Courts screen out interpersonal disputes as junk that they are ill-equipped to resolve.

Evidence

Critics also contend that government gives first-class treatment to business cases, while palming off interpersonal disputes to ADR. Undoubtedly, courts are eager to avoid involvement in interpersonal disputes, which court personnel often refer to as “junk cases,” complaining that they “don’t belong here.” This reluctance to deal with interpersonal disputes derives, at least in part, from the recognition that courts are ill-equipped to resolve such disputes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2371

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the one-shotters vs. repeat-players framework the chapter uses to explain who gets into court at all. — connects to: Courts shunt interpersonal disputes to ADR because they consider them junk cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1187; Judicial rulings often fail to secure compliance or resolve conflict — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 211; Deliberately incomplete contracts force ongoing negotiation that courts cannot provide — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2526
• SEED: Angle: ‘junk cases’ — an essay on how courts define away the disputes ordinary people actually have.

Broader Connections

• Courts shunt interpersonal disputes to ADR because they consider them junk cases #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1187
• Judicial rulings often fail to secure compliance or resolve conflict #expands (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 211
• Deliberately incomplete contracts force ongoing negotiation that courts cannot provide #expands (0.80) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2526