State courts evolved by piecemeal court creation into complex systems now being consolidated
Evidence
The development of state courts has followed a different pattern. For most of the nation’s history, the states responded to demands for court services by creating new courts, frequently with limited or specialized jurisdictions. Often these incremental steps provided only temporary relief and were followed by renewed demands and further piecemeal reforms. These changes over time produced unduly complex and incoherent court systems that did not function well. Thus, whereas in recent years the number of specialized federal courts has increased, judicial reformers in the states have urged the elimination of specialized courts and a return to a more simplified court structure. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 458
Categorization
- XREF: Contrasts with the federal courts’ fixed three-tier structure created in 1789 — two divergent evolutionary patterns. — connects to: Federalism gives the United States two parallel full court systems, making it uniquely complex — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 454; Courts change policy through five distinct incremental mechanisms rather than just landmark rulings — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3171; Court structural reforms produce diverse and often unanticipated governance effects — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 459 (+5 more)
Broader Connections
- Courts change policy through five distinct incremental mechanisms rather than just landmark rulings
#expands(0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3171 - Court structural reforms produce diverse and often unanticipated governance effects
#expands(0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 459 - Legal classifications and rules evolve through ongoing application to cases
#corroborates(0.72) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 243