skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 135610 Find in a Library
Title: Court Annexed Arbitration
Journal: Justice System Journal  Volume:14  Issue:2  Dated:(1991)  Pages:123-264
Editor(s): K Boyum
Date Published: 1991
Page Count: 142
Type: Program Description (Demonstrative)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This special issue describes recent implementations of State court-annexed arbitration (CAA) programs in Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, New Jersey, and North Carolina.
Abstract: CAA is one of a set of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms increasingly used to divert a portion of civil cases from the dockets of overloaded State and Federal trial courts. In CAA, State statutes or court rules establish criteria that identify cases eligible for arbitration. Disputants whose cases fit these criteria must participate in arbitration as a prerequisite to trial. The five State CAA programs described display the full range of variation among State CAA programs. Two programs operate statewide, and the rest have been implemented in only particular courts, either by local option or under State mandate. Jurisdictional dollar limits range from a low of $15,000 in North Carolina to 10 times that amount in the Hawaii program. Most programs have some subject matter limitations. Discovery is limited in three of the programs. Procedural time limits are strictly enforced in some jurisdictions but not in others. Court personnel play a strong oversight role in some programs; in others, the court takes a hands-off approach to the management of cases diverted to arbitration. Rules regarding the use and compensation of arbitrators in these five States also reflect the differences in programs across the Nation. Extensive tables and footnotes
Main Term(s): Court-administered arbitration
Index Term(s): Alternative dispute settlement; Colorado; Georgia (USA); Hawaii; New Jersey; North Carolina
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.