.^^ The
work of the committees may be described as follows :
Suggestions for change in the Ohio system of
appellate review were carefully examined at numerous
meetings by the participants in the study; and the
resultant product was considered by the Bar Associa
tion at its July meeting and also at three subsequent
regional meetings. As finally drawn, the proposed
changes consist of two parts. One part is a suggested
amendment of the Constitution of Ohio with respect to
^^Silas A. Harris, Draft of Legislation to Provide
a Simplified Method of Appellate Review. Bulletin IX
"(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1932), 12 pp.
77
the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals; the other is
a draft of legislation to simplify the provisions for
instituting and conducting appeal proceedings.
It is considered that the Constitution should place
no restriction upon the jurisdiction of the court of
appeals, and particularly should not provide for rigid
and arbitrary procedure. The court should be given
the power to adjust its procedure to meet the
exigencies of society; and rigid, arbitrary and ,_
antiquated legalistic concepts should be abolished. '
The amendment was to change the constitution to give the
courts of appeals such jurisdiction "as may be provided
by law#" However, the amendment was not passed and ap
proved until November 7, 1944, effective January 1, 1945.
Then the judicial council sought a statute to establish
by law the jurisdiction of the courts pursuant to the
authority granted by the amendment, but it was not until
October 4, 1955, that it was enacted into law and became
38
effective. Again it took about twenty years to effect
desired reforms.
The Federal Rules and Procedural Reform. The
judicial council acclaimed as an outstanding achievement
the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by
the United States Supreme Court in 1938. One of the
purposes was to provide a model code of procedure which
37
Second Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1933), p. 14.
^^Thirteenth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1957I, p. 8.
78
could be adopted by the states and approximate a uniform
procedure throughout the entire country. Many states
showed an interest in adopting some of the provisions of
the rules. Some of the advantages of the new rules were
the elimination of much of the rigidity and formality in
formulation of issues, permitting of joinder of claims and
issues based upon their convenience of trial rather than
upon traditional legalistic concepts, and setting up of
devices to eliminate from the trial unnecessary and sham
issues tb the end that there may be a more economical
trial procedure. The judicial council studied the rules
during the following biennium. It held eight, two-day
sessions, two of which were held jointly with the judicial
administration and legal reform committee of the state bar
association. It was felt unwise to adopt the rules com
pletely as many rules did not substantially change the
state practice and any unimportant change might be more
I confusing than advantageous. The council made eight
, important recommendations for change, including pre-trial
procedure, summary judgment procedure, and broader use of
39
interrogatories to parties. The council also pressed
for the conferring of rule-making power on the supreme
39
Fourth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1939), p. 7*
79
court with the judicial council designated as an advisory
committee.
There had bedn a movement in Ohio for procedural
i reform in 1914 and Governor Gox had appointed a commission
of leading jurists to study it. The commission recom
mended to transfer to the supreme court the power to
control procedure by court rule, to give absolute rule-
making power. A statute was proposed to the general
assembly in 1915 but no action was taken. This was an
advanced step, for at that time only New Jersey in 1912
and Colorado in 1913 had such statutes. Delaware and
Washington had followed in 1925; Maryland, in 1927;
Florida, in 1929; Wisconsin, in 1929; Rhode Island, in
1930; Tennessee, in 1932; New Mexico, in 1933; West
Virginia, in 1935; Indiana, Pennsylvania, and South
Dakota, in 1937; and two states by their constitutions
had established rule-making power in the courts, Michigan
in 1950 and Arkansas in 1938. Arizona, Nebraska, and
Texas followed in 1939 and Idaho, Iowa, and North Dakota
in 1941.
The judicial council was of the opinion thht
Much of the time that is consumed by litigants in
a court is not due to any action of the courts but is
result of antiquated procedural statutes. No one
thing brings more criticism upon the courts than
delay encountered by litigants when attempting to
recover their just claims. In some instances, the
80
courts are without power to eliminate delays.
The judicial council appointed a committee to make a
complete study of procedure and report to the general
assembly. A questionaire on procedure was circulated to
the bench and bar of the state on June 26, 1946 and the
judicial council reported its results in 194?. But rules
based on the federal rules were never substantially adopt
ed in Ohio.
Relation to the Administrâtive Agencies. The
Administrative Law Commission, created by an act of May,
1941, was influential in getting the Administrative
Procedures Act of 1943 passed. The commission was re
established by an act of May 24, 1943 and continued its
work. It made its final report on January 15, 1945 and
recommended amendments to the act. The Administrative
Law Commission believed that its work was largely com
pleted and recommended that the judicial council should
continue a general study of procedures and practices for
the administrative agencies; the principal problems were
in the areas of rule-making, adjudication, and judicial
review. A law passed in 1945 charging the judicial
council with the responsibility for suggestions to the
40
' Sixth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1943), pp. 10-11.
81
administrative agencies on rules and. practice and pro-
41
,cedure. Accordingly, on February 18, 1946, each
I
‘administrative agency head was notified of the new task
of the judicial council and asked to report difficulties
under the act. Since 1945, many recommendations on
administrative agencies made by the judicial council to
the general-assembly have been enacted into law.
II. LATER DEVELOPMENTS
Movement for a State Court Adminis trator. The
! judicial council sent out a questionnaire to the clerks
'of courts of last resort in each state for information
about methods of administrative control over the business
of courts. The survey indicated that assignment of judges
to other courts where dockets were crowded was a practice
in almost every state and entailed heavy responsibilities
on the judiciary. The burden of administrative duties
of the judges has been a subject of continuous study by
the Council of State Governments. It reported to the Con
ference of Chief Justices in September of 1950 as follows:
Among the consequences of large-scale industriali
zation; have been the increasingly heavy responsibil
ities to which all branches of government are heir.
The judiciary has not been exempted from this develop
ment and has been confronted by litigation of growing
complexity and volume. Justices must now be trained
^^121 Ohio Laws (1945), p. 137.
82
in many branches of the law which were unknown a
generation ago. The volume of litigation has made it
unrealistic to expect justices to consider carefully
every case brought up for litigation and perform
administrative duties as well.
The necessity for reorganization is not unique to
the judicial branches of government* Many of the
executive departments also have had to be recon
structed in the light of new social, economic and
political developments. Two general principles of
administration have been consistently followed in the
reconstruction of many government departments: First,
there has been recognition:that the span of attention
of officials with large responsibilities is limited;
Second, that a division of labor is essential when a
department is confronted by many diverse functions.
Many State courts of last resort have incorporated
these two principles in their present plans for
judicial organization. There has been an explicit
recognition of the fact that a Supreme Court Justice
can be expected to perform effectively only one duty
at a time and secondly, an awareness that non-judicial
duties should be handled by an office especially
equipped to execute administrative duties. Such an
office would relieve the Justices of many onerous,
though important non-judicial functions which they
are now required to perform themselves.^2
The judicial council recognized that the assign
ment of judges in Ohio is a he#vy task because some judges
by reason of ill health or unwillingness to travel or for
other good reason decline to accept assignments, all such
assignments being on a voluntary basis, and other judges,
by reason of inexperience, fail to adjust themselves to
work in other counties. Therefore, many considerations
must be taken into account before selection. The judicial
council felt that this constitutes an unwarranted burden
Ap
Tenth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 1951), P* 22.
:
I on the chief justice of the supreme court. He is elected
i
j as a judge of that court and he should have the oppor-
i 1
Itunity for the performance of his judicial duties un- ■
hampered by the burden of administrative details. The j
judicial council prepared a proposed bill for the appoint
ment by the chief justice with the consent of the supreme '
I ' Î
I court of an administrative officer whose duties would '
; consist of the collection of statistics about the con
dition of the dockets of the courts of common pleas, the
assistance of the chief justice of the supreme court in
t
jthe assignment of judges and the performance of other ;
’administrative duties in connection with the business of
Î
the courts. In 1953, the judicial council reported on
information gathered by the American Judicature Society
on the experience of the states which had created
: administrative officers patterned after the administrative ,
'office of the United States courts. The judicial council
: proposed to incorporate part of the plan of the state of
; Michigan and part of the:plan of the federal office.
I The state bar association supported the plan of the
I
judicial council for an administrative officer. The Ohio
State Bar Association offered a four-point judicial reform
program in 1955: 1) proper salary increases for judges,
including the chief justice; 2) an adequate judicial
retirement system; 3) an administrative assistant for
84
the chief justice; and 4)a joint resolution to place on
the ballot a referendum seeking removal of the existing
constitutional prohibition]against salary increases while
43
in office. All of the four proposals were adopted by
1956 except the fourth, which, while approved by the
assembly, was turned down by the voters in the November
election.
The administrative assistant of the supreme court
is appointed by the supreme court and serves at its
44
pleasure. The duties of the administrative assistant
are outlined as follows :
The administrative assistant of the supreme dourt
shall under the supervision and direction of the
supreme court :
a ) Examine the state of the dockets of the courts
of record, determine the need for assistance by any
such court, and report the same to the chief justice
of the supreme court;
B) Make such recommendations to the chief justice
of the supreme court relating to the assignment of
judges where courts of record are in need of assist
ance and carry o u the direction of the chief justice
of the supreme court as to the assignment of judges;
and attend to such other matters as may be assigned
by the supreme court. ^
The judges and the clerks must comply with his requests
for Information and statistics:
43
Twelfth Report of the Judicial Gouncil of Ohio
(Columbus: 1955), p. 8.
44
Ohio Rev. Code. sec. 2503-05.
45
Ohio Rev. Code, sec. 2503.281.
85
The judges, clerks and officers of the supreme
court, the court of appeals, the courts of common
pleas, and the probate courts: shall comply with all
requests made by the administrative assistant for
information bearing bn the state of the dockets of
such courts and such other information as the chief
justice of the supreme court may determine to be
necessary in order to discharge his lawful duties.^
The administrative assistant issues a monthly publication
which gives comparative statistics on the courts in the
various counties and other information of interest to the
judiciary. He also serves as secretary of the Board of
Bar Examiners and as secretary of the Board of Commission
ers on Grievances and Discipline.
Movement for a Judicial Conference. In 1957, the
judicial council proposed a bill providing for annual
meetings of judges of the trial courts. Three meetings
were proposed: one for the judges of the courts of common
pleas, one for the judges of the probate courts, and one
tJ7
for the judges of the juvenile courts. ‘ Since previous
to 1925, annual meetings had been held on a voluntary
basis by the common pleas, probate and municipal court
judges in their respective groups. It was considered that
the chief justice of the supreme court would confer with
these judges on matters of procedure in order to expedite
^^Qhio Rev. Code. sec. 2503*282.
^'^Thirteenth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbusl1957), p. 16.
86:
the work in the courts. Such.annual conferences would
give much assistance to the judges in deciding cases,
clearing dockets, and keeping the trial cases current.
Legislation was introduced in 1959 for anr.off icial,
statewide judicial conference for all judges of Ohio, and
the first such judicial conference was held in connection
with the Ohio State Bar Association's annual convention
at Cincinnati on May 21, 1959.
Divisions of Juvenile and Domestic Relations and
the Family Courts. Following the juvenile court of Chi
cago , which had been functioning since 1889, the Cuyahoga
County Juvenile Court was the second juvenile court to be
organized in the United States. At the first session,
held on June 4, 1902, twenty boys were arraigned. By the
time their cases came up the following day, 38 prominent
citizens had volunteered to serve as probation officers.
The first case, that of a fourteen-year-old boy charged
with stealing a pair of shoes, was probated to a famous
4 8 '
lawyer and statesman, Newton D. Baker.- The Juvenile
Court Act of April 18, 1902, effective May 1, 1902, was
amended in 1904 authorizing paid probation officers and
providing similar courts in 8 additional counties. An
h-Pi
"Committee Formed to Plan Celebration of
Juvenile Court's 50th Anniversary," Cleveland Bar
Association Journal. 23: 104, April, 1952.
87
act of 1921 extended juvenile courts to 17 counties. The
Juvénile Court Act of 1931 made juvenile courts mandatory
in every county in the state and raised the jurisdictional
age to eighteen, effective January 1, 1935* With the
recodification of the juvenile court law, Ohio now had
iiQ
one of the best juvenile court codes in the nation.
Up until this time, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
was attached to the Court of Insolvency but now became
separate. It has had outstanding judges, and people from
all over the world have visited it; since 1945, the
legislature has provided an additional judge.
Legislation was passed in 1959 providing for a
division of domestic relations and two judges for it in
the common pleas court of Cuyahoga County which, since
1920, has had a separate domestic relations department.
The creation of these two additional judgeships will
bring the total number of judges in this common pleas
court to 21, effective January, 1961.
The first family court was established in Cincin
nati in 1 9 1 4 . It was reported in 1959 that outstanding.
Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Marks First
Fifty Years of Its History," Cleveland Bar Association
Journal, 23: 125-126, May, 1952.
50
Standard Family Court Act Published after Four-
Year Study," Journal of the American Judicature Society,
43: 25, June, 1959.
88
family courts today are found in eight counties of Ohio,
six counties of North Carolina, and in Portland, Oregon,
Des Moines, Omaha, and St. Louis.Detroit, since 1917,
has the Friend of the Court in Wayne County for investi
gating care given minor children.
Before I960, ten of the most populous counties of
Ohio outside of Cuyahoga County had domestic relations
divisions in their common pleas courts and most of these
were combined with the juvenile court division, and
formed a family court. When the new judges are added to
the common pleas court of Cuyahoga County, four counties
will each have two judges in these divisions. For twenty
years, the courts of Ohio have been empowered to investi
gate in divorce cases; since August 28, 1951, the manda
tory divorce investigation law requires that all divorc
ing parents of children under fourteen years of age must
be interviewed to Investigate "the character, family
relations, past conduct, earning ability, and financial
worth of the parties to the action.
A combination of pre-trial procedure, conciliation,
and marriage counseling was initiated in 1952 by Judge
Arthur H. Day of the Cleveland Court of Common Pleas.
51
Loc. cit.,
^^Qhio Rev. Code, sec. 3105.08.
89
The technique has reduced the backlog of the divorce
docket from a delay of almost 30 months to a little more
than 10 months. Nearly 2,000 divorce cases were disposed
of in the first nine weeks and more than half ended in
53
reconciliation.
Judicial Salaries and Retirement. Judges of the
supreme court, the court of appeals and the courts of
common pleas are elected on a non-partisan ballot for
terms of six years. Increases in judges* salaries have
been slow coming and the rule that there may be no in
crease in salary during the term of office has caused
even more delay. When the salary scale for judges of
the supreme court increased from $12,000 to f16,000 and
that for the chief justice increased from $12,500 to
$16,500, only two got such a raise in salary; one-half of
the remaining judges did not get it until the election
of 1956 when their new term began. Chief Justice Carl V.
Weygandt, on November 29, 1954, announced his resignation,
effective January 1, 1955, partially due to the fact that
the salary he was drawing was "fixed by the Legislature
27 years ago before inflation and at a time when salaries
^^Pre-trial Used to Clear Cleveland Docket,"
Journal of the American Judicature Society. 36: 154,
February, 1953.
90
of public officials were not subject to Federal income
tax.Since 1939, judicial salaries have been subject
to income tax. In the meantime, salaries of the governor
and other administrative officials had doubled and legis
lative salaries increased four times and more than
trebled, while salaries of the judges of the supreme court
. increased by one-third. The chief justice was among some
of the other judges who could not get an increased salary
until elected the next time. The chief justice compared
Ohio, sixth in population with Delaware, forty-sixth in
population; yet judicial salaries in Delaware were higher
than those in Ohio. In the per capita cost of operating
the supreme courts of the several states, Ohio stood last,
or forty-eighth on the list. The chief justice, however,
decided, on December 23, to continue in office when the
bar association proposed a four-point program for reform.
Prior to 1951, Oh|o was one of the four states
55
having the same salary schedule for judges since 1927.
All states except Delaware provided for a retirement
system and all states except Delaware and Ohio had a
special retirement system for judges and in many of them
^‘ ^"Judicial Salaries Again an Issue," Journal of thé
American Judicature Society, 38: 113, December, 1954.
55
Tenth Report of the Judicial Council of Ohio
(Columbus: 19515, P* 17.
91
the judges were not required to contribute to the system.
In Ohio, judges contributed six per cent to the state
employees retirement system.
Legislation in 1955 provided that a judge, at the
age of sixty or over, with twelve years of serviceiji may:
receive 25 per cent of his salary; with added service it
was possible to receive up to 40 per cent. Judges still
contributed six per cent of their salary. Although retire
ment was not compulsory, an eligible, disabled judge
could retire with a reasonable amount of security. Salary
increases in 1955 brought them up to $20,000 for the chief
justice of the supreme court, $18,000 for the other judges
of the supreme court, $16,000 for judges of the courts of
appeals, and $15,000 for the highest paid common pleas
and probate judges.
In 1959, additional salary increases were granted
to $22,000 for the chief justice of the supreme court,
$20,000 for the other judges of that court, $18,000 for
the judges of the courts of appeals, and $17,000 for the
highest paid judges of the common pleas and probate courts.
The salary range for judges of the common pleas and pro
bate courts, based on the population of their respective
counties, was raided by $2,000 for all and ranges from
"Why Judicial Reform?" Ohio Bar, 28: 267,
February 21, 1955.
92
57
$9,000 to $17,000. The legislation provides that
additional compensation to be paid by the county to
common pleas and probate judges based on the population
, of their respective counties shall not be less than
58
$2,000. Leaders of the appellate courts, of the common
pleas judges* association and of the probate judges'
association worked for this legislation and the governor
supported it.
Major changes resulting from the 1959 legislation
affecting the retirement law include:
1) The $63.00 minimum basic formula is revised to
172.00. The 1.5 per cent of final average salary is
raised to 1.65 per cent.
2) The requirement of 40 years of credit for full
benefits is reduced to 35 years after at least age 55
is attained.
3) Service credit to qualify for survivor benefits
has been reduced from 3 years to 1 1/2 years and the
widow's age requirement has been reduced from 65 to
62.
4) Final average salary based on any five years
since January 1, 1935, rather than on the five high
est years of earnings within the ten years immediately
preceding retirement.
5) Member contribution rate increased to 7 per cent
effective January 1, I960.
6) Members entitled to indefinite membership status
after 5 years. In the past, ten years was r e q u i r e d . 59
The principal difficulty that still affects sala-
^^Ohio Oourts. Vol. Ill, June, 1959 (Columbus:
1959), p. 1.
58-'
Ohio Rev. Code, sec. 141.04, 141.05.
^%ilo Courts, Vol. Ill, July, 1959 (Columbus;
1959), p. 1.
93
ries and also retirement is the constitutional provision,
yet unchanged, that salaries may not be increased during
a term of office. A provision was made, however, in 1959
for contributing on the basis of the salary of the office
rather than on the salary received and for counting for
consideration of retirement benefits the salary which a
judge would have received were it not for this constitu-
60
tional provision.
Court Reorp:anization. The last day of the legis
lative session in 1957» an act was passed abolishing
the justice of peace court system in Ohio and substituting
a system of county courts supplemented by extension of
jurisdiction of some municipal courts. In 1939, a plan
had been proposed for responsible minor tribunals to
compete with justice courts after various studies had
recommended reorganization of the lower court system. In
1955, the legislature abolished the fee system for com
pensation of the justices of the peace and put them on
salaries to be set by county commissioners. The supreme
court ruled that this was an invalid delegation of power,
with the result that until the new county court system
went into effect the justices of the peace were without
compensation of any kind except fees for the performing
^%hio Rev. Code, sec. 145.01.
94
of marriage ceremonies. This is an example of the harm
of piecemeal legislation, in contrast to careful, long-
range planning. The act passed in 1957 apportions county
'judges on the basis of county population with one judge
for each 20,000 population. In counties with more than
one judge, the common" pleas court is responsible for
dividing the county into areas of jurisdiction and assigns
locations where court will be held, thus making for
greater accessibility. Effective January 1, 1963, county
judges must be members of the bar with a minimum of one
year of practice, but a "grandfather clause" protects
non-lawyer judges in office on November 1, 1962. The
first county judges were elected in November 1957 and
took office January 1, 1958. The salary for these judges
was set at $1,500 a year and 3 cents per person in the
county, up to §4,000 a year. They are permitted to
practice law in cases not involving their courts.
Constitutional and Code Revision. A committee of
the Ohio State Bar Association worked since 1946 on a
complete revision of the judicial article of the consti
tution of Ohio. Particular effort had been directed
toward changing the method of selection of judges to the
appointive method. An opportune time came in 1952 when
the people were to vote for or against a constitutional
convention; had a new judicial article been presented to
95
the people then, they might have voted for it though they
may have rejected a constitutional convention. The
judicial council had made a few recommendations for con
stitutional changes. But there appeared to be no broad,
concerted effort for a complete revision.
Following Jefferson's idea of the social compact
theory, that the people should vote every twenty years on
retention or changing the constitution, the people were
to vote on this matter In 1952. In I85I, the call for a
convention was by a two-thirds vote; In I87I» the people
voted for a convention but then rejected its proposals;
in 1891, they voted against a convention; in 1911, though
a convention was called, It resulted only In separate
proposals which might have been passed as amendments at
less expense; In 1932, the people rejected the call of a
convention. While many members of the bar association
were not of the opinion that the convention was the best
method to bring about the adoption of a new judicial
article, the association gave full publicity to the issue
to get out the vote of the people. It published opinions,
pro and con, in its publications.^^
The Committee on Revision of the Ohio State Constl-
"Shall an Ohio Constitutional Convention Be
Called?" 22 Ohio Bar Association Reports 487 (1949),
pp. 487^504.
96
tution of the Ohio College Association recommended a
convention after a three year study. The committee
recommended a Judicial article with the following
provisions: l) a simplified three-level court system--
supreme court, courts of appeals, and courts of common
■pleas; 2) a unified court system on the county level, a
single court with branches to deal with matters dealt
with by the existing courts of common pleas, probate,
municipal, and other lower courts; 3) appointment of
commissioners to deal with matters then dealt with by
justices of the peace; 4) strengthening of the judicial
council giving it power to made rules of procedure and to
serve as an administrative research agency; 5) augmented
authority to the chief justice, with power to assign
judges; 6) constitutional provision for judicial retire
ment; 7) advisory opinions of the supreme court to the
governor; 8) revision of the requirement for a 6 to 1
vote of the supreme court to reverse an opinion of a court
of appeals; 9) revision of the existing judicial appor
tionment for the courts of appeals; ^nd 10) establishment
of an appointive system for election of judges with the
provision that they run against their record and with the
suggestion for a term of twelve years and a vote on
retention after four years, instead of after the
97
full term*^2 The idea of commissioners to he sent out
from the unified court system had been suggested twenty
years previously by Silas A. Harris, who was of the
opinion even then that few counties would need such
commissioners. Most of these points serve as worthy
suggestions in constitutional revision, whether by con
vention or amendment, and they would deserve some con
sideration. The people were not in favor of a constitu
tional convention.
Early in 1953, the Western Reserve University con
ducted a workshôp to attempt some means of promoting any
proper amendments to the constitution. The executive
committee of the state bar association reported on
proposed amendments to the Judicial article. Thereafter,
efforts in this direction appear to have declined.
In 1954, after four years of research and drafting,
the Bureau of Code Revision completed Ohio's Revised Code,
thus bringing the substantive law up-to-date. The enact
ment of the Revised Code by the 100th General Assembly
inaugurated a permanent plan for systematic and contin
uing classification. It is the third revision and the
first since 1910.
62
Warren Cunningham, "The Judiciary in Ohio,"
University of Cincinnati' Law Review* 20; 239-264,
March, 1951»
98
Summary Judgment Procedure. A proposal for pro
cedural change long advocated by the judicial council
became a reality in 1959 with the enactment of summary
judgment legislation, added to the Code of Civil Pro
cedure, which governs the preparation of civil cases and
their trial. Summary judgment procedure, as enacted in
Ohio, provides that final judgment may be rendered when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
admissions of the genuineness of papers or documents, and
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact requiring a formal trial of the
action and that the moving party (either plaintiff or
defendant) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The test for determining the existence of genuine issue to
material fact is the same as the test for determination
of a motion for directed verdict at the trial. The party
against whom the motion for judgment is made is entitled
to have pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories
and affidavits construed strongly in his favor. The court
does not attempt to pass on the truth of conflicting
affidavits. There is no provision for oral testimony.
It neither provides a method for a preliminary trial nor
does it prohibit the pre-trial. The determination of
damages, unless liquidated, is no part of the summary
proceedings.
99
Role of the Bar. Although the bar is not inte
grated in Ohio, the bar associations have been active,
not only in supporting better judicial administration,
but also in taking the lead for its improvement. While
the Ohio State Bar Association has supported court
reorganization, better judicial salaries and retirement,
and other measures, it has promoted, for a long time,
, improved methods in selection of judges. It has recom
mended an appointive method of selection of judges over
the years and has worked especially hard to get such
legislation passed during the past two sessions. Other
means have been used for recommending qualified judicial
candidates. The Cincinnati Bar Association ; has asked
that it be polled for opinions on judicial candidates,
as it is done in California. The Cleveland Bar Associa
tion, since 1912, has made recommendations for judicial
candidates after a questionaire had been sent to members;
since 1922, it has actively campaigned for qualified
candidates with an average expenditure of $7,000 a year.
The Committee on Court Congestion and Delayy in
Litigation of the Cleveland Bar Association made an out
standing contribution in judicial administration with its
report in May, 1958. Its interim recommendations of 1957
for the common pleas court were carried out as follows:
the appointment of a court administrator, assignment of
100
out-of-town judges to the civil branch, hearing of un
contested and contested divorce cases on Saturday morn
ings, and scanning of old dockets so that cases may be set
for trial or dismissal. A court administrator was
appointed and took office on October 1, 1957, as a
first court administrator of a court of general juris
diction in the nation, to this author’s knowledge.
Recommendation was made for the addition of two more
judges by I960 and another two by 1962, and for the en
forcement of Rule 15 (f) to prevent too great a concen
tration, of cases in the law offices of a few firms and
the granting of continuances too frequently when these
6 A
lawyers are engaged in trial.^ It was found that had the
number of judges been increased, as the increase in popu
lation and case load warranted, the backlog would most
probably never have developed.As a result of the .
study, there has been greater cooperation between bench
and bar and the mounting backlog has become more con
trolled.
63
The Cleveland Bar Association, Committee on Court
Congestion and Delay in Litigation, Report and Recommen
dations on Trial Delay in the Common Pleas Court of
Cuyahop;a County. Ohio (Cleveland: The Cleveland Bar Asso
ciation, May, 1958), p. 7»
^hbld. , pp. 32-34.
^^Ibld.. p. 32.
101
Calendar Status. During 1959, there were 16,298
cases filed in the common pleas court of Cuyahoga County,
and 16,311 cases were terminated, or thirteen more than
66)
were filed. There were 14,035 cases pending on
January 1, I960, or 86 per cent of those filed and of
those terminated. Delay, from issue to trial in Jury cases
dropped from thirty months in 1957 to twenty-six months
in 1958 and to fifteen months in 1959. In all the eight
most populous counties, the cases pending in the common
pleas courts at the end of the year have been increasing
67
since 1957.
Summary. Ohio has one of the most stable systems
of judicial administration of the research and advisory
type with the oldest judicial council among the states.
Although limited in its powers and restricted mainly to
study and advisory functions, its influence has been
strong in getting legislation passed, particularly on
procedure and such matters. Among the difficulties have
been'piecemeal legislation and delayed legislation;
sometimes it has taken twenty years to get needed reforms.
On the other hand, there have been leaders of vision in
^^Ohio Courts, Vol. Ill, December, 1959 (Columbus,
1959), p. 11.
67
Ibid", p. 10.
102
Ohio who have advocated reforms far ahead* The bar
associations and the judges' associations have demon
strated dynamic leadership. The professors of the law
,schools, especially the one who is a member of the
judicial council, have assisted the council in drafting
legislation. The Legislative Service Commission has made
excellent studies.
Judicial administration of the superintending type
on the state level has been limited because the chief
justice has little power except over assignment of judges
and judicial statistics and court reports. The adminis
trative assistant to the supreme court has made a notable
contribution by compilation and comparison of current
judicial statistics published monthly. In the decentral-
>ized system of judicial administration in Ohio, much
power rests with the presiding judges and chief justices
in the integrated courts, several of which have been
examples in efficient administration.
CHAPTER IV
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN NEW JERSEY
I .. EARLY: DEVELOPMENTS
Authority. Composition and Functions of the
Judicial Council. The judicial council of New Jersey was
created in 1930
. . .to make a continuous study of the organiza
tion and relation of the various courts of the State,
counties and municipalities, the rules and methods of
procedure and practice of the judicial system of the
State, the work accomplished and the results produced.^
The council was required to submit for the consideration
of the justices and judges of the various courts such
suggestions in regard to the rules of practice and proce
dure as it deemed advisable and report annpally to the
governor.
The judicial council was composed of 14 members;
five judges, including a vice-chancellor, a justice of the
supreme court, two circuit court judges, and a common
pleas court judge; the attorney general, the president of
the state bar association, the chairman of the judiciary
committee of the house of the assembly and the chairman of
the judiciary committee of the senate; and five members
^New Jersey Laws (1930), chap. 254.
104
of the bar. Arthur T. Vanderbilt was its first chairman
and his record of leadership in New Jersey and in judicial
administration throughout the nation is as well-known as
it is outstanding.
Purposes. The judicial council's first objectives
were to improve the efficiency of the civil courts, to
eliminate delay and to bring justice and fairness to
litigants. The council made recommendations for improve
ment and outlined the fundamental rights of litigants:
In our judgment a litigant is entitled to :
1) a prompt and efficient trial of his case; 2) at
reasonable cost; 3) represented by competent attorneys;
4) before impartial, experienced and competent judges;
5) with the privilege of a review of the trial court's
determination by an appellate tribunal composed of
similar judges who will render a final decision within
three or four months after the appeal is initiated.2
Survey of the Needs for Judicial Administration.
In order to carry out the purposes for which it was
created, the judicial council made a survey of the courts
and their work for the thirty year period from 1900 to
1930. A problem that the council encountered was in the
area of judicial statistics. In some cases there was a
complete lack of cooperation from the clerks of some
courts in compiling statistics to show the growth of
2
First Annual Report of the Judicial Council of
New Jersey (Trenton: 1930), pp.54-5*
105
ilitigation since 1900, and it was found necessary to
secure legislation: to give the judicial council power
possessed in most states to require such data and informa
tion to carry out its purposes. However, it appeared that
congestion in the county courts had developed principally
in the industrial centers of the state and in localities
which had been gradually changing from farming communities
to centers of urban population. It was found that in
the county courts and in the district courts the litiga
tion had increased about 900 per cent since 1900.^ In
,1931, legislation was passed requiring the officers of
the several courts of the state to furnish information to
the judicial council upon request.
The judicial council made comparisons with other
states in attacking the problem of the trial and appellate
courts;
In the appellate courts of other states it now
takes anywhere from six weeks to two months to obtain
a decision, while in our Court of Errors and Appeals
it takes from eight months to two years. This
deplorable condition cannot be attributed to the
judges of those courts. . . . The evil is inherent in
the organization of these courts. The chancellor, as
president judge of the Court of Errors and Appeals,
gives but a portion of his time to the work of that
court; he has his other duties to perform in attending
to the extensive administrative machinery of the Court
of Chancery, in performing his duties as ordinary or
surrogate-general and in acting as a member of the
^Ibid., p. 3.
106
Court of Pardons. The justices of the Supreme Court
must divide their time between their duties in the
Court of Errors and Appeals and their work in the
three terms of the Supreme Court. In addition, they
are obliged to hear motions, charge grand juries, open
terms of court in the several counties in their
respective districts, and some of them are compelled,
in addition, to hear homicide cases in their judicial
districts. The six judges of the Court of Errors and
Appeals, specially appointed, likewise divide their
time betvreen the work of that court and the duties of
the Court of Pardons, and in addition are permitted to,
and in fact do, engage in private practice or private
business pursuits. • • .
. . • . The judicial system suited to an agricul
tural civilization is clearly outworn. It must be
replaced with a system more in keeping with modern
economic and social demands. There is no reason why
New Jersey cannot produce a system of courts in which
appeals may be disposed of within two months, as in
Connecticut and New York, and in which trials may be
had within a reasonable time.4
Changes were recommended in a proposed, new judicial
article to the constitution.
The council found and pointed out that the statis
tics showed that in the thirty year period from 1900 to
1930 the population of the state increased 168 per cent;
the tax ratable8, 593 per cent; the number of actions
commenced in the supreme court circuits and-circuit courts,
935 per cent; while the number of judges available to try
cases had increased only 27 per cent.^ It appeared that
more judges were needed, but the judicial council stressed
4
Third Report of the Judicial Council of New Jersey
(Trenton; 1932), pp. 7-8.
^Ibid. , p. 9.
107
improvement of organization as most important.
The importance and possible implications of the
need for judicial reform were emphasized:
We are not unmindful of present economic conditions
and the tendency to curb public expenditures of every
nature. It is evident, however, that the congested
condition of our appellate and trial courts is a de
terrent to the economic development of our State.
Many industries now here complain of the situation in
our courts and industries which would come into this
State often hesitate to do so because they are fearful
of the delays in our judicial system. There can be
no doubt that no one thing is quite so important to
the State as the proper functioning of its judicial
system.^
Considerable savings in money and in judicial manpower was
counted to result from improved judicial administration.
Statistics. The judicial council was fortunate in
having the services of the Institute of Law of the Johns
Hopkins University for the compilation of judicial crimi
nal statistics in 1931. As a result of legislation passed
in 1931, the officers of the several courts were furnish
ing statistical information to the judicial council as
required. Data was gathered and compiled by Miss Helen
Comegys who visited each county and tallied the cases for
the special study. Dr. Emil Frankel and Mr. F.S. Smith
of the New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies
cooperated in the project. Dr. Leon C. Marshall analyzed
^Ibld., p. 24.
loe
the statistics, which were published in the judicial
7
council report, and with the Ohio study did a comparative
study of judicial criminal statistics in six states.®
The judicial council recognized that the chief
responsibility for inefficiency in the administration of
,criminal justice can not be ascribed to the jury trial
after its analysis of criminal statistics in 1933 and
9
1934. It was found that in New Jersey as in other states,
trial by jury was no longer the usual method of disposing
of criminal cases. Only ?.8 per cent of the defendants
coming before the courts in 1934 and 8.7 per cent in 1933
were tried by jury. Acquittals by jury represented only
3.7 per cent of all defendants coming before the courts
in 1934, and 4.1 per cent in 1933. In both 1933 and 1934,
the acquittals in jury cases throughout the state amounted
to 47 per cent, and convictions for the offense charged
10
and for lesser offenses, to 53 per cent.
The judicial council cooperated fully with the
Third Report of the Judicial Council of New Jersey
(Trenton: 1932), pp. 31-88.
Q
Leon Carroll Marshall, Comparative Judicial Crimi
nal Statistics : Six States, 1931 (Baltimore; The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1932), 61 pp.
9
Sixth Report of the Judicial Council of New Jersey
(Trenton; 1935), pp. 4-36.
. pp. 21-23.
109
federal government through the Bureau of the 0ensue which
did much to encourage in the various states the collection
on a uniform basis of statistics relating to the enforce
ment of criminal law. The council began to compile
judicial statistics in 1932. Following the analysis of
criminal statistics in 1934, the judicial council made
nine recommendations for the improvement of criminal
justice through the reorganization of the lower criminal
courts and through types of supervision and minimum
11
delay. In 1938, the committee on complete reorganiza
tion of the lower courts reported.
Constitutional Revision. At the time of the
organization of the judicial council, the state bar asso
ciation was working on constitutional amendments through
one of its committees. By Joint Resolution No. 16 of the
155th Legislature, April 27, 1931, the judicial council
was directed to submit to the next legislature its findings
and recommendations as to amendments to the judiciary
article of the state constitution. The judicial council
devoted practically a year to the subject, keeping in
mind the principle that courts are established primarily
for the benefits of the citizens of the state who have
occasion to litigate their differences therein. In the
110
preparation.of the accompanying report, they had the
counsel of various members of the bar. They-conferred
with the representatives of the institutions of higher
education in the state and the accredited representatives
of the several county bar associations and with committees
of the New Jersey Press Association, New Jersey Federation
of Labor, New Jersey Federation of Women's Clubs, New
Jersey League of Women Voters, New Jersey State League
of Municipalities and a committee representing one hund
red credit and business organizations of the state. The
American Bar Association and the American Judicature
Society praised the work of the council, its methods and
objectives.
The proposed amendments to the judiciary article
were presented to the legislature by the Judicial council
12
on May 19, 1932. The proposed amendments and the
accompanying report were distributed to every judge and
lawyer in the state. They had been approved by the state
bar association, the Conference of County Bar Associations,
and every local bar association in the state, and in no
I case had such support been withdrawn. At the public hear-
%eprint of the Report of the Judicial Council of
New Jersey to the Senate and General Assembly of the State
of New Jersey Pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 2^ of the
155th Legislature. April 27. 1931 (Trenton: May 19, 1932),
60 pp.
Ill
.ing held before a joint committee of the senate and
assembly only five lawyers appeared in opposition. It
was conservatively assumed that never before had members
of the bar of the state been so united in regard to any
measure affecting the administration of justice, as they
were in support of the proposed constitutional amendments.
There was an attempt in the amendments to reduce
the multiplicity of courts and reorganize the court system*
Provision was made for administrative powers in an
executive head. It was proposed that the chief justice
was to have power to assign judges and supervise judicial
work in the districts. A presiding judge was recommended
for the common pleas and district courts. An appointive
system for selection of judges on a bipartisan basis was
recommended.
Standards governing the proposed constitutional
13
amendments consisted of these principles:
1) Principle of division of labor; the four systems
of courts.
2) Principle of a single task for each judge.
3) Principle that judges shall be trained in the
law.
4) Principle that judges shall not practice law.
5) Principle that judges shall not hold political
office.
6) Principle that the appointments of judges should
be subject to confirmation by the Senate.
7) Principle that the courts should be built upon a
bi-partisan basis with the presumptive right in every
, pp. 44-60.
112
judge to be re-appointed if his record warrants.
8) Principle of one trial and one appeal as of
right.
9) Principle of supervision, to the chief justice;
of the power to assign judges; of the rule-making
power.
10) Principle of dispatch; the complaint most
commonly used against the courts is undue delay.
11) Principle that the courts exist primarily for
the benefit of litigants.
It took several years to bring about constitutional
change. The judicial council renewed its recommendations
and proposed that as a temporary measure for immediate
relief in the district courts that appropriate legislation
be enacted to provide;
1) That in any county where there is a city of the
first class there be a president judge of the District
Courts for such county designated by the Supreme Court
Justice presiding in that county, such president judge
to sit or assign a judge to sit in each established
court room in the county and fix and promulgate the
schedule of sittings and 2) that in the first class
cities the judges of the District Courts give their
full time to their judicial work, be prohibited from
practicing law and be paid adequate salaries commen
surate with their position; 3) that all District
Courts be reorganized so that the District Courts shall
be courts of the county and be treated as an integral
part of the county judicial system; and 4) that all
first and second class counties be so districted that
small cause courts will be e l i m i n a t e d .^4
Some of the improvement by legislation was realized
in 1931 when five of the twelve bills proposed by the
judicial council relating to the judiciary were enacted
into law. These included a provision that common pleas
^^Fifth Report of the Judicial Council of New
Jersey (Trenton: 1934), p. 12.
113
judges thereafter appointed In counties having a popula
tion of 300,000 or over shall devote their entire time to
their official duties and shall not engage in the practice
of law. Another law gave the chief justice of the supreme
court the power to assign common pleas judges to hold the
circuit court in any county whenever, in his judgment, the
Administration of justice would be expedited thereby; in
the absence of any such assignment by the chief justice,
it gave the supreme court justice presiding in the county
the power to assign the common pleas judges to the trial
of cases in the circuit court of the county. The other
part of the bill, giving the chief justice power to assign
15
circuit court judges, failed to pass.
After 1931 and 1932, no effective action was taken
in constitutional revision until February 27, 1939, when
a proposed constitutional judiciary amendment, advocated
by the judicial council, was introduced into the assembly,
as Concurrent Resolution No. 5, by Assembly Speaker
16
Herbert J. Pascoe. This proposal was very similar to
the one presented to the legislature by the judicial
William ¥• Evans, "Constitutional Court Reform
in New Jersey," University of Newark Law Review, 7: 28,
December, 1941.
16
"Constitutional Amendment to Reform Judiciary
Announced," New Jersey Law Journal, 62: 1-2,7, March 2,
1939.
114
council in 1932. The proposed judiciary amendments called
for the creation of a new court of pardons and court of
appeals, the abolition of the prerogative court, and the
provision that appointments of vice chancellors be subject
to the confirmation of the senate. The proposal sought
to require the judges of the court of appeals, the supreme
court, and the circuit court and the chancellors to be
counsellors of law at least 10 years and to hold no other
office; and to require the judges of the common pleas and
county courts to be counsellors of law for 7 years and to
not practice law in counties of more than 300,000 popula
tion. An earlier provision requiring that decisions be
handed down in two months was dropped from the constitu
tional proposal in 1939, but more reports were required
by the proposed constitutional amendment in 1939 than in
the one in 1932. This judicial amendment, like the one
in 1932, failed to pass the legislature and so was never
submitted to the electorate.
Meanwhile many views were expressed and many groups
and committees were organized for study on judicial
reform. The New Jersey Law Journal published various
suggestions regularly in its columns by lawyers, judges,
and others "first, to; gauge general sentiment of the
bench and bar on the proposed plan:and second, to
115
IT
elicit constructive suggestions."
Judge Lippincott stressed the need to remedy the
overlapping judicial duties but criticized the 1939 plan
. for no provision for continuity of judges in office.
He urged the bar to take up the task of judicial reform,
which properly belongs to it.
Early in 1940, a committee of thirty members of the
bar, representing each of the county bar associations and
some members of the state bar association, was formed to
study judicial reform. The report of this Special
Committee on a Constitutional Convention, issued in May
1940, consisted of a so-called, majority and minority
report each signed by four members; the majority report
was aga.inst the calling of a constitutional convention
and the minority report called for a completely new
constitution. The bar association committee on judicial
administration recommended a separate court of errors and
appeals and power to assign judges vested in the supreme
court.
The bar association also had a committee to
cooperate with the judicial council and the commission on
MSpecial Notice," New Jersey Law Journal. 64:
4, December 18, 1941.
18^
Lippincott Stresses Need of Judicial Amendments,'
New Jersey Law Journal. 62: 1, June 8, 1939.
1163
statutes to devise means of cooperation and the avoidance
of conflict among the judicial council, the commission on
statutes and the New Jersey State Bar Association; joint
conferences were held to remedy defects in the statutory
law. However, the judicial council became inactive in
promoting judicial reform and in cooperating with these
groups in remedying statutory law after June 1940; at that
time, Chairman Arthur T. Vanderbilt’s second term expired
and no one was selected to succeed him for about a year,
few meetings were hèld thereafter, and the influence of
the judicial council dwindled.
The New Jersey League of Women Voters circulated
a pamphlet describing reforms and polled every candidate
for the legislature in the primary election'of September
1939, indicating its members would work for those who
would favor reform and oppose others. The league worked
for the judicial amendments in the election of 1940.
Labor favored the abolition of chancery as a separate
court. Both candidates for governor were pledged to
reform.
Governor Edison; elected in 1940, was prepared to
go along with judicial reform. At the mid-winter meeting,
the state bar association passed a resolution:favoring a
constitutional convention and appointment of a committee
to aid the governor therein. Senator Hendrickson
117
Introduced a bill for a constitutional convention to be
held at Trenton on October 15, 1941. Meanwhile contro-
;versy developed as to whether, constitutionally, the
constitution could be changed by a convention. The
Honorable Thomas Brown presented a scholarly answer when
he stated that the constitution could be revised or a new
one adopted only through a convention and that it could
be amended only by the method provided in Article IX of
the constitution;^^ he recommended that the legislature
take the lead as funds must be appropriated. Another
suggestion was that a referendum clause be attached to a
bill proposing a convention so the people could vote for
20
or against it. Some opposed a constitutional convention
on the ground that supreme court decisions were already
established on the existing constitution and that there
21
was fear of changing to an elective judiciary. Others
favored a convention, since there was need of constitu
tional change for all three branches of government and
this would be more difficult of accomplishment by amend-
^^Thomas Brown, "in What Manner May the State
Constitution Be Amended or a New One Adopted?" New Jersey
Law Journal, 64: 1, March 6, 1941.
20
Atwood G. Wolf, "Constitutional Convention," New
Jersey Law Journal. 64: 1, April 17, 1941.
21
"Why a Constitutional Convention?" New Jersey
Law Journal, 64: 4, July 31, 1941.
118
^ 22
m exits..
A bill for establishing a Commission on Revision
of the New Jersey Constitution was passed by the legis
lature and approved by Governor Edison on November 21,
1941. The two members named by the governor included
Arthur T. Vanderbilt; two were appointed by the president
of the senate; and two, by the assembly speaker. A recom
mendation was made for a judicial survey; commission to
study and report on thirteen questions, including separa
tion of law and equity, and it'was stated:
Last, but not least, under any system, politics and
the judiciary should, by final decree., granted an
absolute: divorce, with custody of politicians in the
courts and not vice versa.. ^
A Committee on Constitution Cohyention, headed by Sylves
ter C‘ . Smith, held forums of discussion by bar members
across the state and compared the new proposals with
copies of the existing New Jersey constitution. Another
Committee on Constitutional Convention was a non-partisan
committee of public citizens with Spencer Miller as chair
mans
In December, 1941, a plan for a unified New Jersey
Dominic A. Cavicchia, Constitutiona.1 Convention
V. G'onstitutional Amendment," New Jersey Law Journal. 64:
3, November 6, 1941.
^^"Recommendation for a Judicial. Survey Commission,"
New Jersey Law Journal. 64: 4, November 27;, 1941.
119
24
court system was presented by Alfred C. Glapp. This
unified court plan called for one court of justice, the
membership consisting of every judicial officer of the
state from the court of last resort to the city district
courts; the plan was to divide the court of justice into
certain divisions and to give wide administrative powers
to the head of the court and to the heads of each division.
The Committee to Study Judicial Revision by Legis
lation, which had meanwhile sought to bring about improve
ment in appellate practice and procedure through legis
lation and rules of court, considered the Clapp plan.
This committee, with George ¥.0. McCarter as chairman,
found a simplification of the court system and administra
tive powers in the courts desirable, but preferred to
maintain a separation of law and equity; there was not
complete agreement with the Clapp plan.
The official Commission on Revision of the New
Jersey Constitution engaged the services of a judicial
administrative consultant. Dr. Ralph R. Temple of New
York City, who had made a study of the Chicago courts, to
make a survey of the court of errors and appeals, the
supreme court, the court of chancery, and the prerogative
24
Alfred C. Clapp, '^Constitutional Provisions for a
Unified New Jersey Court System," New Jersey Law Journal.
64: 1,5,8, December 11, 1941.
120
court. Since the judicial council had not been function
ing and had published no reports, in 1940 and 1941, it was
difficult to obtain statistics from the clerks of courts
for these two years, but available reports were used in
addition to constitutional and statutory provisions,
journals and books, questionnaires and interviews, budgets
and miscellaneous records, dockets, cases, files and
reports. Dr. Temple found that there was waste and delay
in getting cases to the appellate courts and that the
growth of the administrative agencies also stemmed from
inadequacies of the law courts.
Dr. Temple's summary revealed ten findings:
1) A costly and inefficient organization of the
court system resulting largely from a complete lack of
any coordination between the several separate courts
in the state.
2) A part time and unusually large court of last
resort, whose judges have unfortunate combinations of
duties and whose contribution to the sound adminis
tration: of justice is therefore largely ineffective.
3) An uneven distribution of the volume of liti
gation amongst the judges within each court.
4) A lack of adequate control and management of
available court facilities, which seriously impairs
the judicial standards of service to the public.
5; A wasteful and very uneven use of judicial
manpower.
6) A complete lack of a responsible and accountable
head of the judicial system.
7) A marked and serious failure within the judicial
system to record and report, even in the most elemen
tary fashion', the work data necessary for intelligent
public review and control of the judicial services
of government.
8) Inflexible expenditures by the court system
which do not reflect pronounced decreases in court
business.
121
9) Unsound practices in budgeting, accounting and
fiscal procedure prevalent throughout the system.
10) A striking reduction in the volume of the
business of the courts over the past 10 y e a r s .
The number of cases in 1940 was about half those in 1931.
On May 14, 1942, the Commission on Revision of the
New Jersey Constitution presented the proposed revised
constitution to the governor and the legislature. The
plan provided for a supreme court of seven members, a
superior court of general jurisdiction, and such other
courts as may be created by law. In all matters in which
there would be any conflict between equity and common law,
equity would prevail. The chief justice would be the
administrative head of the courts and the supreme court
would be empowered to make rules as to the administration
of all of the courts and, subject to law, as to pleading,
practice and evidence in all courts. The plan required
that the justices of the supreme court must have been one
year in the, superior court and that they, along with the
judges of the superior court, must have practiced law for
ten years.. Decisions would be required to be handed down
within.two months. The legislature decided that it would
25
New Jersey Commission on Revision of the New
Jersey Constitution, Report on the Constitutional Courts
of the State of New Jersey., submitted to the Commission
by Ralph R. Temple (Trenton: July, 1942), p. 9.
122
not act on the constitution in 1942, hut created an eight-
memher commission, with an appropriation of #10,000, to
conduct public hearings in the hope of enlisting support
by the 1943 election.
On May 23, 1942, the state bar association, at its
annual meeting, rejected the proposed constitutional
change by a vote of 3 to 1. The membership of the associa-
,tion consisted of only about one-fifth of the lawyers of
the state at that time and included a well-organized group
of older lawyers who were opposed to this judicial reform,.
Most of the opposition centered on the chancery court and
the separation of law and equity. In every county except
Essex County, lawyers were reluctant to give up the
venerable chancery court. Many wanted a unified court
system but wished to retain the separation of law and
equity. The state bar association also held hearings on
the new judiciary article.
In Npvember 1943, a referendum was submitted to
a vote of the people to determine whether they wished to
have a revised constitution submitted for their approval
the following year; they voted for the proposal. By
December 1943, the new governor-elect announced the
members of the new commission for a revised constitution,
two for revision of the section on the legislative branch,
two for the executive branch and two for the judicial
123
branch. The state bar association organized sub-committees
with about ten or twelve members on each, to work on
plans for each of the three branches of government. The
judicial council offered aid but did not serve in an
important capacity although some of its members gave
assistance. The proposed new constitution was ready
early in 1944 and was similar to that of 1942. However,
the people were not satisfied with the kind of revision
it offered and voted 786,000 votes against it in
November 1944. It was not until 1947 that revision was
achieved.
Jury Reform. A problem which the judicial council
attacked in its first year was that of selection of jurors.
The council found the existing system unsatisfactory
since investigation revealed signs of improper influences
being exerted in the drawing of jurors in some counties
of the state. The council was of the opinion that;
The jury is essentially a component part of the
court and the selection of jurymen should be entirely
disconnected from political parties' and political
officers, appointive or elective. The responsibility
of providing impartial and competent jury men should
be vested in the Judicial Department and in each
county should rest in one man so that responsibility
may be readily fixed.
The judicial council recommended at that time that the
26
First Annual Report of the Judicial Council of
New Jersey (Trenton: 1930), p. 16.
124
jury, commission should consist of one commissioner to be
appointed by the justice of the supreme court presiding
in the county and to hold office at the pleasure of such
justice of the supreme court.
In its fifth year, the judicial council renewed
its recommendation for jury reform and commented on its
importance:
An honest jury is even more important thah am
honest judge, for-if a judge be dishonest his crime
would soom find him out, but a jury is here today and
gone tomorrow. Unless our juries are genuinely
representative of the community in which they serve,
justice is either impossible of achievement or a mere
matter of accident or chance. It is respectfully
submitted that no bill has ever been presented to the
Legislature of more vital importance to the average
citizen.
The only opposition to this essential change comes
from the sheriffs and jury commissioners; the press
of the State, the bench and bar, and the public
generally are strongly in favor of the change
recommended by the Judicial Council.27
However, it was almost twenty years before significant
success was achieved, in jury reform.
Discovery and Summary Judfzment Procedure. On ac
count of the great amount of dissatisfaction expressed
by the bench and bar with the existing procedure on
discovery, the council undertook a study of the subject
in 1933. It was found that, during the period from 1914
27
Fifth Report of the Judicial Council of New
. Jersey (Trenton: 1934), p. 6.
to 1924, a liberal examination of the adverse party, before
trial was allowable by Section 144 of the New Jersey
Compiled Statutes, page 4098; by Chapter 94, Public Laws
(1924), however, the legislature amended this section
making it possible for the individual court to restrict
oral examinations for discovery to a point that made the
pQ
provision virtually useless. This provided an example
of the way in which the legislature can work to the
detriment of court business by regulation of procedure
without the advice and cooperation of the judiciary. The
judicial council cited the excellent study made for the
judicial council of Michigan and was of the opinion that
a speedier disposition of litigation and better justice
, may be obtained by permitting a full and frank disclosure
of the respective cases at the earliest possible moment.
At the same time, the judicial council was studying
a remedy for the evils inherent in summary judgment
procedure, which had been established in 1912, and draft
ing proposed legislation. By 1941, statute and court
rule provided more adequately for summary judgment.
Administrative Agencies. The judicial council was
concerned about the administrative agency movement in the
^^Fourth Report of the Judicial Council of New
Jersey (Trenton: 1933), pp. 15-16.
126.
United States and its possible effect on the judicial
functions of the courts. The council observed in 1936:
Throughout the United States there is a growing
demand for an appellate administrative tribunal to
review the actions of all the administrative agencies
of the Federal Government. It is but natural to
assume this will lead to a similar movement in the
several States. . . . It would be a matter of regret
if such a movement should be duplicated in the several
States eventually resulting in the dwarfing of the
work of the courts in comparison with the large and
ever growing system of administrative tribunals, most
of which exercise both legislative and judicial
powers. These are matters not of detail or of tech
nique but of fundamental principle which should
engagepthe attention of every judge and lawyer in the
State. ^
The following year the judicial council published in its
report a study made for the University of Newark by Nathan
L. Jacobs and Nathan Davis entitled; "A Report on the
State Administrative A gen c y i iiniTNew Jersey." The authors
made two major recommendations: that an independent
administrative tribunal be created by statute, with juris
diction to review action of all administrative agencies
which exercise state-wide jurisdiction, and that the state
publish regulations and orders in a publication similar to
30
the Federal Register. The state bar association made no
recommendation on administrative agencies until the results
29
Seventh Report of the Judicial Council of New
Jersey (Trenton: 193677 P* 6.
30
ElRhth Report of the Judicial Council of New
Jersey (Trenton: 193?), pp. 16, 20.
127
of the federal administrative agencies could he observed.
The Federal Rules and Procedural Reform. The
judicial council, created to make a continuous study of
matters affecting the administration of justice, realized
that a continous study and recommendations are necessary
to guard against a species of cultural lag and the con
sequent maladjustments, such as justice being delayed or
denied by cultural lag. After the appearance of the new
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judicial council
made a study of them, especially of the pre-trial con
ference. The council observed that even before the adopr
tion of the new federal rules, pre-trial was used success
fully in Michigan and Massachusetts and was used later in
several other states where it had lightened the burden of
many courts saving time and expense for litigants and
preventing waste of judicial effort. The council recom
mended the establishment of pre-trial practice for the
superior courts of New Jersey. It was realized that
the inauguration of such practice would necessarily
require cooperation between bench and bar and would en
gender a closer relationship between them. It was con
sidered that pre-trial conferences would be helpful in war
time and could cut down necessity for testimony by persons
engaged in war work.
As to the federal rules in general, certain problems
128
would be involved in incorporating them in the state.
They would bring simplification of pleading. However,
it was observed that it would be difficult to dismember
and engraft them in parts upon another system with value
! and effect, and the adoption of the whole of the new
■federal fuies would require changes in the state constitu
tion. The rules would contemplate a merger of legal and
equitable jurisdictions. Therefore, it was deemed advis
able to wait and consider such rules in connection with
the amendments of the judicial article or revision of the
constitution. The council did recommend that the courts
and the legislature consider methods whereby the demar
cation between the substantive and the procedural rights
of litigants may be clearly delineated.
Reorganization and Decline of the Judicial Council.
The judicial council of New Jersey was successful , during
the first ten years of its existence to 1940, and made
many outstanding contributions, the results of which may
be found in statutory law, the rules of the courts, and its
recommendations for the revision of the judiciary article
of the state constitution, and other matters. There was
a spirit of cooperation, high purposes, and dedication to
^^Eleventh Report of the Judicial Council of New
Jersey•(Trenton: 1942), pp. 7-8.
12 9
public service under the leadership.of Arthur T. Vander
bilt, at that time one of the lawyer members appointed for
a five-year term and then re-appointed, who served as
: chairman during that period. He was, not re-appointed at
the close of his term on June 30, 1940 by the then presi
dent of the state bar association and the new president,
taking office in June 1941, appointed him only to find
that his predecessor had filled the vacancy only two weeks
before he left office and had filled another vacancy of
six months duration, caused by a resignation, with an
appointment for a five-year term against the usual
procedure under the judicial council statute for staggered
terms and immediate filling of vacancies. Former Chairman
Vanderbilt declined appointment in 1941 because he was
serving on the federal committee for administrative pro
cedures , was appointed chairman to draft the new federal
rules of criminal procedure, and took an active part in
the campaign to promote constitutional revision, later
serving in 1942 on that commission.
Later in 1941, the bar association president re
designated the appointments of his predecessor. The
members of the judicial council were recognized as very
capable. But the temporary inactivity continued. From
the summer of 1940 until almost time for the 1942 report,
no meetings were held. There were no reports or
130
statistics issued by the council for two years; and after
the initial ten year period ending in 1939, there were
'only three reports, none of which contained statistics.
The judicial council offered services to the official
constitutional revision bodies but took no lead in
'revision, although some individual members served on bar
association or other committees. Although under severe
criticism, the judicial council believed that by waiting
many issues might be resolved and that the condition of
security was continuous advance. Accordingly, the judicial
council was reorganized in 1946, after several meetings
of the council and an open and public meeting of bench
and bar, on April 22, 1946. As reconstituted, the
judicial council made recommendations on rules of prac
tice and procedure and on constitutional revision and
offered services to the chairman of the constitutional
convention and later to the new supreme court. When the
I new constitution was completed, plans Wêr# made for fitting
.into the judicial council the members from the new system
of courts.
The judicial council continued to decline, partly
as a result of a politico-judicial clique, its functions
were absorbed by the new supreme court, administrative
office, and judicial conference under the new constitution,
and it ceased to exist. It was abolished by New Jersey
Laws (1950), Chapter 179.
131
II. LATER DEVELOPMENTS
Constitutional Convention of 1947. By 1947, there
were no organized groups against constitutional revision.
The need was very widely felt for a restriction of the
legislature to policy making functions, a centralized
and better coordinated executive branch, and a complete
reorganization of the judicial system. It was no longer
a matter of whether there should be reform but how reforms
should be worked out. Governor Driscoll was interested
in planning a constitutional convention as was his prede
cessor, Governor Edge. He appointed a committee on pre
paratory research for the constitutional convention under
the chairmanship of Sidney Goldmann, which submitted, in
May 1947, a number of separate pamphlet reports on subjects
relating to the three branches of government and other
32
matters to be discussed at the constitutional convention.
A constitutional convention was called, and met and held
open meetings and public hearings in separate divisions
from June to September, 1947, under the president. Dr.
Robert 0. Clothier.
The committee on the judiciary, under the chair
manship of Dean Frank H. Sommer formerly of the New York
Governor s Committee on Preparatory Research for
the New Jersey Constitutional Convention, Reports (State
of New Jersey : May , 1947).
132
: University Law School, drew heavily on the proposals of
11932, 1939, 1942, and 1944 for revision of the judicial
jarticle, on seven of the reports of the governor's com-
jmittee which dealt with the judicial branch, and on
Iproposals recommended by the League of Women Voters, those
Iby the state bar association committee, and those by the
[Essex County Bar Association Committee, all of which were
I 33
^presented and discussed at the convention. The commit-
: tee on the judiciary was composed of two members from law
i
I schools, a former chief justice, a common pleas judge, two
i
:lawyers, a legislator, and four laymen. Only one member
dissented to the judiciary article in the convention.
I A major change was in the court of errors and ap-
; peals, a huge court of sixteen members with multiple func
tions , which one state senator has described as "little
ilarger than a jury, little less than a mob.Many were
loathe to see an end of separation of law and equity and
'departure of the separate, time-honored chancery court
I
along with the venerable chancellor with appointive powers,
'but numerous jurisdictional problems between the chancery
and law courts made the change more practicable.^^
I
State of New Jersey, Constitutional Convention of
,1947, Proceedings ; Committee of the Judiciary; Record.
Vol. IV (Trenton: 194?), pp. 747-755.
I ^hbld. , p. 6.
^ h b l d . , p p . 5 9 9 -6 4 5 .
133
Three essential characteristics of a modern court system i
I
I were stressed in support of the proposed judicial article : ,
;l) unification and simplification of the court system for
i I
: just, economical, and efficient administration; 2) flexi-
jbility, by assignment of judges and apportionment of
! judicial business among the courts; and 3) control over ,
36) '
I administration, practice and procedure by rules of court.
i
I The delegates of the convention voted 80 to 1 for i
I I
! the revised constitution. In the election of November 4,
:1947, the people voted 4 to 1 in favor of the new consti-
i
j tution with only two counties voting against it. The
,constitution of 1947 became effective January 1, 1948,
I
except the judicial article, which went into effect on ;
; September 15, 1948.
I
I
I The New Judiciary. The judicial article of the new ■
I
,constitution, which incorporated many of the best recom-
'mandations made through the years, abolished most of the
former courts and established an entirely new judicial
system. The former seventeen courts were reduced to:
the supreme court with appellate jurisdiction only, but
! with power over administration and assignment of judges;
I
the superior court with general, state-wide, trial juris- i
36
Joseph Harrison, "New Jersey's New Court System," :
Rutgers University Law Review. 2: 73-76, Spring, 1948.
.134
diction sitting in three divisions, appellate, law and
chancery; the county court with, general trial jurisdiction
in each county and such-inferior courts of limited juris
diction as may he established hy law. Municipal courts
were established replacing former justice of peace courts,
police courts, recorders courts, city courts, mayors
courts, and magistrates courts.
Under the new constitution, the supreme court
"shall make rules governing the administration of all the
courts in the State and, subject to the law, the practice
37
and procedure in all such courts." It has power over
the admission to the practice of law and the discipline
of persons admitted. The clerk of the supreme court and
the clerk of the superior court are appointed by the
supreme court. The supreme court has power over removal
of judges, subject to the law. With only seven members
including the chief justice, the new supreme court is
better qualified to perform its duties than the former
court of last resort with its multiple functions.
The governor nominates and appoints, with the
advice and consent of the senate, the chief justice and
associate justices of the supreme court, the judges of
superior court, the judges of the county courts, and the
37 ^
Mew Jersey Const. (.1947), sec. II.
135
judges of the Inferior courts with jurisdiction, extending
to more than one municipality. The justices of the supreme
court, the judges of the superior court and the judges of
the county courts shall each prior to his appointment
have been admitted to the practice of the law in the state
for at least ten years. The justices of the supreme court,
and the judges of the superior courts shall hold their
offices for initial terms of seven years and upon re-
appointment shall hold their offices during good behavior.
Such justices and judges shall be retired upon attaining
the age of seventy years.
The new constitution gave the chief justice broad
administrative powers, including the power to assign
judges of the superior court to the divisions and parts
of the superior court. He is the administractive head of
all the courts of the state and appoints an administrative
39
director to serve at his pleasure.
The Administrative Office. The administrative
office of the courts was also established on September 15,
1948, pursuant to Article VI, Section VII, of the Constitu
tion of 1947, as implemented by statute.The office
^^New Jersey Const. (1947), Art. VI, sec. VI.
39
New Jersey Const. (1947), Art. VI, sec. VII.
^^New Jersey Laws (1948), chap. 354.
136
is managed by an administrative director, appointed by
the chief justice of the supreme court; he has the assist
ance of a staff of several members. It is the function of
the administrative office to examine the administrative
methods, systems and activities of the judges, clerks,
and other employees of the courts and their offices and
make recommendations to the chief justice with respect
thereto; to examine the state of the dockets of the courts,
secure information as to their needs for assistance,
prepare statistical data and reports of the business of
the courts, and advise the chief justice that proper action
may be taken; and examine, from time to time, the operation
of the courts, investigate complaints with respect thereto,
and submit to the chief justice recommendations for the
improvement thereof.
All fiscal and business affairs of the state courts
were placed in charge of the administrative office of the
courts, whereas previously state funds for the judiciary
were under five separate budgets. It is the function of
the administrative office to prepare and submit budget
estimates of state appropriations necessary for the main
tenance and operation of the courts and make recommenda
tions with respect thereto; to file requests for appro
priations ^rcpermipsioni thespend, as request officer for
for the supreme court and superior court, and,las approval
137
officer, approve and sign all encumbrance requests and
statements of indebtedness on behalf of such courts; to
make necessary arrangements for accommodations for the use
of the supreme and superior courts and the clerks thereof
and for the purchase, exchange, transfer and distribution
of equipment and supplies for these courts and clerks;
and to investigate and collect statistical data and make
reports relating to the expenditures of public moneys,
state, county, and municipal, for the maintenance of the
courts and the offices connected with them.
The administrative director conducts special
studies and issues special reports. The annual report
is a comprehensive account of the work of the judiciary
and includes the statistics of all the courts of the state.
As secretary of the judicial conference, the administra
tive director prepares for the annual meetings and
carries on extensive correspondence.
The Judicial Conference. The judicial conference,
provided for by Rule 1:7-3, held its first meeting on
September 13, 1948. It was composed of the justices of
the supreme court, and the judges of the superior court,
the county courts, the criminal judicial district côourt,
the county district courts, the standing masters of the
supreme court, the 21 magistrates elected as chairmen
138
by the magistrates of the several counties, and the
administrative director of the courts; several officials,
including the president and the majority and minority
leaders of the senate, and the speaker and the majority
and minority leaders of the general assembly, the officers
and trustees of the state bar association, the president
of each of the county bar associations, and as many dele
gates from each as such county had assemblymen, the'
attorney general and the county prosecutors, one repre
sentative from each law school in the state on the
approved list of the American Bar Association, and the
members of the Board of Bar Examiners; and ten laymen
appointed by the chief justice.
The functions of the judicial conference are to
consider the status of judicial business in the various
courts, to devise means for relieving congestion of
dockets where this may be necessary, to consider improve
ments of procedure in the courts, and to exchange ideas
with respect to the improvements of the administration
of justice. All of the members of the judicial conference
participate in its discussions, except that one session
is for the judges alone.
Aneexample of the efficient technique in getting
active participation.may be observed in its second
conference, September 8-9, 1949. More than five months
139
in advance of the conference, the supreme court invited
suggestions for possible amendments to the court rules,
by letter addressed to every bar association in the state,
and from every individual Judge and lawyer by notices
published in the New Jersey Law Journal. The scores of
suggestions received were placed on the agenda of the
Judicial conference and discussed pro and con at the
sessions. Out of the work and discussion dame some fifty
amendments, all of which were promulgated by the supreme
court on November 10, 1949. Each year thirty to fifty
or more rules were discussed and committees were appointed
to work on various subjects.
The members of the Judicial conference, at their
regular meeting in 1955, recognized the need of reorgani
zation with greater delegate, participation. Accordingly,
the supreme court reorganized the conference in 1956.^^
The membership was cut approximately in half with judges
selecting their own delegates. All members serve for
three-year terms, except ex officio members and judges
who serve one year. The membership now includes three
justices of the supreme court; the presiding judges of
Parts A and B of the appellate division of the superior
court ; five assignment judges, two judges of the law
Rule 1:23-1.
140
divislony'two chancellors of the equity division and two
chancellors of the matrimonial division of the superior
court, twelve judges of the county courts, eight judges
of the county district courts, and two specially appointed
juvenile and domestic relations judges, all selected at
the open meeting of the September term; nine judges of the
municipal courts selected by the judicial conference of
magistrates; three surrogates, three county clerks and
three chief probation officers; the administrative
director of the courts, the standing masters of the supreme
court, clerk of the supreme court, clerk of the superior
court, and chairman of the board of bar examiners; the
deans of the three recognized law schools of the state; the
attorney general and four county prosecutors; the officers
of the state bar association; one representative of each
county bar association and one added representative for
each three assemblymen. Â considerable amount of the
work of the Conference is done by committees who have an
open meeting at the time and place of the mid-winter bar
meeting and by January 31 of each year must submit a
report including any recommendations for changes in rules
or statutes. An added function of the reorganized judi
cial conference is to consider and recommend legislation,
a function formerly performed by the judicial council.
All rules or changes in rules proposed by any one must
141
be submitted to the proper committee. The chairmen of the
various committees constitute a steering committee to
assist the supreme court.
While the judicial conference is less large and
unwieldy than it formerly was, it still consists of a
hundred or so more members than the former judicial
counbil. It serves importantly in a liaison capacity
between the bench and bar and with the public, and in its
role in the rule-making process and in recommending
legislation.
Rule-makinp: and Law Revis ion. On.September 15,
1948, the new supreme court, which has full power to make
rules for all courts dnder the new constitution, adopted
and promulgated new rules of practice and procedure and
administration, based on the federal rules, governing all
the courts of the state except juvenile and domestic
relations courts and the district courts. The state then
had a uniform set of rules and procedures for the unified
state court system. From time to time rules were added or
amended, after discussion at the judicial conference.
A legislative committee was established in 1950
to prepare a , revision of statutes relating to practice
42
and procedure. Fortunately on June 27, 1950, the case
^^New Jersey Laws (1950), chap. 171.
142
43
of Winberry y. Salisbury was decided, upholding the
power of the supreme court over rule-making above that
of the legislature. Professor Pirsig has noted the signif'
icance of the case at this time:
It saved the program from what might have been a
destructive attack through legislation and diverted
the activities of the commission to a revision which
reconciled and coordinated the statutory law to the
new rules adopted.
The Advisory Gommittee on Revision of the Statutes,
consisting of a hundred judges and attorneys under the
chairmanship of Senator Alfred. G. Clapp, prepared a
revision of Title Two, dealing with the administration
of civil .and criminal justice, and Title Three, relating
to the administration of estates, from 1950 to 1951, in
order to weed out procedural laws in conflict with rules
established by the supreme court. A tentative draft was
prepared first and distributed over the state with a call
for comment and criticism. The annual judicial conference
of 1951 was called three months earlier than usual, in
June rather than in September, to consider the tentative
revision. After the discussions at the judicial con
ference, further revisions of the tentative draft were
^^Winberry y . Salisbury (1950), 5 N.J. 240.
j i
Maynard E. Pirsig, "Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt
in Retrospect," Rutgers Law Review, 12: 443, Spring, 1958.
143
prepared and distributed in mimeographed form, for com
ment and criticism. On the basis of these studies, the
legislature adopted the revision in a special session,
in November 1951, and bills passed by the legislature were
approved by the governor on December 5, 1951 » The supreme
court revised many rules and formulated some new ones,
after several weeks of concentrated work, and promulgated
them on December 21, 1951, effective January 1, 1952.
Scattered procedural provisions of the remaining fifty-
six titles were substantially deleted by legislation
signed by the governor on March 19, 1953 and on the same
date the supreme court promulgated rules to replace these
provisions.
In 1953, there was a complete revision of the
rules of court, consolidating all changes made over the
previous five years. These rules were worked out during
a period of six months during which time the judicial
conference was called early, on June 18, to consider the
proposed rules, which went into effect on September 9,
1953 as the fall term opened.
Efficiency in the Courts. Remarkable efficiency
was achieved in the first year of operation under the
new system. The new supreme court increased the number of
appeals determined by 50 per cent and decreased the
average time from date of argument to date of decision
144
by 74 per cent. The new appellate courts in the first
year of operation decided 64 per cent more appeals and
decreased the time for decision by 72 per cent. In the
appellate division of the superior court, the Judges dis- !
posed of 76 per cent more appeals than the former supreme
45
court in 29 per cent of the average time per appeal.
The law division of the superior court disposed of 98
per cent more cases than its predecessor court#; and the
county courts, 77 per cent more cases. During the second
year, the two courts, working together, increased their
productivity another 20 per cent.^^
Within two years after the effective date of the
judicial article of the new constitution, all backlogs
and arrearages in each of the courts had been substantial
ly eliminated. It was stated in the annual report of
1949-1950:
With the Supreme Court having heard and decided
every ready case, with the Appellate Division so
abreast of its calendar that beginning in June only
one of the two regular parts was required to sit, and
with 67 per cent of all the cases pending in the two
trial courts of general jurisdiction (including cases
not yet at issue) being less than 8 months old.
45
Annual Report of the Administrative Director of
the Courts (Trenton: 1949), pp. 4-5*
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Record of the New
Jersey Courts in the Second Year under the New Constitu
tion," Rutgers £Aw Review, 5: 336, Winter, 1951*
145
many jurisdictions would regard our courts as being
completely up to date.
Chief Justice Vanderbilt attributed the improvement in
these courts to : 1) improved methods in the pre-trial
conferences and calendar control advocated by the committee
of which Justice Ackerson was chairman, 2) the temporary
assignment of some county judges to counties with con
gested lists, and 3 ) improved cooperation of bench and bar
48
after a year s experience with the new rules.
The supreme court adopted a plan, suggested by
a committee of judges under the chairmanship of Justice
Ackerson in December 1949> which provided for integrated
civil trial calendars in each of the counties where there
were two or more full time judges. Gases were carried
on single integrated list and the assignment judge was to
assign them either to a superior court judge or to a
county court judge. The rule provided for a weekly and
daily’ call of the cases and was designed to keep a pool
of ready cases available at all times for allodf the
judges working in the county. The plan eliminated some
of the confusion resulting from the overlapping juris-
47
Annual Report of the Administrative Director of
the Courts 1949-1950 (Trenton: 1950), p. 1.
^^Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Record of the New
Jersey Courts in the Second Year under the New Constitu
tion, ’ Rutgers Law Review. 5% 337, Winter, 1951.
146
diction of the superior and county courts.
The chief justice deplored that much valuable time
was still lost in calendar breakdowns, the chief cause of
which was last minute settlements, and noted the need to
put more oases on daily call and hold more attorneys and
witnesses in readiness. He said:
Although the record shows a substantial improvement
over the year 1948-1949, the judges of the Law Divi
sion lost 12 per cent of their time through calendar
breakdowns; the judges handling general equity
matters, 16 per cent; and the full time county judges,
16 per cent. No business v/ould tolerate such losses,
and efficiency demands that they be promptly over
come. 49
The goal at the end of the year was that every case ready
for argument in the appellate courts would have been
heard and decided and every case pending at issue in the
trial court which was triable would have been tried and
decided.
The following year the status of judicial business
was considered to be in excellent condition and in accord
ance with a normal pattern of operations. By the end of
June 1950, the pending cases in the law courts were 5,519,
increased to 7,009 over the summer months ; by the end of
June 1951, the pending cases were down to 4,882, the
lowest number in a period of over 20 years, during which
time the population increased by 20 per cent from
49
^^Ibld., p. 338.
147
50
4,041,334 to 4,839,040. During the third year, the
municipal courts disposed of 14 per cent more cases than
51
than the previous year. Although some cities had
adopted it. New Jersey was the first state to adopt on a
state-wide basis, on January 1, 1949, a non-fixable,
uniform traffic ticket. In a contest conducted by the
section of judicial administration of the American Bar
Association, Judge Harold R. Medina presented the New
Jersey municipal courts with the first place award for
outstanding progress in improving the administration of
52
justice in traffic courts in 1949-1950. In 1950, New
Jersey was awarded first place for the observance of the
minimum standards of judicial administration.^^
Although there was a 20 per cent increase in
efficiency in the courts of New Jersey in 1949-1950, in
the third year from 1950 toi1951 the increase was 18 per
cent less than in the previous year; the fourth year the
percentage was the same as the third year; and in the
^Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Record of the'New
Jersey Courts in the Third Year under the New Constitutfion
tion, ' Rutgers Law Review, 6; 369, Winter, 1952.
, p. 370.
52loc. cit.
Charies 0. Porter, "Minimum Standards of Judicial
Administration: The Extent of Their Acceptance," American
Bar Association Journal. 34: 614, August, 1950.
148
fifth year, 1952-1953, the efficiency was 5 per cent over
54
the fourth year. Three methods were suggested, in
addition to those which had already been employed, for
increasing the number of civil cases tried without
increasing the number of judges : 1) increasing the number
of trials without a jury, 2) improving pre-trial confer
ences, and 3) devising ways and means of shunting the.
many cases that should never be brought in the law courts,
or courts of general jurisdiction, into the county district
55
courts. The aim of Chief Justice Vanderbilt was that
the New Jersey courts will be known as. industrious,
56
efficient, just and friendly.
A committee on the improvement of criminal justice
had found in 1951 that some of the criminal cases were
10 to 20 years old.The assignment judge in each county
was directed to take over control of the criminal calendar
from the county prosecutor in September, 1953.
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The First Five Years of
the New Jersey Courts under the Constitution of 1947,"
Rutgers Law Review, 8: 290-291, Spring, 1954.
55_^rthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Record of the New
Jersey Courts in the Fourth Year under the New Constitu
tion, ’ Rutgers Law Review, 7: 318-319, Winter, 1953.
56
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The New Rules of the
Supreme Court on Appellate Procedure," Rutgers Law Review,
2; 33, Spring, 1948.
57
Annual Report of the Administrâtive Director of
the Courts 1953-1954 (Trenton: 1954), p. 10.
149
It was not until 1953 that objectives for jury
58
reform, were attained. A law was passed granting the
supreme court power in each county to appoint and remove
jury commissioners, who prepare jury lists of qualified
jurors under the supervision of the assignment judge in
each county. The supreme court has provided a uniform
I
questionaire for use of jury commissioners in selecting
prospective jurors, a manual for petit jurors, and a model
form of charge to the grand jury for use by the assignment
judges.
The problem of court congestion and delay arose
again in New Jersey. From 4,882 cases pending in the law
courts on June 30, 1951, the lowest in twenty years, the
number of pending cases rose to 11,696 by June 30, 1958.
By the summer of 1959, the number of pending cases ad-
59
vanced to 15,535, up 33 per cent. The decrease in the
number of jury trials has not increased the number of
cases tried per judge. Clearly, more judges are needed
to try the increased case load. There is a human .
limitation on efficiency.
Court Organization. While there has been marked
58
New Jersey Laws (1953), chap. 240.
59
Annual Report of the Administrative Director of
the Courts 1958-1959(Trenton: 1959), p. 1.
150
I efficiency in all the courts from the supreme court,
I
'which has set the pattern, on down through the lower
I
courts, the organization of the lower courts is one of
I the principal defects of the new court system in New
I Jersey. The county courts and the law division of the
'superior courts have overlapping functions. The use of
I the integrated civil trial calendar by the assignment
judge in each county to assign cases either to a superior
court judge or to a county court judge has eliminated
: some of the confusion over functions and jurisdiction.
'There is a juvenile and domestic relations court in each
,of the 21 counties, but in only 5 counties are there
juvenile and domestic relations judges; in the other
counties, the county judges serve these courts as well
■ as their own.
The new county district courts were given juris
diction over civil cases involving amounts up to $500,
soon increased to $1,000, and the municipal magistrates
; courts were established in 421 of the municipalities by
January 1, 1949 with jurisdiction over petty crimes and
traffic cases. With the population of the state more
I
' concentrated in urban are#s, five counties have about
.four-fifths of the combined court calendars. Where there
are rural areas or small municipalities having no
municipal courts, the county district courts handle the
151
small criminal and traffic cases as well as the civil
' cases.
According to legislation passed in 1948 creating
municipal magistrate courts, the magistrates must there-
{after be lawyers, they must be paid on a salary basis,
I
Iand two or more adjacent municipalities were permitted to
I
[form one such court. The supreme court regulates the
I
rules of administration, practice and procedure in these
courts as in the other courts of the state. The magis
trates are elected, though not on a non-partisan basis.
In 1948, 64 per cent of the magistrates were
laymen; ten years later in 1958, only 28.6 per cent were
laymen.It was reported in 1957 that during that fiscal
year 13 municipal courts handled fewer than 20 court cases
each and in almost 30 per cent of the courts, the judge
sat less than one hour per week; it was suggested that
6l
these courts might be abolished. In 1956, the salary
of 9 magistrates was less than $200, another 67 received
62
less than $500, and 125 received less than $1,000.
^^Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the
■ Courts 1957-1958 (Trenton: 1958), p. 26.
6l
Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the
Courts 1956-1957 (Trenton: 19577, p7 13.
^^Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Municipal Court -- The
Most Important Court in New Jersey: Its Remarkable Progress
ahd Its Unsolved Problems," Rutfcers Law Review. 10: 655,
Summer, 1956.
152
I ' By 1958, there were 490 single municipal courts
iand 19 joint municipal courts serving more than one
63
,municipality. There were 39 of the 56? municipalities
,which had no municipal court so that the county district
I courts in these areas handled the small criminal and
! traffic cases. In 117 of these municipal courts, the
1
I judges spent less than 1 hour per week; all 413 judges
<
averaged 180 hours per year on the bench, or 74,511 hours
■in all. All municipal court judges are part-time judges.
It may be readily observed that these small municipal
'courts with layman judges, who handle so few cases per
.year at an average salary of about flO per case, have
many of the characteristics of former justice of the
peace courts with an average fee of about $10 per case.
'It appears that few lawyers would care to spend even this
I small amount of their time with these cases.
After the first five years, recommendations were
made as to the following needs: to combine more municipal
'courts, making joint municipal courts properly staffed,
ihoused and equipped; to abolish the few remaining criminal
.judicial district courts in two counties and the few
traffic courts in two counties; to eliminate part-time
: judges and part-time prosecutors; to elect magistrates
^^Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the
Courts 1957-1958 (Trenton: 1958), p. 26.
: 153!
■ I
I on a non-partisan basis; and to make sentences and I
'penalties more uniform. In 1953, county judges were ^
' 64'
■holding conferences to make their sentences more uniform.
The two remaining county traffic courts in Bergen and
I
'Hudson counties and the criminal judicial district court ;
I
I in Bergen County were abolished by 1954,^^ and the three I
I I
! remaining criminal judicial district courts in Hudson !
I 666
: County were abolished by 1955* These courts had been
handling very few cases in later years and added to the
, multiplicity of courts.;
All county district judges were part-time judges
I except in one county until 1955, when judges in two more
counties began serving full time. The jurisdiction of
these county district courts was increased from $1,000
to $3,000 in auto negligence cases , in 1953, to help
! relieve the congestion in the county courts and the law
! division of the superior courts. In 1956, recommendation
was made to increase the jurisdiction to $3,000 in all
negligence actions and this we.s later done. But the
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The First Five Years of
■ the New Jersey Courts under the Constitution of 1947,"
Rutgers Law Review. 8: 301, Spring, 1954.
^^Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "Record of the New Jersey
Courts in the Sixth Year under the Constitution of 1947,"
Rutgers Law Review, 9: 496, Spring, 1955.
^^Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the ;
Courts 1954-1955 (Trenton: 1955), p. 13.
I 154
'changing of the jurisdictional amount did not solve the
i
■problem. |
■ During the fiscal year, 1953-1954, of the 5,627
I
: money judgments entered in the superior court and the
; i
.county courts, 3,165 were for $1,000 or less and another
; I
11,600 were for $3,000 or less, or over 84 per cent of all |
I money judgments that year in the law division of the supe- ;
! 67 :
■rior court and the county courts. Since most of these l
i
cases originally should have been brought in the county
district courts, the supreme court appointed a committee
I to submit recommendations for accomplishing this end.
This committee reported to the supreme court
,which recommended legislation to provide for:
1) the compulsory transfer to the county district
court of any case which it appeared with reasonable
probability that the ultimate recovery would not
exceed the jurisdiction of that court;
2) the extension of the jurisdiction of the county
district court to entertain any case so transferred
and, if the proofs warranted, to enter judgment
; therein in excess of its normal jurisdictional limits;
, and
3) an increase in the fees in the superior and coun-;
ty court so as to eliminate the existing differential
which made it less expensive to institute an action
in the upper court than in the lower court
’ ^^Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "Record of the New Jersey
Courts in the Sixth Year under the Constitution of 1947,"
Rutgers Law Review, 9: 491, Spring, 1955.
^^Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "Record of the New Jersey
Courts in the Seventh Year under theCConstitution of
1947," Rutgers Law Review, 10: 402-403, Winter, 1955.
155
The legislature enacted all three recommendations,
6 G .
'effective April 5, 1955- This legislation has proved
more effective than that changing the jurisdictional
amdunt. It has been considered for adoption in other
jstates. Chapter 6 increased the filing fee in the
I superior court and in the county courts from $10 to $25»
Also in 1955, legislation was passed permitting assignment
1 of county district judges and transfer assignment of
I 70
I them to other counties.
' In 1958, Chief Justice Weintraub proposed further
integration of the court system by consolidating the
’county and superior courts and the state bar association
^ approved the merger. Such a plan would remove one of the
chief defects in the court system under the new judicial
article. The chief justice also proposed that the
municipal magistrates court be replaced by a county-wide
system and that all judges in these courts be full-time.
Previous to 1959, the 49 county judges of the 21
. county courts ranged from 1 part-time to 4 full-time
judges per county. In 1959, legislation was passed pro
viding that all county judges thereafter be full-time
judges; incumbents may choose to serve full time at any
^ ew Jersey Laws (1955), chap. 5, 6, and 7*
70
New Jersey Laws (1955). chap. 72.
156
71
■ time during the remainder of their current terms. Also
in 1959, some consideration was given to the possibility
I of establishing circuit courts, similar to those in
; 72
.Connecticut, to replace the 490 municipal courts. In
the lower courts of New Jersey, effort may well be made
jtoward more full-time judges with improved status.
! Juvenile and Domestic Relations Divisions. In 1903,i
I
i New Jersey established separate courts in each county to
73
deal with youthful offenders. In 1947, the Municipal
'Youth Guidance Council Act was passed permitting munici-
;palities to establish councils to coordinate community
7 A 7R
services for youth; the act was amended in 1953. '
Since 1947, the number of juvenile cases has increased at
76
I the average rate of about 10 per cent a year.
I A Municipal Juvenile Conference Committee, consist-
^^New Jersey Laws (1959), chap. 26.
Jersey Court Faces Forty-six Per Cent
Increase in Caseload Next Fall," Journal of the American
Judicature Society, 43: 26, June, 1959.
^^New Jersey Laws (1903),' chap. 219.
i ^^New Jersey Laws (1947), chap. 179.
75
; New Jersey Laws (1953), chap. 9.
76
I Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Juvenile Delinquency
! Committees, a Unique and Indispensable Instrumentality
' for Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency, " Rutpzers Law
, Review, 11; 66-9, Summer, 1957*
157
! ' I
;ing of citizens or referees, was set up in Monmouth. County,,
1 :
'and later in Burlington County, to deal with minor delin- ;
quency problems referred voluntarily to it. By 1952,
these committees had spread to six more counties and
; during the year the number reached 106 in 110 municipali- ;
> I
j .
I ties in 13 counties.' ' On January 1, 1953, they were ;
i 78 ,
,established on a state-wide basis by court rule. The
juvenile and domestic relations court judge establishes
such a committee in each municipality to serve as a friend
'of the court in making a special study and investigation j
of each juvenile offender and to devise ways of solving ’
individual problems. By October 1956, there were 503
juvenile conference committees covering 552 of the 571
79
; municipalities of the state.
New Jersey patterned somewhat after Los Angeles
County, in 1957, by inaugurating, in ten counties a new
divorce procedure on a three-year trial basis as recom
mended by the committee on rules. The procedure calls
for all dIvorce,aannulment or separate maintenance actions
involving minor children to be referred to a standing
^'^Ibid. , p. 674.
7&Rule 6:2-2.
7%,rthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Juvenile Delinquensy
Committees, a Unique and Indispensable Instrumentality
for Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency," Rutgers Law
Review, 11: 674, Summer, 1957.
I 158 ^
'master of the superior court for an attempt at reconcilia- j
:tion. Instead of a complaint detailing grounds for
I
: divorce being filed, a "simple complaint" is used, and if '
!
reconciliation is effected the complaint is kept on file
; for six months. Should the effort fail, an amended
I
comolaint is filed and the case is continued. '
I
Relations with the Bar and Other Groups. While j
I New Jersey does not have an integrated bar, the bar
associations have played a role in judicial administra
it ion which, it appears, is becoming more significant.
I
'Attorneys or bar association representatives have been
members of the judicial council and of the judicial
I conference and have served on committees for constitu- i
tional revision. For many years the state bar association
I
' h a s h a d a c o m m i t t e e o n judicial appointments, c o m p o s e d
I o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d l a w y e r s ready and a n x i o u s t o c o n s u l t
with a n d a d v i s e m e m b e r s o f t h e senate o n t h e q u a l i f i e s - :
,tions of judges nominated for office; but it appears that ;
the senate has seldom if ever consulted this committee.
The governor of New Jersey began in 1956 the custom-
followed by the past two governors of California of
I
inquiring of the state bar association on qualifications
; of persons for appointment to judicial office. By 1951,
the bar association committee had succeeded in bringing
a legal aid society to all the counties of the state.
,except one where a legal aid committee was established.
I In 1953, the New Jersey Law Enforcement Council
arranged with the Institute of Judicial Administration
for a survey of the enforcement of criminal law over the
'previous five years under the direction of Judge Morris
I ' . .
|Ploscowe with the administrative office cooperating;
, another such survey was arranged under the direction of
81
I the National Pardon and Parole Association. The
,University of Chicago Law School made a study of civil
land criminal jury cases in New Jersey, using a question
naire for judges. It was reported in 1958 that nineteen
foreign countries in all have sent representatives to
study New Jersey’s judicial system; hundreds from states
and smaller jurisdictions in the nation have come.
Summary. While it took some time for New Jersey
to achieve stability from the period of its judicial
; council to that of its new judicial system under the new
judicial article, progress has been rapid and effective.
The success of judicial administration is due mainly to
the leadership of Chief Justice Vanderbilt, the more
159
80
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, "The Record of the New
Jersey Courts in the Third Year under the New Constitu
tion, ’ Rutgers Law Review. 6: 373, Winter, 1952.
81
Annual Report of the Administrative Director of
the Courts 1953-1954 (Trenton: 1954), p. 10.
simplified court structure, the administrative office,
: the power of the chief justice to assign judges, respon
sibility of a single judge in each county for adminis-
: taring the lists of cases, and the rules of practice and
I procedure, especially those of civil procedure modeled
I
I on the federal rules and including mandatory pre-trial
1 conferences. Not all of the success resulted from the
- new constitution. There were many unsolved problems to
be met by continuous, concerted effort; and there are
'problems yet to be solved.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS
Great achievements have been attained in judicial
: administration in California., Ohio, and New Jersey. Each ^
I
of these states deserves credit for being a leader or a
model in several areas of judicial administration.
California is unique in that it owes the establish
ment of its judicial council and many of its important
judicial developments to constitutional amendment. Its
judicial council composed entirely of judges, and of
' judges representative.of all levels of courts, is in a
position to exercise valid judicial authority. Its chief
justice has long exercised his power of assignment of
judges and limited superintendency of the courts.
In administrative procedures and in lower court
! reorganization, it serves as a model. The method of se-
; lection of supreme court and appellate court judges is
an exemplary method that may well be extended to cover
,ad interim appointments and even the selection of superior
and municipal court judges generally.
Clearer lines should be drawn between procedural
and substantive law, as is being done in New Jersey and
in Michigan, with the power over procedural law vested
j , 162
jin the courts or-judicial council. Meanwhile, under the !
I :
the system of combination of centralization and decentral- ;
ization, much has been achieved by the uniform rules
. promulgated by the judicial council while sufficient ,
^discretion has been left to the lower courts for local
rule-making as needs arise. Mandatory pre-trial rules
I promulgated by the judicial council have become an
I
important contribution to judicial administration.
' Different regulations for muhti-judge courts than
; for single judge courts provide for adequate court inte-
! gration and calendar control. A constitutional provision
requires a presiding judge in superior courts having
three or more judges and the rules promulgated by the
judicial council provide for the use of the master calen-
;dar in superior courts having three or more judges. Thus
it is not left to the individual court to decide whether
I
: or not there will be a presiding judge or use of the
I
i master calendar. The courts have only to make wise use
of these means of judicial administration.
Although the judicial council, of California has
collected, compiled and published statistics almost since
Its. origin and the county clerks are required to send in
monthly reports on the work of the courts, the reports
published from this data are not as complete or as
■ valuable for comparison as they might be. Some of the
j 163
; county clerks keep additional statistics, but these are
I
iniot generally comparable between counties, though they
iserve a useful purpose for the individual court. The
I classification of methods of disposition of cases is
i ■ ■
inadequate; there should be more details given about more
categories of dispositions. In this way it would be
; possible to better evaluate the various methods of dis-
Iposition and plan for improved methods of judicial admin-
I
listration. Statistics on pending cases are not given.
[More long-range planning is needed.
Ohio had the first crime survey, the first state-
.wide study on judicial administration, and the first
report on criminal statistics among the states. It has
the first judicial council; the chief justice of the
supreme court of Ohio has had the power to assign judges
since 1912, ten years before that power was granted to
the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Ohio was the first state, to this author’s knowledge, to
I have a woman member on its judicial council and on its
'supreme court.
I The common pleas court of Cuyahoga County in Cleve-
^land was the first court of general jurisdiction to
; achieve integration under a chief justice. It was the
'first such court in the United States to win a national
'reputation for efficiency with its calendar system and
: 164 ;
'procedures before trial. It was also in Cleveland that
I the key-number system was developed for the selection
of jurors that is now used in many other jurisdictions.
This common pleas court continues to be a leader in
' developing techniques and continuing efficiency in
' judicial administration. i
I
Cleveland had the second juvenile court and the '
! i
' second municipal court in the nation and as part of the 1
t
I
; latter had the first conciliation or small claims court.
: Cincinnati had the first family court in 1914.
The administrative assistant of the supreme court
of Ohio has made a remarkable contribution with the model
periodical, Ohio Courts, a current and comprehensive
monthly source of judicial statistics together- with
notes on judicial news and legislation. To this author's
' knowledge, Cleveland was the first of any city to have
, a court administrator, appointed in 1957, in the court of
' general jurisdiction.
I I
The Cleveland Bar Association has made an outstand
ing contribution in evaluating and campaigning for
' qualified candidates for judicial office over the years
and more recently in the report of its committee on
court congestion and delay.
The judicial council of Ohio has been limited in
its powers to those of a study and liaison group, but it
165 :
'has served importantly in such capacity, though its funds '
: have been sparse. It renders a continuous service to the
administrative agencies. Its programs have had substan- j
J t
tial support from, the state bar association and from the ;
law schools, one of whose professors serves as an able
i
i
jmember of the council.
I The decentralized system of judicial administra-
Ition in Ohio is not without merit for much has been
I . ■
iachieved democratically and cooperatively. The integrated
!trial court systems have taken the initiative and made
I an outstanding contribution to judicial administration :
,in Ohio.
New Jersey has achieved its remarkable success
mainly since adoption of its new constitution in 1947.
IIt owes its success particularly to the leadership of
Chief Justice Vanderbilt and to its more simplified
court structure, administrative office, power of the chief '
! justice to administer the courts and to assign judges,
responsibility of a single judge in each county for
; administering the lists of cases, and rules of practice
and procedure.
The bi-partisan and appointive selection of judges
'had long been a practice,in New Jersey and was continued
under the new system. The value of this practice had
already been proven.
166
Some problems of court reorganization are yet to
I be solved. A considerable amount of simplif ication and
1 integration of the court system has been achieved. There
'are still too many court# with overlapping jurisdictions
or functions, and with part-time judges, some of whom are
iuntrained in the law. Calendar control by the assignment
judge in each county helps reconcile these conflicts.
'New Jersey probably has more state, central control over
■judicial administration and over the finances of the
j courts than has any other state.
Not every reform was automatic with the new con-
'stitution. The calender assignment system came in 1949-
1950 and criminal calendar control, not until 1953. Nor
,did jury reform come until 1953. The solution for many
of these problems was worked out by committees of judges.
Jury reform was effected mainly by statute.
F
Rule-making was a difficult task at the beginning.
■Careful study was made and a complete, new set of rules
made, patterned on the federal rules. Conflicts with
; statutes had to be resolved. The supreme test of the
rules made by the supreme court resulted in a victory for
the judiciary over procedural law while at the same time
upholding the power of the legislature over substantive
law. Pre-trial has been criticized severely by some
lawyers in New Jersey, but pre-trial and discovery
167 .
procedures are among basic techniques in judicial reform '
in that state. To abandon them might seriously impede ;
the distinguished advance made in judicial administration
• there.
The system of reporting by the judges and the ;
j system of collection, classification, compilation and |
. publication of statistics are adequate. One difficulty
here again is with the still somewhat complex court
system with overlapping function# when attempts are made
j to solve problems brought to light by the statistics or !
! I
ito compare with other jurisdictions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I.. CALIFORNIA
A.. DOCUMENTS
I
: California Constitution (1879).
I California Business and Professions Code.
i
! California Code of Civil Procedure.
: California Government Code.
,California Penal Code.
California, Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 14 (1959).
California. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1% (1959).
California Statutes.
California Supreme Court Reports.
I California. Judicial Council. Biennial Reports,
Nos. 1-17, 1926-1959.
, California Manual of Pre-Trial Procedure and '
Rules Relating: to Pre-Trial Conferences Adopted by the :
Judicial Council of California, September 19, 1956.
■ 35 pp.
,________ , Rules for the Municipal Courts. 1952.
' , Rules for the Superior Courts. 1948.
, Rules on Appeal, Including Rules on Original
Proceedings. For the Supreme Court and District Courts
Of Appeal of the State of California. 1950.
, Rules on-Appeal to the Superior Court, Including
Rehabilitation Rules. 1952.
170 I
REPORTS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY '
* Accident Cases Experiment Relieving Court Congestion.
I Release from the Office of Presiding Judge Louis H.
j Burke, Los Angeles Superior Court, October 14, 1959-
5 pp.
I Branch Services— Superior Court. County of Los Angeles.
! 8 pp. Exhibits A-I. Including. Branch Courts ;
Recommendations of the 1957 Branch Courts Committee,
I Los Angeles Superior Court, Exhibit G.
I Burke, Louis H., The Conciliation Court of Los Angeles
I County. Los Angeles: n.d. 69 pp.
I
' Conciliation Court of Los Angeles County. Address, of
■ Honorable Louis H. Burke, Presiding Judge of the
, Superior Court of Los Angeles County and former Judge
' of the Conciliation Court, before the Chicago Bar
Association, February 23, 1959. 19 pp.
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Comparative Statistics
for the Years 1957, 1958. and 1959. 5 pp.
Recommendations Re Branch Superior Court Districts.
Letter to the Board of Supervisors, County of Los
Angeles, from L.S. Hollinger, Chief Administrative
; Officer and Milton Breivogel, Director of Planning,
January 15, 1959. 9 pp.
C. REPORTS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Annual Report of the County Clerk and Clerk of the Superi
or Court of Los Angèles County. by Haîiold J. Ostly.
1949-1959.
Ostly, Harold J., Statistics for the Department of the
Presiding Judge. Pre-Trial and Trial Calendars.
County of Los Angeles, for December, 1958. 7 pp.
171
D.. BOOKS
Conference of California Judges, Constitution of the
Conference of California Judges and Canons of Judicial
Ethics and Opinions of Committee of Judicial Ethics.
State of California 1954. Los Angeles; Metropolitan
News, 1954.
Fussell, Paul, The Holbrook Report— Eight Months Later.
Los Angeles: n.n., 1957« 81 pp.
I Holbrook, James G., A Survey of Metropolitan Courts ,
I Los Angeles Area. Los Angeles: University of Southern
J California, 1956. 434 pp.
i
I Tompkins, Dorothy Campbell, Administration of Criminal
! Justice. 1949-1956. Berkeley: University of Califor-
! nia, Bureau of Public Administration, 1956. 351 pp.
E.. PERIODICALS
•"Committee on County Courts to the Board of Governors of
the State Bar of California," Journal of the State Bar
of California, 21:244-262, July-August, 1946.
Gibson, Phil S., "The Tax Court Amendment Should Be
Defeated," Journal of the State Bar of California.
21:106-115, May-June, 1946.
"Jurors’ Mental Tests Succeed in Los Angeles," Journal of
the American Judicature Society. 22:265-266, April,
! 1939.
"Prompt Trial in Los Angeles Court," Journal of the
American Judicature Society. 17:170-171, April, 1934.
!"Report of Committee to Survey Inferior Court Structure of
' California," Journal of the State Bar of California,
I 20:265-270, July-August, 1945.
i State Bar Committee to Survey the Inferior Court Structure
; of California, "The Township and City Courts of
' California," Journal of the State Bar of California,
I 20:293-345, September-October, 1945.
I
I Triplett, Clyde C., "Progress Report: Personal Injury
j Non-jury Panel," Los Angeles Bar Bulletin. 33 : 293 - 298,
August, 1958.
172
II. OHIO
A. DOCUMENTS
Ohio Constitution {I85I ) •
{Ohio General Code.
I Ohio Revised Code.
I
I
'Ohio Laws.
Ohio Supreme Court Reports.
,Ohio. Ohio Court Rules Annotated. Compiled and edited
by Ervin H. Pollock. Buffalo : Dennis and Company,
; Inc., 1949. 1177 pp.
Ohio. Judicial Council. Reports, Nos. 1-14, 1931-1959.
'Ohio. Office of the Administrative Assistant, the Supreme
Court of Ohio. Ohio Courts, Vol. Ill, 1959; Vol. IV,
I960.
B.. DOCUMENTS OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY
'Rules for the Court Administrator of the Court of Common
I Pleas of Cuyahoga County. 3 pp.
Rules of the Court of Common PIeas of Cuyahoga County.
Ohio ; In Force from and after June 1, 1956, Samuel H.
Gilbert, Chief Justice. 46 pp.
C.. BAR ASSOCIATION REPORTS
The Cleveland Bar Association, Committee on Court
Congestion and Delay in Litigation, Report and
Recommendations on Trial Delay in the Common Pleas
Court of Cuyahoga County. Ohio. Cleveland; Cleveland
Bar Association, May, 1958. 36 pp.
173 :
D., BOOKS '
i The Cleveland Foundation, Survey of Criminal Justice in
Cleveland. Cleveland; The Cleveland Foundation, 1922.
I 729 pp.
; Douglass, Paul Franklin, The Justice of the Peace in the
; Courts of Hamilton County. Ohio. Baltimore; The
; Johns Hopkins Press, 1932. 118 pp.
'Institute of Law and the Ohio Institute, Ohio Criminal
I Statistics. 1931. Baltimore; The Johns Hopkins Press,
: 1932. 189 pp.
I
i The Johns Hopkins University, Institute of Law, Study of
I Judicial Administration in Ohio. Baltimore; The
I Johns Hopkins Press, 1930-32. Bulletins 1-12.
I
■Marshall, Leon Carroll, Comparative Judicial Criminal
Statistics : Ohio and Maryland. Bal timore ; The Johns
i Hopkins Press, 1932. 83 pp.
Comparative Judicial Criminal Statis tics ; Six
States, 1931. Baltimore; The Johns Hopkins Press,
1932. 61 pp.
, Judicial Criminal Statis tics ; a Report to the
Judicial Section of the American Bar Association and
the National Conference of Judicial Councils.
Chicago; American Bar Association, n.d. 56 pp.
E. PERIODICALS
I"Committee Formed to Plan Celebration of Juvenile Court's
I 50th Anniversary," Cleveland Bar Association Journal.
' 23:104, April, 1952.
"Court Supervision Wins in Cleveland," Journal of the
American Judicature Society. 12:11-13, June, 1928.
Cunningham, Warren, "The Judiciary in Ohio," University of
Cincinnati Law Review, 20:239-264, March, 1951.
!"Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Marks First Fhfty Years of
; Its History," Cleveland Bar Association Journal. 23:
; 125-126, May, 1952.
174 j
"Detroit's New Jury Selection Law," Journal of the !
I American Judicature Society, 15:123, December, 1931. :
: I
!Gleisser, Marc D., "Judicial Candidates: The Bar's Endorse-'
' ment Role," Cleveland Bar Association Journal, 30:
: 167-168, August, 1959.
•Haney, Richard D., "The Ohio Municipal Court Act," Univer- •
sitv of Cincinnati Law Review, 21:205-293, May, 1952.
j
:"Interest Grows in Cleveland," Journal of the American '
Judicature Society, 14:154-155, February, 1931.
I
"Judicial Salaries Again an Issue," Journal of the Ameri- j
j can Judicature Society. 38:113-114, December, 1954. !
'"Jury Service Elevated in Cleveland," Journal of the
American Judicature Society. 15:8-10, June, 1931.
iMcBride, Robert L,, "Municipal Court Reform Is Necessary,"
Ohio Bar Association Reports. 23 :679-682,
November 27, 1950.
Powell, Homer G., "Success of Business Principles in a
City Court," Journal of the American Judicature.
7:166-175, February, 1924.
"Pre-Trial Used to Clear Cleveland Docket," Journal of the
American Judicature Society. 36: 154, February, 1953.
' "Shall an Ohio Constitutional Convention Be Called in
19527" Ohio Bar Association Reports. 22:487-504,
November 21, 1949.
I
"standard Family Court Act Published After Four-Year
I Study," Journal of the American Judicature Society,
: 43:25, June, 1959.
"statement of the Judicial Council of Ohio to the Ohio
Bar. Association," Ohio Bar Association Reports.
46:15-25, January 22, 1925.
Thiel, Joseph A., "Bar-Endorsed Judicial Candidates Are
Successful at November Election," Cleveland Bar
Association Journal. 24:22, November, 1952.
"Why Judicial Reform?" The Ohio Bar. 28:267, February 21,
1955.
Wills, Robert L., "The New Municipal Court Act," Ohio
State Law Journal, 12:314-332, Spring, 1951.
175
F. BULLETINS
'Levine, Manuel, "The Branch Court of Conciliation of the
Municipal Court of Cleveland," American Judicature
Society, Informal Procedure, Bulletin VIII. Chicago:
American Judicature Society, April, 1915« pp^-4-17.
III. NEW JERSEY
A. DOCUMENTS
I New Jersey Constitution.(1947).
' New Jersey Laws.
: New Jersey Statutes.
' New Jersey Statutes Annotated.
, New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution,
No. 13,
(1956).
New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution, No. 22, (1958).
New Jersey Supreme Court Reports.
: New Jersey. New Jersey Court Rules. Revision of the.
Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey,
with Amendments to September 3, 1958. Newark: Gann
Law Books, 1958. 915 pp.
New Jersey Commission on Revision of the New Jersey Con
stitution, Report on the Constitutional Courts of the
State of New Jersey. Submitted to the Commission by
Ralph R. Temple. Trenton: July, 1942. 66. pp.
New Jersey. Governor's Committee on Preparatory Research
for the New Jersey Constitutional Convention, Reports.
Sidney Goldmann, Chairman. State of New Jersey:
May, 1947.
New Jersey. Reprint of the Report of the Judicial Council
of New Jersev to the Senate and General Assembly of
the State of New Jersey Pursuant to Joint Resolution
No. 16 of the 155th Legislature, April 27, 1931.
Trenton: May 19, 1932. 60 pp.
, 1?6
New Jersey. State of New Jersey, Constitutional Conven
tion. of 194?, Proceedings ; Committee of the Judiciary;
Record Vol. IV. Trenton: 194?. 755 pp.
New Jersey. Administrative Office of the Courts. Annual
Report of the Administrative Director of the Courts,
Nos. 1-11, 1948-1949 to 1958-1959.
New Jersey. Judicial Council. Reports. Nos. l-12a,
1930-1947.
B.. BOOKS
Marshall, Leon Carroll, Comparative Judicial Criminal
Statistics : Six States, 1931. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1932. 6l pp.
Vanderbilt, Arthur T., The Challenge of Law Reform.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. 194 pp.
_______ , The Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Its
Present-Day Significance. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1953. 144 pp.
, Judges and Jurors : Their Functions, Qualifica
tions , and Selection. Boston: Boston University
Press, 1956. 76 pp.
. ed., Minimum Standards of Judicial Administration.
New York: Published by the Law Center of New York
University for the National Conference of Judicial
Councils, 1949. 752 pp.
C. PERIODICALS
'Ackerson, Henry E., Jr., "Pretrial Conferences and Calen-
. dar Control: The Keys to Effective Work in the Trial
Courts," Rutgers Law Review, 4:381-390, January, 1950.
I
i Brown, Thomas, "in What Manner May the State Constitution
Be Amended or a New One Adopted?" New Jersey Law
Journal, 64:1,2-3,11, March 6, 1941.
'Cavicchia, Dominic A., "Constitutional Convention v.
Constitutional Amendment," New Jersey Law Journal,
64:3, November 6, 1941.
177
, Clapp, Alfred,G., "Constitutional Provisions for a
Unified New Jersey Court System," New Jersey Law
I Journal, 64:1,5,8, December 11, 1941.
"Constitutional Amendment to Reform Judiciary Announced,"
' New Jersey Law Journal, 62:1-2,7, March 2, 1939.
Evans, William W., "Constitutional Court Reform in New
Jersey," University of Newark Law Review, 7:1-41,
' December, 1941.
; Harrison, Joseph, "New Jersey’s New Court System," Rutgers
University Law Review, 2:60-103, Spring, 1948.
I Harts home, Richard, "Progress in New Jersey Judicial
Administration," Rutgers Law Review. 161-179,
June, 1949.
"Lippincott Stresses Need of Judicial Amendments," New
Jersey Law Journal, 62:1, June 8, 1939.
"New Jersey Courts Face 46 Per Cent Increase in Caseload
Next Fall," Journal of the American Judicature
Society, 43: 26, June, 1959-
Pirsig;^ Maynard E. , "Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt in
Retrospect," Rutgers Law Review, 12:427-448,
Spring, 1958.
Porter, Charles 0., "Minimum Standards of Judicial
Administration: The Extent of Their Acceptance,"
American Bar Association Journal, 36:614-18,
ist, 1950.
"Recommendations for a Judicial Survey Commission," New
Jersey Law Journal, 64:4, November 27, 1941.
"Special.Notice," New Jersey Law Journal, 64:4,
December 18, 1941.
Vanderbilt, Arthur T., "The First Five Years of the New
Jersey Courts Under the Constitution of 1947,"
Rutgers Law Review, 8:289-315, Spring, 1954.
________, "The Juvenile Delinquency Committees, A Unique
and Indispensable Instrumentality for Dealing with
Juvenile Delinquency." Rutgers Law Review. 11:
669-687, Summer, 1957-
178
, "Municipal Court— The Most Important Court in
Jersey: Its Remarkable Progress and Its Unsolved
Problems," Rutgers Law Review. 10:647-659,
Summer, 1956.
, "The New Rules of the Supreme Court- on Appellate
Procedure," Rutgers Univers ity Law Review. 2:1-33,
Spring, 1948.
, "Our New Judicial Establishment: The Record of
the First Year," Rutgers Law Review. 4:353-380,
January, 1950.
___, "The Record of the New Jersey Courts in the
Fourth Year Under the New Constitution," Rutgers Law
Review, 7:317-328, Winter, 1953.
Hr
The Record of the New Jersey Courts in the
Second Year Under the New Constitution," Rutgers Law
Review, 5:335-343, Winter, 1951-
, "The Record of the New Jersey Courts in the
Seventh Year Under the Constitution of 1947," Rutgers
Law Revlew, 10:397-409, Winter, 1955»
, "The Record of the New Jersey Courts in the
Sixth Year Under the Constitution of 1947," Rutgers
Law Review, 9:489-496, Spring, 1955-
,"The Record of the New Jersey Courts in the Third
Year Under the New Constitution, Rutgers La-vf Review,
6:367-374, Winter, 1952.
Why a Constitutional Convention?" New Jersey Law Journal.
! 64:4, July 31, 1941.
jwolf, Atwood C., "Constitutional Convention," New Jersey
Law Journal. 64:1,5-6, April 17, 1941.
IV. GENERAL
A. DOCUMENTS
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
179 ;
F. BOOKS ' •
!
'American Ear Association, The Improvement of the Adminis-
I tration of Justice. Third edition; Chicago: American
i Bar Association, 1952. 100 pp.
Harding, Arthur L., ed., The Administration of Justice in
Retrospect. Dallas: Southern Methodist University
I Press, 1957. 99 pp. !
'pirsig, Maynard E., Cases and Materials on Judicial
I Administration. St. Paul: West Publishing Company,
1946. 1017 pp.
: Sunderland, Edson Reed, Judicial Administration. Second
i edition; Chicago: Callaghan and Company, 1948.
997 pp.
I
: Willoughby, William Franklin, Principles of Judicial
Administration. Washington: The Brookings Institution,
1929. 684 pp.
C. PERIODICALS
Wilson, Woodrow, Journal of the American Judicature
Society, 8363, August, 1924.
UNIVERSITY 0F SOUTHERN OALIPORNIA LIBRARY
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Some differences in factors related to educational achievement of two Mexican-American groups
PDF
The State Relief Administration social worker: an analysis and survey of the educational background, professional training and experience, and functions of one hundred social workers in the State R...
PDF
Study of international intellectual cooperation
PDF
Familial, occupational, and social characteristics of three generations of Japanese Americans
PDF
Physical factors involved in injuries to California Highway Patrol motorcycle officers
PDF
Community organizations and general plan adoption: a critical evaluation of the effect of community organizations on the adoption of an urban general plan
PDF
A description of some uses of television as an aid to teaching in elementary schools of the United States
PDF
The place of women in the new Egypt
PDF
A study of the feasibility of merit rating and merit pay for teachers
PDF
Controlled-interview study of "the therapeutic team" in selected hospitals of Southern California evaluated from the standpoint of the Christian Church
PDF
A study of councilmanic backgrounds, interests, and attitudes in California council-manager cities
PDF
A survey of the development of counseling and guidance services in colleges, universities and communities of Southern California resulting from the advisement and guidance program of the Veterans...
PDF
Factors associated with truancy in juvenile delinquency cases
PDF
Predicting psychosocial adjustment in pediatric leukemia
PDF
Social work and gerontology: A study in professionalism
PDF
An analysis of the theory and practice of contemporary corrections as a professional activity
PDF
Orthodontics: A new field in public health
PDF
Institutionalized elderly: design, community, and management effects on life quality
PDF
A description of some of the viewers who enrolled for credit in the telecourse "Shakespeare on T.V.," Spring Semester, 1954
PDF
The impact of academic automation on the field of education and the teaching profession
Asset Metadata
Creator
Schmitz, Helen Clarice
(author)
Core Title
Aspects of judicial administration in California, Ohio and New Jersey
School
Graduate School
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Political Science
Degree Conferral Date
1960-08
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,social sciences
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-25195
Unique identifier
UC11310030
Identifier
EP63796.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-25195 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
EP63796.pdf
Dmrecord
25195
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Schmitz, Helen Clarice
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
social sciences