This measure evaluates how well the court states the final action taken in the adjudication of a civil dispute. Integrity demands that courts clearly state the terms and conditions of obligations decided by a trial or a court-approved settlement. The measure parallels Measure 3.4.1 but differs in the types of cases selected for review, in the details of the data collection form, and by the addition of a step to determine the clarity of injunctive or declaratory orders/judgments.

Planning/Preparation. From a pool of civil cases disposed within a recent 6- to 12-month period, at least 50 civil cases are selected at random in the same manner as described for Measure 3.4.1. (The greater the number of cases included in the sample, the greater the measure’s reliability.) In selecting the cases for which data are to be collected, care must be taken to ensure that they are cases for which a judgment was entered by the court (i.e., the sample should result in at least 50 cases that do not include orders of dismissal or cases disposed by reference to a settlement agreement, the terms of which are not incorporated into a judgment of the court). The sample should be stratified to include at least 10 cases in which the order/judgment involves injunctive or declaratory relief (or approximately 20 percent if a sample of more than 50 cases is used.)

The source of the data for this measure will be documents in which the terms of the order and judgment are set forth. The last order/judgment should be examined in complex multiparty cases that had final adjudication among some but not all of the claims or parties prior to the adjudication and judgment that is dispositive of the entire case. For example, if there are two orders/judgments found in the case file, one dated January 1, 1990, and one entered July 1, 1990, the latter is the order/judgment from which data will be collected.

Data Collection. Based on an examination of the findings and judgment documents, a data collection sheet for each case is used to record information concerning the following issues: (1) If money judgments are involved, is it clear who is the judgment debtor and who is the judgment creditor with respect to each claim? (2) Is it clear how and when money judgments are to be paid? (3) If there are special conditions of the order, are they clearly set forth (e.g., is the order’s intention clear with respect to the calculation of both pre- and postjudgment interest, if any)? (4) If the order/judgment includes declaratory or injunctive relief, are its terms clear? (5) Is it clear from the order/judgment whether it is dispositive of the case in its entirety (i.e., does it state that there are no more unresolved claims among parties to the suit?) For a sample questionnaire, please refer to Form 3.4.2, Illustrative Data Collection Form for Clarity of Civil Judgments.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Because civil judgments are the basis for restoring or compensating for financial loss, enjoying rights in property, or establishing the credit worthiness of judgment debtors and creditors, trial courts must achieve the highest level of clarity in stating the terms of judgments. Confusion in acting on the terms of judgments must be avoided, especially as a cause for postjudgment litigation initiated merely to clarify the meaning of the order/judgment. Should postjudgment action be required to enforce a civil judgment, the official(s) responsible for enforcement should clearly understand what the court intended when the facts were adjudicated and the rights and duties of the parties were established.

There are several interrelated indicators of performance in this regard. First, orders/judgments on claims for monetary relief should clearly state each of the creditor/debtor relationships. Second, all money judgments should include a specific dollar amount. Third, the basis for computing any judgment interest should be stated unambiguously and incorporated into the terms of the order/judgment. Fourth, in complex cases, the judgment that is dispositive of all issues and claims should be identified as such. Finally, the details of injunctive or declaratory relief should be spelled out in such a way that no further authority is required to determine if the conditions of the order/judgment have been met.

Good performance is indicated by meeting these requirements in no less than 100 percent of all money judgments for the first two factors, while a lesser standard is tolerable for the third and fourth factors. Statistical methods are inappropriate for the fifth factor—the clarity of conditions of declaratory or injunctive relief—because it is inherently more qualitative.