The article first demonstrates how longitudinal research on courts has incorporated a central political or legal value into the study of litigation: the universality, timelessness, and individualistic framework of adjudication. Longitudinal research has borrowed the insider's construction of the courts; for example, shifting patterns of practice (especially the change or debated change from trial to case settlement) are explained as the result of individual choice. The article then shows that shifting patterns of case filings and case outcomes may be more than the product of an individual's choice. An organizational perspective demands the assessment of the court's relative capacity to handle its work; also, where and how efforts address issues of court capacity reflect political decisions. The article concludes that, based on its findings, court researchers should investigate the extent to which court practice is a factor in explaining shifting patterns of litigation in other arenas of the court system. 24 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)