This article reports the results of a study conducted to determine the extent of the advantages and disadvantages of a flexible assignment of appeals system. The research had two phases: detailed descriptive studies of appellate systems with flexible assignment, based mainly on 1992-1993 interviews with supreme court justices, intermediate court judges, staff attorneys, and court clerks; and analysis of court data from all States with intermediate courts to determine whether the flexible assignment States had fewer double appeals and less workload imbalance. A description of the transfer process and the criteria for transfer are presented. Statistical analysis procedures are described. The author concludes that the descriptive material and statistical analyses indicate that neither the purported beneficial nor negative effects of flexible assignment occur, at least in recent years. The results of the statistical analyses indicate that the flexible assignment procedure neither reduces the double appeal rate or the imbalance of delay and workloads between supreme courts and intermediate courts, nor does it greatly affect the number of appeals that judges are able to decide, if one controls court size. Flexible assignment jurisdiction and procedures in the 10 States examined in this study are summarized. Tables, footnotes