English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

A broad consensus exists today on the need to reduce the federal caseload. There are, to be sure, a few holdouts protesting that things really are not all that bad (motivated partly, I suspect, by fears that reform may make them worse). But a fair-minded evaluation of the federal docket makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that something should be done. Apart from brief periods in the 1920s and 1940s when case filings suddenly increased and then decreased,' caseload growth was moderate in the district courts and virtually nil in the courts of appeals from the late 1800s until approximately 1960.2 The period beginning 1958-62, however, marks a sharp turning point. Since then, caseload growth has been consistently very large in both trial and appellate courts, and it shows no signs of abating.3 Let me recount some statistics. Although the bottom line is familiar, the numbers are striking enough to bear repetition.4 Since 1960, case filings have

"The One-Eyed Are Kings": Improving Congress's Ability to Regulate the Use of Judicial Resources