2012 US Code
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Part I - ORGANIZATION OF COURTS (§§ 1 - 482)
Chapter 5 - DISTRICT COURTS (§§ 81 - 144)
Section 137 - Division of business among district judges
|Publication Title||United States Code, 2012 Edition, Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE|
|Category||Bills and Statutes|
|Collection||United States Code|
|SuDoc Class Number||Y 1.2/5:|
|Contained Within||Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE |
PART I - ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 5 - DISTRICT COURTS
Sec. 137 - Division of business among district judges
|Laws in Effect as of Date||January 15, 2013|
|Source Credit||June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 897.|
|Statutes at Large References||36 Stat. 1090 |
62 Stat. 897
124 Stat. 3674
|Public Law Reference||Public Law 111-349|
The business of a court having more than one judge shall be divided among the judges as provided by the rules and orders of the court.
The chief judge of the district court shall be responsible for the observance of such rules and orders, and shall divide the business and assign the cases so far as such rules and orders do not otherwise prescribe.
If the district judges in any district are unable to agree upon the adoption of rules or orders for that purpose the judicial council of the circuit shall make the necessary orders.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 897.)Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §27 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §23, 36 Stat. 1090).
Section was rewritten and the practice simplified. It provided for division of business and assignment of cases by agreement of judges and, in case of inability to agree, that the senior circuit judge of the circuit should make necessary orders.
The revised section is consistent with section 332 of this title, that the last paragraph of which requires the judicial council to make all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within the circuit.Pilot Program in Certain District Courts
Pub. L. 111–349, Jan. 4, 2011, §1, 124 Stat. 3674, provided that:
“(A) those district judges of that district court who request to hear cases under which 1 or more issues arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection are required to be decided, are designated by the chief judge of the court to hear those cases;
“(B) cases described in subparagraph (A) are randomly assigned to the judges of the district court, regardless of whether the judges are designated under subparagraph (A);
“(C) a judge not designated under subparagraph (A) to whom a case is assigned under subparagraph (B) may decline to accept the case; and
“(D) a case declined under subparagraph (C) is randomly reassigned to 1 of those judges of the court designated under subparagraph (A).
“(i) the 15 district courts in which the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases were filed in the most recent calendar year that has ended; or
“(ii) the district courts that have adopted, or certified to the Director the intention to adopt, local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases.
“(i) 3 district courts that each have at least 10 district judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at least 3 judges of the court have made the request under subsection (a)(1)(A); and
“(ii) 3 district courts that each have fewer than 10 district judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at least 2 judges of the court have made the request under subsection (a)(1)(A).
“(A) an analysis of the extent to which the program has succeeded in developing expertise in patent and plant variety protection cases among the district judges of the district courts so designated;
“(B) an analysis of the extent to which the program has improved the efficiency of the courts involved by reason of such expertise;
“(C) with respect to patent cases handled by the judges designated pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) and judges not so designated, a comparison between the 2 groups of judges with respect to—
“(i) the rate of reversal by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, of such cases on the issues of claim construction and substantive patent law; and
“(ii) the period of time elapsed from the date on which a case is filed to the date on which trial begins or summary judgment is entered;
“(D) a discussion of any evidence indicating that litigants select certain of the judicial districts designated under subsection (b) in an attempt to ensure a given outcome; and
“(E) an analysis of whether the pilot program should be extended to other district courts, or should be made permanent and apply to all district courts.
“(A) not later than the date that is 5 years and 3 months after the end of the 6-month period described in subsection (b); and
“(B) not later than 5 years after the date described in subparagraph (A).
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. The United States Government Printing Office may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the US site. Please check official sources.