The two courts you cite really aren't specialized courts at all, and their jurisdictional statutes make no attempt to be. We do, of course, have real specialized courts, such as the Federal Circuit and the Tax Court.

Well, yes, that's the point of the post, though, of course, the two courts do have unique jurisdictional grants over administrative law and corporate law disputes, respectively. So that's why people call them "specialized."

I don't think 10-15% is right as to chancery, or at least as a general rule. There are strong regional distinctions between the 4 VCs and the Chancellor as to non-corporate cases, and I suspect that westlaw is confused as to some cases that don't look particularly corporate but essentially are. Contract disputes, etc.

Yeah - I really wasn't confident about the CC suits, given that there does seem to be some judicial specialization within the court there - and you can't be too sure when you're relying on headnote classifications (specifically, I looked for di(corporation!)).

The D C Cir hunt undercounts too, by the way - not every administrative law decision cites the APA.

But I still suspect that in both cases the so-called specialty comprises a minority - even a small one - of the court's docket.

I would have guessed the opposite number for Delaware chancery. Perhaps many of these cases are organized in Westlaw as contract/commercial?

The other types of cases in Chancery basically are zoning issues and probate.

As a law clerk at the Court of Chancery, I would estimate that 60-70% of the Court of Chancery's docket is either "corporate" in the sense of corporate governance, corporate contract, or alternative entities (LLC/Partnerships).

As a law clerk at the Court of Chancery, I would estimate that 60-70% of the Court of Chancery's docket is either "corporate" in the sense of corporate governance, corporate contract, or alternative entities (LLC/Partnerships).

Well there you go ... that's empirical research paying off for you - not because of the empirical research, mind you, but because of what we learned from responses to the same.

60-70 percent, though? Huh. Thought it would be lower. Clearly I need to stick to the federal stuff.

David, I have heard the Chancery judges talk about this, and JW Verret's comment is consistent with that, if not a bit low. The number I usually hear is 75%, but that's ballparking.

I wouldn’t dismiss the lunch hour research so quickly on the strength of expressed or reported opinions of interested persons. After all, the Delaware judges have a manifest interest in encouraging people to believe that they have special expertise.

West is notably sloppy about how they categorize court decisions into the various reporters they publish. For example, almost any decision involving a person or company in bankruptcy proceedings gets put in the Bankruptcy Reports, even if the decision addresses no issue of bankruptcy law, but rather, an issue of federal procedural, environmental, securities, tax, etc. law, more appropriately reported in FSupp2d or FRD.

Thus, looking to West and Westlaw for the sake of drawing generalized conclusions about the influence exerted by specialized courts is an exercise conducted at one's own peril.

As an aside, this discussion of specialized courts fails to mention the bankruptcy courts -- the epitome of a specialized court. A massive volume of litigation, covering every area of the law imaginable, occurs in bankruptcy courts, and this has been the case for many years, yet legal scholars seem to overlook this phenomenon.

Jake - no question about both the headnotes and the bankruptcy points - there's lots more specialized courts out there.

Gordon and JW - I did worry about the fact that it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. With the APA, I knew what to look for in the opinions, with the DGCL, I don't teach corps, etc, and so I thought I'd see what the West Corporation thought.

But all that said, Larry has a good point.

A former chancery clerk here. I just did a quick flip through my own package of drafts. During my term, of those cases on which I worked which resulted in a reasoned written opinion, 28 of 37 involved what i would call "corporate" law (fiduciary duty violations, section 220 disputes, shareholder meetings, advancement, major contract disputes between large corporations, especially deal related). The rest were a hodge podge of adverse possession, minor contract disputes between individual people, and other equity related cases between individuals (you promised me X in Y unlikely way. help!).

Hooray! More data is always good....

thring logicaster wemless unfiltered amadou proreader maithili unification
NewLife Christian Counseling Ministry
http://www.fencingonline.com.au