Abstract
The matter of "complex" litigation has held a prominent place in scholarship about civil litigation. Articles abound on the subject, and casebooks have been devoted to it—all without a widely accepted working professional definition as to what constitutes "complexity." Judicial "competence" has also been a topic of note, but here too a working definition has yet to emerge. A good deal of the competence debate has emphasized the role of the jury but has said little regarding other dimensions of institutional competence.
In addition to lacking common definitional understanding, the profession is also divided regarding the competence of courts to adjudicate the complex. This Article comprehensively surveys the elements of both complexity and competence, applies these criteria, and concludes that despite shortcomings, courts remain the most effective default system for the resolution of complex disputes. Several means of improving performance are proposed.
How to Cite
40 Ariz. L. Rev. 781 (1998)
5
Views
1
Downloads