Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Yale Law Journal

Abstract

The expansion of summary judgment is designed to control both the volume of litigation overall and its scope in any particular case. However, as we argue below, the impact of altering summary judgment rules goes beyond this hoped for screening function. Alterations of summary judgment procedures have consequences for the information balance between, and incentives operating on, both parties, and these in turn affect the entire spectrum of decisions facing litigants, from the filing of lawsuits to the choice between settling and litigating the claim through to trial. To some extent, moreover, the expansion of summary judgment is subject to the normative critiques directed against bringing institutional pressures to bear to force non-adjudicated resolution of disputes. This Article, however, takes as its point of departure the articulated premises of the expansion of summary judgment, primarily its claimed role in reducing litigation. Having assumed the propriety of these premises, this Article critically examines the extent to which the desired effects are likely to be realized, and at what cost.

First Page

73

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2307/796764

Volume

100

Publication Date

1990

Download

Share

COinS