Definition
A calendar of causes is an official list of cases pending before a court, prepared by the clerk of court shortly before the commencement of each term or sitting, setting out the matters scheduled or ready for trial or hearing. The document typically includes the title of each cause, the nature of the action, the date on which the issue was joined, and the names of counsel or attorneys for each party. It is prepared for the use of the court and bar and serves as the working schedule of litigation business for a given term.
In criminal practice, the calendar of causes takes a distinct form: a list of prisoners in custody, recording each prisoner's name, the date of commitment, the committing authority, and the cause or charge for which the prisoner is held. This version functions as an accounting of pretrial detainees before the court at a given session.
Common Confusion
The terms calendar of causes, docket, and trial list are often used interchangeably in both historical sources and modern practice, but they carry distinct meanings in strict usage. A docket is the formal record of all proceedings in a case maintained throughout its life; a calendar of causes is a scheduling document drawn up periodically to organize which matters will be heard and in what order during an upcoming term. The trial list (or trial calendar) is the closest modern analog to the historical calendar of causes. Researchers encountering these terms in historical sources should not assume equivalence without checking the procedural rules of the jurisdiction and period at issue.
Why It Matters in Research
The calendar of causes is primarily a procedural artifact, and its significance in the Law Mind corpus lies in what it reveals about court administration across time. Several navigational points matter for researchers:
First, the term appears frequently in nineteenth-century procedural materials, treatises, and court rules, where it describes a document that no longer carries that name in most modern jurisdictions. Contemporary equivalents — trial calendar, docket call list, court schedule — are governed by local rules and case management orders rather than the older term-based system. A researcher tracing procedural continuity should not assume the modern docket call is the same institutional mechanism.
Second, the criminal-law variant (the list of prisoners) is distinct from the civil-practice variant, and historical sources sometimes use "calendar of causes" to mean the criminal list specifically. Bouvier's is the only source in the Law Mind corpus that makes this distinction explicit. When reading nineteenth-century criminal procedure materials, researchers should determine which version of the document is referenced.
Third, the preparation of the calendar by the clerk — rather than by the judge or parties — has procedural implications in historical sources regarding notice, default, and the consequences of a case not appearing on the calendar. These procedural consequences vary by jurisdiction and era and are not captured in the definition alone.
Fourth, the calendar of causes reflects the term-based court system that dominated American and English practice before the shift to continuous sessions and modern docket management. Understanding the term requires understanding that courts once met in discrete terms, making the pre-term preparation of a causes list a logistical necessity rather than merely an administrative convenience.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries agree closely on the civil-practice definition: all describe the calendar as a clerk-prepared list of litigated causes, compiled shortly before term, containing cause title, nature of action, date of issue, and names of attorneys. Bouvier's and Burrill's use nearly identical language, suggesting a shared source tradition. Black's aligns substantively but adds the additional element of the order of trial — the causes are "arranged in their order for trial" — which Bouvier's and Burrill's imply but do not state explicitly. This detail matters: the calendar was not merely a list but a ranked schedule, and placement on the calendar could affect a party's litigation position.
Bouvier's is distinctive in including the criminal-law variant (the prisoners' list) alongside the civil definition — the only source among those surveyed to do so explicitly.
Burrill's notes, without completing the thought in the excerpt provided, that English practice differs ("In English practice, it is te—"), suggesting a divergence in English court administration that the available text does not fully resolve. Researchers working with English procedural sources should consult English-specific materials for the comparable instrument, which in Chancery and common law courts took somewhat different forms.
None of the historical sources address the transition away from term-based practice or the eventual displacement of the calendar of causes by modern docket management systems. This is a gap researchers should account for when using these definitions to interpret materials from the late nineteenth century onward.
Jurisdictional Note
The calendar of causes as a formal document is a product of the term-based court system and appears most prominently in American and English jurisdictions operating under that system through the nineteenth century. Modern American jurisdictions use varied terminology — trial calendar, trial list, active docket — governed by local rules that differ significantly from court to court. Federal courts operate under the Civil Rules and local standing orders; state practice varies widely.