Alleviating Court Congestion: The Case of the Jerusalem District Court

References

• Arslan HA, Tereyağoğlu N, Yılmaz Ö (2023) Scoring a touchdown with variable pricing: Evidence from a quasi-experiment in the NFL ticket markets. Management Sci. 69(8):4435–4456.Link, Google Scholar
• Aviv G, Erental D (2021) The burden of the judicial work in the Israeli court system. Report. Israeli Courts Research Division, Jerusalem, Israel. https://www.gov.il/he/departments/publications/reports/research_27072021_a.Google Scholar
• Azaria S, Ronen B, Shamir N (2023) Justice in time: A theory of constraints approach. J. Oper. Management 69(7):1202–1208.Google Scholar
• Bar-Niv M, Lieber Z, Ronen B (2010) Focused management in the courts system: Doing more with existing resources. Human Systems Management 29(4):265–277.Google Scholar
• Bilinski A, Hatfield LA (2018) Nothing to see here? Non-inferiority approaches to parallel trends and other model assumptions. Preprint, submitted May 8, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.03273.pdf.Google Scholar
• Bray RL, Coviello D, Ichino A, Persico N (2016) Multitasking, multiarmed bandits, and the Italian judiciary. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 18(4):545–558.Link, Google Scholar
• Brooks JP (2012) The Court of Appeals of Virginia uses integer programming and cloud computing to schedule sessions. Interfaces 42(6):544–553.Link, Google Scholar
• Campello F, Ingolfsson A, Shumsky RA (2017) Queueing models of case managers. Management Sci. 63(3):882–900.Link, Google Scholar
• Clarke A (2009) The Woolf reforms: A singular event or an ongoing process? Dwyer DM, ed. The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press, New York), 33–50.Google Scholar
• Coviello D, Ichino A, Persico N (2014) Time allocation and task juggling. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(2):609–623.Google Scholar
• Coviello D, Ichino A, Persico N (2015) The inefficiency of worker time use. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 13(5):906–947.Google Scholar
• Cox JF III, Schleier J (2010) Theory of Constraints Handbook (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York).Google Scholar
• Decker K, Mohlen C, Varela DF (2011) Improving the Performance of Justice Institutions (The World Bank, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Dimitrova-Grajzl V, Grajzl P, Slavov A, Zajc K (2016) Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria. Econom. Systems 40(1):18–38.Google Scholar
• European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) (2022) European Judicial Systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report, 2022 Evaluation Cycle (2020 Data). Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
• Falavigna G, Ippoliti R (2023) Data envelopment analysis to investigate the Italian legal system and its reform. J. Public Affairs 23(4):e2877.Google Scholar
• Franke R, Kaul J (1978) The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 43(5):623–643.Google Scholar
• Goldratt EM, Cox J (1988) The Goal, 2nd ed. (North River Press, Great Barrington, MA).Google Scholar
• Gupta M (2003) Constraints management – Recent advances and practices. Internat. J. Production Res. 41(4):647–659.Google Scholar
• Haaretz (2010) Editorial. Lame justice. (April 29), https://www.haaretz.com/2010-04-29/ty-article/lame-justice/0000017f-f074-d487-abff-f3fe24040000.Google Scholar
• Hartman E, Hidalgo FD (2018) An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests. Amer. J. Political Sci. 62(4):1000–1013.Google Scholar
• Hertveldt S (2011) Repairing a car with the engine running. Djankov S, McLiesh C, eds. Celebrating Reform: Doing Business (The World Bank, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Israeli Judicial Authority (2020) The new civil procedure regulations. Accessed July 23, 2023, https://www.gov.il/en/departments/guides/guide_to_civil_procedure_01012021?chapterIndex=9.Google Scholar
• Kahn-Lang A, Lang K (2020) The promise and pitfalls of differences-in-differences: Reflections on 16 and pregnant and other applications. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 38(3):613–620.Google Scholar
• Larson RC, Cahn MF, Shell MC (1993) Improving the New York City arrest-to-arraignment system. Interfaces 23(1):76–96.Link, Google Scholar
• Mabin VJ, Balderstone SJ (2000) The World of the Theory of Constraints: A Review of the International Literature (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Google Scholar
• Mabin VJ, Balderstone SJ (2003) The performance of the theory of constraints methodology: Analysis and discussion of successful TOC applications. Internat. J. Oper. Production Management 23(6):568–595.Google Scholar
• Marcus RL (1999) Malaise of the litigation superpower. Zuckerman AAS, ed. Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 70–116.Google Scholar
• Ohno T (1988) Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Google Scholar
• O’Scannlain DF (2009) Striking a devil’s bargain: The federal courts and expanding caseloads in the twenty-first century. Lewis Clark Law Rev. 13(2):473–483.Google Scholar
• Pedraja-Chaparro F, Salinas-Jimenez J (1996) An assessment of the efficiency of Spanish courts using DEA. Appl. Econom. 28(11):1391–1403.Google Scholar
• Posner RA (1985) An economic theory of the criminal law. Columbia Law Rev. 85(6):1193–1231.Google Scholar
• Rambachan A, Roth J (2023) A more credible approach to parallel trends. Rev. Econom. Stud. 90(5):2555–2591.Google Scholar
• Rascão J (2022) Debate on the quality of judicial decisions (from theory to practice). Amer. J. Humanities Soc. Sci. Res. 6(12):40–79.Google Scholar
• Ronen B (1992) The complete kit concept. Internat. J. Production Res. 30(10):2457–2466.Google Scholar
• Roth J (2022) Pretest with caution: Event-study estimates after testing for parallel trends. Amer. Econom. Rev. Insights 4(3):305–322.Google Scholar
• Rudin C, Ustun B (2018) Optimized scoring systems: Toward trust in machine learning for healthcare and criminal justice. Interfaces 48(5):449–466.Link, Google Scholar
• Shahabsafa M, Terlaky T, Gudapati NVC, Sharma A, Wilson GR, Plebani LJ, Bucklen KB (2018) The inmate assignment and scheduling problem and its application in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Interfaces 48(5):467–483.Link, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2008) Coding complexity: Bringing law to the empirical analysis of the Supreme Court. Hastings Law J. 60(3):477–539.Google Scholar
• Shtub A, Bard JF, Globerson S (2005) Project Management: Processes, Methodologies, and Economics (Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Simons JV, Russell GR (2002) A case study of batching in a mass service operation. J. Oper. Management 20(5):577–592.Google Scholar
• Solomon M, Somerlot DK (1987) Caseflow Management in the Trial Court: Now and for the Future (American Bar Association, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Steelman DC, Goerdt J, McMillan JE (2000) Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium (National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA).Google Scholar
• Vitkauskas D, Dikov G (2017) Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights. A Handbook for Legal Practitioners, 2nd ed. (Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France).Google Scholar
• Voigt S (2016) Determinants of judicial efficiency: A survey. Eur. J. Law Econom. 42(2):183–208.Google Scholar
• Weinshall-Margel K (2013) Judicial workloads in Israel (case weights) data set. Israeli Courts Research Division, Jerusalem, Israel. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/Research%20Division/doc/fw.xls.Google Scholar
• Weinshall-Margel K, Taraboulos I (2014) Israeli civil proceedings dataset. Israeli Courts Research Division, Jerusalem, Israel. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/Research%20Division/doc/Israeli_Civil_Proceedings_Dataset. zip.Google Scholar
• Yamatani H, Engel R, Spjeldnes S (2009) Child welfare worker caseload: What’s just right? Soc. Work 54(4):361–368.Google Scholar