A Quarter‐Century of Summary Judgment Practice in Six Federal District Courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary judgment in federal courts has been widely regarded as an initially underused procedural device that was revitalized by the 1986 Supreme Court trilogy of Celotex, Anderson, and Matsushita. Some recent commentators believe summary judgment activity has expanded to the point that it threatens the right to trial. We examined summary judgment practice in six federal district courts during six time periods over 25 years (1975–2000), extracting information on summary judgment practice from 15,000 docket sheets in random samples of terminated cases. We found that when we controlled for changes over time in the types of cases being filed, the likelihood that a case contained one or more motions for summary judgment increased before the Supreme Court trilogy, from approximately 12 percent in 1975 to 17 percent in 1986, and has remained fairly steady at approximately 19 percent since that time. The increase prior to the 1986 trilogy and the modest changes subsequent to the trilogy would be unexpected by many legal commentators. Although summary judgment motions have increased over this 25‐year period, this increase reflects, at least in part, increased filings of civil rights cases, which have always experienced a high rate of summary judgment motions. Surprisingly, no statistically significant changes over time were found in the outcome of defendants’ or plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, again after controlling for differences across courts and types of cases. These findings call into question the interpretation that the trilogy led to expansive increases in summary judgment. Our analysis suggests, instead, that changes in civil rules and federal case‐management practices prior to the trilogy may have been more important in bringing about changes in summary judgment practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".