States historically added piecemeal courts, prompting later consolidation reforms

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 responses. 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. Many states have adopted the reformers’ model, in whole or in part, and state court systems now resemble one another more closely than at any time in the past. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 350

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: America inherited England’s dual law and equity court structure, later merging most of it. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 177; State court disorganization stems from incremental expansion to meet population growth — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 336; State courts evolved by piecemeal court creation into complex systems now being consolidated — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 458 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• State courts evolved by piecemeal court creation into complex systems now being consolidated #corroborates (0.97) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 458
• Court structure reforms can alter courts’ role in governing unexpectedly #expands (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 351
• Early state consolidation produced early contentious peaks that subsided under high-capacity rule #complicates (0.72)