NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
State court caseload statistics:
Annual Report 1984
30NFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA AR ZALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ~EORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LO JlAlNE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI M JlONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEWHAMPSHIRE NEWJERSEY NEWMEXICO NE JORTHCAROLINA NORTHDAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA SLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH V JlRGlNlA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ,ALABAMA ALA 4R NSAS-+ALIFORNlA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF C :L r" EORGlA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KEN -0 , NCSC \MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MIS dll KE ONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW \1E 130 1ORTHCAROLINA NORTHDAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PE c74 RHODEISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS "I 1984 JT! c.2 VIA WASHINGTON WESTVIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA 1 I u -a StateI court caseload statistics:
Annual Report, 1984
CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA AR CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LO MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI M MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEWHAMPSHIRE NEWJERSEY NEWMEXICO NE NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH V VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WESTVIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA ALA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF C FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KEN LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MIS MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PE PUERTORICO RHODEISLAND SOUTHCAROLINA SOUTHDAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WESTVIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS Court Statistics and Information Management Project
$;$i t - * ’ - Library June 1986 National Center for State COUP^^ 300 Ncwport Ave.
\,I‘I Williamsburg, VA 23 187-8700 This Project's work was totally funded by the National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia. The printing costs for this volume, however, were provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice. The Court Statistics and Information Project is directed by Robert T. Roper. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Copyright 0 1986 by National Center for State Courts Printed in United States of America
ISBN 0-836-56-081-3
National Center Pub1 icati on No. R-098
ii Conference of State Court Administrators Court Statistics and Information Management Project Committee
Walter J. Kane, Chairman (1982 to present) Sue K. Uosal (1982 to present) State Court Administrator, Hhode Island State Court Admi n is trator, Miniieso ta
Larry P. Polansky, (1979 to present) Roy 0. Gulley (14711 to 1985) Executive Officer of the District Director, Administrative Oftice of the Courts, of Columbia Courts I11 inois
William G. Bohn (1982 to present) J. Denis Moran (1Y83 to present) State Court Administrator, North Dakota Uirector of State Courts, Wisconsin
Hugh M. Collins (1982 to present) Francis J. Taillefer (1982 to present) Deputy J udic ia 1 Admi n is t rato r , Lou is iana Uirector of Information Services, North Cdrol ina
Stanley R. Collis (1984 to present) Trial Court Administrator and Jury Commissioner, Alameda County, California
National Center for State Courts Board of Directors Chief Justice Edward F. Hennessey, Chairman Judge Charles V. Johnson Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Superior Court, King County, Washington
Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy, Chairman-Elect Judge Gladys Kessler Court of Appeal s , Mary1and Family Division, Superior Court, District of Col umbia Arthur H. Snowden, 11, Vice-chairman Administrative Director of the Courts, Alaska Edward B. 14cConnell President, National Center for State Courts Judge Dorothy T. Beasley Court of Appeals, Georgia Chief Justice Robert N. C. 'Nix, Jr. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chief Justice William G. Clark Supreme Court of Illinois Presiding Justice John T. Kacanelli Court of Appeal, First District, California Stanley R. Collis Executive Officer, Alameda Superior Court Presiding Judge Thomas J. Stovall 2nd Administrative Judicial District, Texas Sue K. Dosal State Court Administrator, Minnesota Chief Justice Clement C. Torbert, Jr. Supreme Court of Alabama Hal iburton Fa1es, 2d, White and Case, New York City, New York Chief Judge Gerald T. Wetherington Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Florida Vernon M. Geddy, Jr. McGuire, Woods and Battle. Virginia
Judge Harriet P. Henry, Judge at Large District Court, Maine
National Center for State Courts Geoff Gallas, Director Research and Special Services
Court Statistics and Information Management Word Processing Department Project Staff Patricia H. Maddox, Word Processing Supervisor Robert T. Roper, Project Director Stacey A. Healy, Word Processing Secretary Mary Louise Clifford, Staff Associate Catherine J. Meek, Word Processing Secretary Mary E. Elsner, Senior Staff Associate Brenda W. Jones, Administrative Secretary Susan G. Brigman, Research Associate ,
iii Acknowledgments
The preparation of State Court Caseload they have been consistently patient and lie1 pful Statistics: Annual Report, 1984 h as been in answering written and telephoned inquiries for suoervised and areatlv assisted bv the Court more data or for explanations of the data Stitistics and information System; (CSIS) provided. Their continuing support of the Comni ttee appointed from the membership of the development of a national data base of state Conference of State Court Administrators court statistics within the National Center for (COSCA). The CSIS Committee members have given State Courts is the crucial element in generously of their time, talent, and determining tlie quality of tlie statistics that experience. Their participation has been are being gathered. invaluable to the project staff. The positive The members of the National Conference of control exerted by COSCA through this committee, Appellate Court Clerks are other indispensable using a review and approval process, has greatly sources of much-needed data. The clerks enhanced the quality of this report. volunteered to provide and verify appellate court The COSCA CSIS Committee members, however, data that in many states are unavailable from any are not the only COSCA members whose assistance other source. Their assistance has been has been vital to the production of this invaluable in increasing the quality of appellate document, The administrators and their staff in court data available to the project. all the 50 states, the District of Columbia, The Court Statistics and Information Guam, and Puerto Rico have provided the Court Management Project staff would 1 ike to recognize Statistics and Information Management Project and thank all these many individuals who have with whatever research materials they had contributed to this eighth in the series of avail able, both pub1 ished and unpubl 1 shed, and annual reports on state court caseload statistics.
iv Contents
Page Part I: 1984 State court caseload sumnary Acknowledgments ...... iv statistics List of figures ...... V List of tables ...... vi Appellate court sumnary statistics .... 13 List of state court system charts ..... ix Trial court sununary statistics ...... 61
Part 11: Trend charts Introduction to trend charts ...... 172 Trend tables ...... 174
Part 111: 1984 State court system charts
Explanation of contents of court system charts ...... 193 Prototype of state court system chart . . 195 State court system charts: Alabama through Wyoming ...... 196
Introduction Appendices
Court Statistics and Information Appendix A: Technical discussion of Management Project ...... 3 former estimation Dynamics of improvement ...... 3 procedures ...... 263 Historical development ...... 3 State Court Jurisdiction Guides Appendix 8: Sources of 1984 state court for Statistical Reporting ..... 4 caseload statistics ....264 Uses of court statistical data .... . 4 Scope of the data in the annual report Appendix C: Prototype of statistical series ...... 5 profile used in 1984 data Data collection ...... 5 collection ...... 267 Data sources ...... 5 Veri f icati on of data ...... 6 Appendix D: State population data. 1984 . 275 Types of data included ...... 6 Variations in reporting periods . . . 6 Appendix E: Total state population data Data display ...... 6 for trend tables 1978. Case category classifications .... 6 1981. and 1984 ...... 276 Format used . Sumnary tables (Part 1) . 6 Footnotes ...... 6 Trend tables (Part 11) ...... 7 Court system charts (Part 111) .... 7 Data interpretation ...... 7 Continuing development of the series . . 7
List of figures Page Figure A: Reporting periods for state courts. 1984 ...... 8
Figure 8: Cross-reference to sumnary tables In previous editions of the Annual Report series . . 10 Figure C: Methods of counting cases in state appellate courts. 1984 ...... 14 Figure D: Dollar amount jurisdiction for original tort. contract. real property rights. and small claims filings in state trial courts. 1984 ...... 96 Figure E: Criminal case unit of count used by state trial courts. 1984 ...... 124 Figure F: Minimum statutory definitions of a felony. 1984 ...... 130 Figure G: Juvenile unit of count used in state trial courts. 1984 ...... 156 Figure H: State trlal courts with incidental appellate jurisdiction. 1984 ...... 249 Figure I: Route of appeals of administrative agency cases to state appellate courts. 1984 .... 254 Figure J: Number of judges/justices in the state courts. 1984 ...... 259
V
. List of tables
Page Table 1: Reported national caseload for state appellate courts, 1984. Mandatory jurisdiction cases and discretionary jurisdiction petitions in courts of last report and intermediate appellate courts ...... 21 Table 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984. Total mandatory cases, total discretionary petitions, and total discretionary petitions granted review that are filed and disposed. The number of, and filed per judge figures for both the sum of mandatory cases and discretionary petitions, and the sum of mandatory cases and discretionary petitions granted review. Court type and the point at which cases arecounted ...... 25 Table 3: Selected caseload and processing measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984. Court type. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Number of judges and the number of lawyer support personnel. Filed per judge and filed per lawyer support personnel. Filed per 100,000 population ...... 36
Table 4: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions in state appellate courts, 1984. Court type. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Number of judges and the number of lawyer support personnel. Filed per judge and filed per 1 awyer support personnel . Filed per 100,000 population ...... 42 Table 5: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions granted review in state appellate courts, 1984. Court type. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Number of judges and the number of lawyer support personnel. Filed per 100.000 population ... 45 Table 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984. Court type. Civil appeals. Criminal appeals. Administrative agency appeals. All other case types. Total dispositions by opinion. Total cases disposed. Opinions as a percent of cases disposed. Content of opinion count. Number of justices/judges. Number of opinions per justice/judge. Number of lawyer support personnel. Number of opinions per justice/judge plus 1 awyer support personnel ...... 49 Table 7: Time interval (days) data for state appellate courts, 1984. Type of case. Beginning event. Beginning event to briefs filed. Beginning event to argument or submission. Argument or submission to decision announced. Beginning event to decision announced. Type of statistic ...... 58 Table 8: Reported national civil and criminal caseload for state trial courts, 1984...... 63
Table 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. All courts. Jurisdiction, parking, and criminal unit of count codes. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population .... 66
Table 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. All courts. Jurisdiction. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population ...... 74 Table 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. All courts. Jurisdiction and criminal unit of count codes. Filed and disposed cases. Uisposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population .... 80 Table 12: Reported total state trial court traffic/other violation caseload, 1984. All courts. Jurisdiction and parking codes. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population ...... 87 Table 13: Reported total state trial court juvenile caseload, 1984. All courts. Jurisdiction. Filed and disposed cases. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population ...... 92 Table 14: Tort, contract, real property rights and small claims filings and dispositions for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting tort, contract, real property rights, small claims and unclassified civil caseload. State and court totals for disposed as a percent of filed. State filings (dispositions) per 100,000 population ...... 102 Table-15: Domestic relations caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting domestic relations caseload. Data definition. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100.000 population ...... 109
Table 16: Estate caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting estate caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed per (disposed) 100,000 population ...... 113 vi Page Table 17: Mental health caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting mental health caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100.000 population ...... 115 Table 18: Civil appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting civil appeals caseload. Type of appeal. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population ...... 116
Table 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. State and court. Civil case types. Jury trial definition. Dispositions per case type, number of trials, trials as a percent of dispositions, number of jury trials, jury trials as a percent of dispositions and of trials ...... 118 Table 20: Triable felony, limited felony, misdemeanor and DWI/DUI filings and dispositions for state trial courts, 1984. Unit of count. Number of filed and disposed cases for triable felony, limited felony, misdemeanor, DWI/DUI and unclassified criminal. State and court totals for disposed as a percent of filed. State filings (dispositions) per 100,000 adult population ..... 131 Table 21: Criminal appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Unit of count. Courts reporting criminal appeals caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,ODO adult population ...... 139 Table 22: Preliminary hearing proceedings for state trial courts, 1984. Unit of count. Courts reporting felony preliminary proceedings. Uisposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 adult population ...... 142
Table 23: Criminal jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. Unit of count. Jury trial definition. Dispositions per case type, number of trials, trials as a percent of dispositions, number of jury trials, jury trials as a percent of dispositions and of total trials ...... 144 Table 24: Criminal disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. Unit of count. Total criminal dispositions. Total pleas/bail forfeitures, total convictions, trial convictions, acquittals, no1 1e prosequi /dismissals. Each disposition type as a percent of criminal dispositions ...... 149 Table 25: Ordinance violation caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting ordinance violations caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population ...... 154 Table 26: Criminal-type juvenile petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting criminal -type juvenile petition caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100.000 juvenile population ...... 160 Table 27: Child-victim petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting child-victim petition caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 juvenile population ...... 163 Table 28: Status petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reportin status petition caseload. Disposed as a percent of filed. Filed (disposed! per 100,000 juvenile population ...... 164 Table 29: Traffic/other violation disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. Courts reporting traffic disposition type data. Pleas, violations bureau, bail or bond forfeitures, total convictions, trial convictions, acquittals, nolle prosequi, and dismissals. Each disposition type as a percent of traffic/other violation dispositions ...... 165 Table 30: Traffic/other violation total trials and jury dispositions, 1984. State and court. Unit of count. Jury trial definition. Number of dispositions and trials. Trials as a percent of dispositions. Number of jury trials, jury trials as a percent of dispositions and trials ...... 168 Table 31: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort, contract, and real property rights case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Jurisdiction. Filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent change in population and filings for 1978-1981, 1981-1984, and 1978-1984 ...... 174 Table 32: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported small claims case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Jurisdiction. Filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent change in population and filings for 1978-1981, 1981-1984, and 1978-1984 ...... 178 Table 33: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort case filings for 1978, 1981 , and 1984. Jurisdiction. Filings for 1978, 1981. and 1984. Percent change in population and filings for 1978-1981, 1981-1984, and 1978-1984 ...... 182
vii Page Table 34: Trend data for state courts that specffically reported contract case fillngs for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Jurisdiction. Filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent change fn population and f il ings for 1978-1 981 . 1981 -1 984, and 1978-1 984 ...... 185 Table 35: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported triable felony case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Jurisdiction. Filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent change ln population and filings for 1978-1981, 1981-1984, and 1978-1984 ...... 187 ,
viii List of state court system charts
Page Prototype State Court System Chart. 1984 ...... 195 Missouri Court System. 1984...... 222 Montana Court System. 1984 ...... 223 Alabama Court System. 1984 ...... 196 Nebraska Court System. 1984 ...... 224 Alaska Court System. 1984 ...... 197 Nevada Court System. 1984 ...... 225: Arizona Court System. 1984 ...... 198 New Hampshire Court System. 1984 ...... 226 Arkansas Court System. 1984 ...... 199 New Jersey Court System. 1984...... 227 California Court System. 1984...... 200 New Mexico Court System. 1984...... 228 Colorado Court System. 1984 ...... 201 New York Court System. 1984...... 229 Connecticut Court System. 1984 ...... 202 North Carolina Court System. 1984 ...... 230 Delaware Court System. 1984 ...... 203 North Dakota Court System. 1984 ...... 231 District of Columbia Court System. 1984 ...204 Ohio Court System. 1984 ...... 232 Florida Court System. 1984 ...... 205 Oklahoma Court System. 1984 ...... 233 Georgia Court System. 1984 ...... 206 Oregon Court System. 1984 ...... 234 Guam Court System. 1984 ...... 207 Pennsylvania Court System. 1984...... 235 Hawaii Court System. 1984 ...... 208 Puerto Rico Court System. 1984 ...... 236 Idaho Court System. 1984 ...... 209 Rhode Island Court System. 1984 ...... 237 Illinois Court System. 1984 ...... 210 South Carolina Court System. 1984...... 238 Indiana Court System. 1984 ...... 211 South Dakota Court System. 1984...... 239 Iowa Court System. 1984 ...... 212 Tennessee Court System. 1984 ...... 240 Kansas Court System. 1984 ...... 213 Texas Court System. 1984 ...... 241 Kentucky Court System. 1984 ...... 214 Utah Court System. 1984 ...... 242 Louisiana Court System. 1984 ...... 215 Vennont Court System. 1984 ...... 243 Maine Court System. 1984 ...... 216 Virginia Court System. 1984...... 244 Maryland Court System. 1984 ...... 217 Washington Court System. 1984 ...... 245 Massachusetts Court System. 1984 ...... 218 West Virginia Court System. 1984 ...... 246 Michigan Court System. 1984 ...... 219 Wisconsin Court System. 1984 ...... 247 Minnesota Court System. 1984 ...... 220 Wyoming Court System. 1984 ...... 248 Mississippi Court System. 1984 ...... 221
ix Introduction Introduction
Court Statistics and Information Management statistics. Such improvement should eventuallv Project be reflected in future annual reports. The State Court Model Annual Report2 is a The Annual Re ort series of state court flexible working outline of critically needed, caseloaddsthe product of the basic management data that should, at a minimum, continuing cooperative effort between-the be included in state court annual reports. The Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) model identifies the kinds of data and the types and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). of display required to meet management needs Financial support and management, project The State Court Model Statistical Dictionaryj management, and project staffing responsibility emen are compan on ocuments w ch are assumed by the Court Statistics and ~:%!?k%& terminolod, dzfinitions,hkd Information Management (CSIM) Project, formerly usage for reporting civil, criminal, traffic, called the National Court Statistics Project juvenile, and appellate caseload inventory and (NCSP) of the NCSC. COSCA, through its Court manner of disposition as presented in the model Statistics and Information Systems Committee, annual report. The classification structure and provides general pol icy review, guidance, and definitions serve as models of preferred control over all project activities. The terminology and meanings for purposes of National Center for State Courts funded statewide and national comparison. The first production of this entire volume, except for edition of the dictionary covers those data printing costs, which were provided by the Bureau elements essential for classifying court caseload of Justice Statistics in the U. S. Department of inventory and manner of disposition. A Justice. supplement to the dictionary, published in 1984, The goals of the Court Statistics and contains revisions of those terms that experience Information Management Project are to collect, has demonstrated needed improvement, as well as compile, analyze, and disseminate comparable additional data elements for court caseflow state court caseload statistics, and to help (events in case processing) which are needed to states improve the quality of the data by determine status of pending cases. These assisting the states in resolving their documents do not include the recently approved statistical problems. The Annual Re ort series appellate court data elements that will be used responds directly to the firs+ goa y compiling for the first time in this 1984 Annual Report. all available state court caseload data from the These definitions will be included in the 50 states, the Distrfct of Columbia, Guam, and introduction to the appel 1ate court statistics Puerto Rico.1 section of this volume. Both of these documents must be viewed as a Dynamics of improvement logical first step in promoting comparable court statistics. They were not available to states in Historical development. Ideas and time to affect their reporting systems or the suggestions for improvement of this state court national Annual Re orts before 1981. caseload statistical series have come from many Neverthel-ect will be noticeable in sources, and have provided the creative stimulus each succeeding national-level Annual Re ort needed to assess current CSIM Project efforts and because the CSIM Project's techdnce to map future directions. effort is interwoven with the Annual Re ort Continuation of evolutionary improvement in national statistical series. this statistical series rests, ultimately, upon accomplished by helping states adopt the the ability of the CSIM Project to maintain a suggestions inthe Model Annual Report and Model productive dialogue and flow of ideas among the Statistical Dictionary and by proactive producer-compilers of the Annual Re ort, its data identification of particular state systems that sources, and its end usersevementin could benefit from technical assistance directed state court statistics has a1 ready been achieved, at helping resolve existing methodological but much remains to be done. problems of classification structure. During compilation of the State of the Art terminology, definition of local data-reporting and the 1975 Annual Report, a staggering procedures, and data hand1 ing/transformation classification Droblem resulted from the procedures. To the extent that such technical multitude of teks being used by the states to assistance suggestions are adopted, individual report their caseloads. The need for both a states directly benefit and the Annual Re ort model annual report and a statistical dictionary national statistical series indidts. of terms for court usage became obvious. These documents, published in 1980, are to be used as tools to assist the states in improving their ZNational Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, State Court Model Annual Report (Williamsburg, VA, 1980). IRepetition of "50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico" becomes very 3National Court Statistics Project, National tumbersome. Throughout the rest of this report, Center for State Courts, State-Court Model states" and "court systems" will be used for the Statistical Dictionary (Washington, D.C.: U.S. reporting units that include the District of overnment r nt ng 0 fice, 19801; Su lement Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. ~Williamsbu~g~N:tionzl Center for htss 1984).
3 The Court Case Mana ement Information Systems 5. More explicitly describe the 1 ink between Manual4 was produced joqntly by the National administrative agencies and the appellate -Statistics Project (now CSIM) and the State courts. Judicial Information-Systems Project to provide a 6. Improve significantly the understanding of methodology for building a court information missing data in national statistics (e.g., system that would provide the data needed for was the data excluded because the court did both daily court operations and longer-term case not have jurisdiction, or because it had management, resource allocation, and strategic jurisdiction but data were unavailable, or planning. the court had jurisdiction but the data were collapsed with that of another case type?). State Court Jurisdiction Guides for 7. Identify the point in the process when Statistical Reportin . The automation of the various appellate courts count cases (e.g., database required a fegree of precision in coding at the filing of either the notice of appeal every data element that was unavailable with the or the record). 1979 and 1980 databases. The statistical 8. More accurately identify the components of profiles for those years suffered from opinion counts" in state appellate courts imprecision and ambiguity that affected the (e.g., do they include full majority opinions . quality of data. For example, in previous years exclusively, or do they also include per general terms were used that did not state what curiam opinions and/or memoranda?). types of cases were included,,fn categories such 9. Correct double counting problems that as "civil" and "other civil. These terms should resulted from an inability to identify not have been used to make comparisons among whether petitions to appeal that were courts. A major effort was required to identify granted, retained the same docket number or specifically the subject matter jurisdiction and were refiled as regular appeals. methods of counting cases in the state courts. 10. Acquire complete lawyerlclerk staffing data This effort was undertaken in two stages. The on all state appellate courts for use in first stage focused on problems related to various productivity measures (e.g., opinions countina cases in the trial courts. and written per judge). culminated in the publication of the 1984 State 11. Identify some procedures used in the Trial Courf Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical granting/denying of discretionary review in R-3 R-3 Intormation from this jurisdiction the state appellate courts (e.g., the number au de was incoroorated into the database for of justices/judges necessary to grant review 1. i98l. Work on 'the jurisdiction guide convinced staff of an essential link between the guide and Uses of court statistical data the Drovidina of comDarable data. Staae two invoi ved the-preparation of the 1984 Siate The four major uses of court statistical Appellate Court Jurisdiction Guide for data, as identified in the CSIM publications, Statistical Reportingo for the 1984 appellate State Court Caseload Statistics: The State of court database. the Art and Coyrt Case Management Infomation The impact of the Jurisdiction Guides for Systems kanual', are (1 1 operational (aiding in Statistical Reporting have been profound. See the execution of routine day-to-day activities at the introduction to the 1981 Annual Report for a the local level ); (2) management (decision-making complete description of the effect of the Trial at the state or local level concerned with Court Jurisdiction Guide. The following insights improvement of the court process and system-wide explain differences bebeen 1984 appellate data efficiency in the use of court resources); (3) reported in this volume, and those data reported internal planning and research (goal setting and in previous editions of this series. This guide policy planning to establish long-term programs has now enabled staff to: and identify evolving problems); and (4) indirect I. Classify an appellate court's caseload and court uses (decision-making by those outside the disposition data into standard case types. courts concerned with policy making or research 2. Distinguish between an appellate court's about court operations). The various uses of mandatory and discretionary court statistics require different levels of jurisdiction--which will allow studies on detail and analysis, but the availability of agenda setting and the impact of detailed statistics is dependent upon the discretionary jurisdiction on court caseload. statistical reporting system used at the state or 3. Identify proceedings that some appellate local level. This annual report restricts its courts count as cases, but which do not scope to the level of detail currently available comport with model national definitions of an from state-level reporting systems. appellate court case (e.g., motions for time Operational decisions are made at the local extensions 1. level and require detailed information on a 4. More clearly Identify different operating case-by-case basis. These decisions must be made structures and procedures among the various daily and cannot be based upon year-end summary appellate courts (which will facilitate statistics such as those contained in this 1984 research on the impact of different operating report. procedures on court workload, e.g.. the use Management decisions can be made at either of panel rather than en banc decision-making). the state or local level and require aggregation of detailed information used for operational decisions. Caseflow management data, such as 4Cl ifford and Jensen, Court Case Management that needed to determine the status of the Information Systems Manual (Williamsburg, preparation of the record for appeal or to National Center for State Courts, 1983).
5C1 ifford and Roper, Trial Court Jurisd!ction 7National Court Statistics Project. National Guide for Statistical Reporting (Williamsburg, Center for State Courts, State-Court Caseload Rational Center for State Courts, 1985). Statistics: The State of the Art (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing affice, 1978). 6Roper, 1984 State Appellate Court Jurisdiction Clifford and Jensen, Court Case Management Guide for Statistical Reporting (Williamsburg, Information Systems Manual (Wlmsburg, National Center for State Courts, 1985). National Center for State Courts, 1983). 4 generate exception reports, are gathered by some will be broadened to include American Samoa and state reporting systems. This kind of the Virgin Islands when these data become information, however, is also case spectfic and avail able. too detailed to be compiled and used for The 1979 and 1980 Annual Reports made major nationwide comparisons. In contrast, state-level advances in eliminating repetitiveness in summary statistics are useful for management presenttng data elements in the summary tables purposes in several areas: comparisons of time and in reorganizing the data in the summary lapses in case processing to establish norms or tables based on completeness and comparability. guides; analyses to determine assignments of The 1981 volume reflected for the first time the judges needed to re1 ieve backlog; analyses to findings of the Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide determine the need for additional judges, support for Statistical Reportin , permitting the further personnel, or facilities; and analyses to arranaement ot data to i!dicate those determine the ,;vact of an intermediate appellate jurish ctions having comparable case1 oads. court on the state system. The 1982 and 1983 reports were postponed in Caseload and case processing are major order to make the series current with the components of court workload. The CSlM Project publication of this 1984 volume. Publication of has defined workload to mean all court-related the 1985 Annual Report is planned for December matters thaL consume time and effort (hence. 1986. purely administrative functions are also included This report reflects court organization and as workload). Measurement of court workload per jurisdiction as they existed in 1984. The se is not directly addressed in this report, but reader, however, should keep in mind that court caseload inventory data and data regarding the systems are not static entities. For example, in number of trials are partial indicators of 1984 North Dakota consolidated three separate judicial activity. The data presented in this county courts into one. The dollar amount limits report reflect the quantity of management data of civil jurisdiction in many courts change available from each state's reporting system in periodically. Since court organizational or published and unpublished reports. jurisdictional characteristics change over time, Internal planning and research, as well as caution should be exercised in attempting to planning and research by those outside the court compare the data in this 1984 report with earlier system, require a much wider range of data and data or with more current data. analysis than operational and management In addition, special care must be taken when decisions. The information necessary for these comparing the data in this 1984 volume with purposes often includes not only an aggregation previous editions of this series. The A ellate of data on caseload and caseflow, but also Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistics* specific data regarding status of cases, as well e ortin was used for the first time in coding as information on court operations, judicial ?-ft e appe late data, making possible the budgets, actions prior to filing a case, and separation of appellate cases into mandatory and actions after disposition of a case. Of interest discretionary jurisdiction, and clarifying what to some individuals within and outside the court is included in opinion counts. The more precise system are studtes on a wide range of other classification of appellate data in 1984, subjects, such as the effect and cost of combined with the updating of the trial court littgation, bail availability and uniformity jurisdiction guide in order to classify the 1984 includtng recognizancell0X bail programs, the trial court data, makes the 1984 data the most validity of case weighting techniques, sentence comparable of the series. disparity patterns, the effects of plea negotiation on caseloads, and the impact of Uata collection legislation on court management. To answer these questions is, however, beyond the capabilities of Uata sources. The sources of data for the tables most state or even local court information presented in this series are the published annual systems. Basic information on caseload and reports provided by the states and unpublished caseflow is adequate for many other planning and statistical material requested of, and supplied research issues where the level of needed detail by, state court administrators and appellate is not as high. These latter kinds of issues court clerks. (Appendix B of this report include, for example, case filing and disposition identifies the sources of data from each state. 1 trend analysis, caseload composition analysis, Additional relevant information was secured from analysis of reversal rates, time lapse analysis appropriate personnel in each state. Telephone to establish norms and guides, and forecasting of contact and follow-up correspondence were used to caseload volumes to determine resource and collect missing data, confirm the accuracy of facilities needs. available data, and determine the legal jurisdiction of each court. Information was Scope of the data in the annual report series collected concerning the number of judges per court or court system (from annual reports, The first annual report (1975) presented offices of state court administrators, and available caseload data for state appellate appellate clerks); the state population (based on courts, trial courts of general jurisdiction, and Bureau of the Census 1984 revised estimates); for selected categories (juvenile, domestic other 1984 demographic data (taken from the relations, probate, and mental health) in limited Statistical Abstract of the United States: jurisdiction courts. The second annual report m4O); and special characteristics regarding (1976) again presented available data for subject matter jurisdiction and court structure. appellate courts and courts of general Each state profile and court system chart jurtsdiction, and also included available underwent major revisions to reflect caseload data for all limited jurisdiction jurisdictional changes identified by the 1984 courts. As data from each court level become Jurisdiction Guides for Statistical Reporting. .more complete, future aggregation of trial court caseloads should become more meaningful. The 1976 report was expanded to include Puerto Rico. Data from Guam were added for the 8U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical 1977 court year. The scope of future reports Abstract of the United States: 9 ashin ton, b.c.: U.S. Government Printing AfRcr 19843. 5 Verification of data. In order to produce the Data display statistics contained in this report, a great deal of effort was expended by CSIM Project staff in Case category classifications. CSIM case collecting missing data, whether from published categories used for this 1984 report are those or ancillary sources, in defining terminology, chosen by the COSCA CSIS Committee for inclusion and in identifying categories in which cases fn the State Court Model Annual Report and State should be placed. In other words, data contained Court Model Statistical Dictionary. fhese case in this report cannot be replicated solely from categories appear as principal headings in the available published material. Yet, even after sumnary tables in Part I, and in each state's this extensive data-gathering effort, large gaps system chart in Part 111. The CSIM main headings remain in the data collected. are categories used uniformly for all the states. A1 though attempts to reconcile obvious discrepancies in reported data were made, the Format used. Summary tables (Part I). CSIM Project staff did not have the resources to Complete data from each state protile were assess the underlying validity or accuracy of the transferred into sumnary tables designed to data received from the states. For example, the display the kinds of available data that could be published cumulative case statistics for aggregated. The sumnary tables are divided into appellate courts or for trial courts frequently two major sections (appellate and trial to did not balance with reported totals within each reflect the two major levels of courts. category. Appellate courts include both courts of last Finally, the format, content, and limitations resort (the final court or courts of appeal of data tables have been reviewed and approved by within a state) and intermediate appellate courts the COSCA CSIS Comnittee, which guides the Court (the court or courts in which the primary work is Statistics and Information Management Project. the disposition of initial appeals received from trial courts of general jurisdiction or Types of data included. As a result of the fact administrative agencies, and in which some €hat few states report data suitable for all decisions are subject to appeal or review by a kinds of planning and research purposes, and court of 1ast resort 1. because most states report only certain types of For purposes of this report, a trial court is data, the NCSP initially chose to include in the considered to be a court of general jurtsdiction national series only those kinds of data that if it meets one of the following criteria: either were already fairly widely available or --The individual state considers it a general could be made available without requiring undue jurisdiction court. effort. Enough states reported trend data, --Felony cases are tried and felony sentences caseload by category, number of reversals, and given for all types of felony cases. time-to-disposition data to warrant inclusion of --The mges of the court are general these topics in this report, and some preliminary jurisdiction court judges sitting on temporary analyses can be made. For those states not assignment. supplying basic data, blanks in the summary All other trial courts are classified as tables draw attention to the missing data. In limited jurisdiction courts. the past, all data supplied by a state, complete In the 1975 Annual Re ort the states were or not, were entered in the summary tables. arranged alphabe- summary tables. Beginning in 1979, only data that are complete In 1976 the trial courts handling criminal cases (or at least 90% complete for a case category) were grouped according to the way in which are displayed in the summary tables. This was criminal cases were counted in each court. In done to facilitate comparability. the 1979 report, a further evolution in the Many current variations in court data, as grouping of states was added to all trial court indicated by footnotes in the summary tables, case type tables (except juvenile) in order to must be considered before sumnary tables can be place together those courts that have similar constructed to make comparisons among courts or subject matter jurisdiction. Trial court case states. Variations that limit the comparability type tables are also arranged in this volume as of interstate data in 1984 include: court follows : organization, subject matter jurisdiction, case definition, units of count, completeness, Complete state data: accuracy, and reporting periods. 1. Exclusive court jurisdiction: States where one court has exclusive case type Variations in reporting periods. As indicated on jurisdiction. profile headings and in Figure A, most states 2. Not exclusive court jurisdiction: report data by calendar year; many report by States where two or more courts have fiscal year, hwever, and a few report appellate case type jurisdiction. court data by court term. Therefore, the time spans covered in this report are not always Incomplete state data: directly comparable. 3. States where one or more courts have Although data included in this report cover case type jurisdiction, but complete reporting periods of approximately uniform data are not reported by one or more length, the starting and ending dates for the courts. reporting periods vary both within and among states. Differences in reporting periods have Footnotes. Standard footnote headings little effect on cumulative data elements, such speclfying the completeness and quality of the as filings and dispositions, since no matter when data are used on all summary tables and will the reporting period began and ended, the data continue to be used in the Annual Report series. cover one complete year. Pending data are If more information on the data presented in the treatly affected, though, since they represent a summary tables is needed, the user should contact snapshot" in time and can vary greatly depending this project at the National Center for State on when that snapshot was taken. Figure A Courts to obtain information concerning displays the actual reporting periods for all individual court statistical profiles. courts. 6 Trend tables (Part 11). This is a new Figure U preseiits a helpful cross-reference to section for the Annual Report series. In past summary tables iii previous editions of this volumes, staff compiled a single table that series. This will assist the user to locate illustrated trend data for total civil, criminal, similar information that may have been rearrdnged and juvenile filings; however, a significant on the summary tables over the years. number of professionals in the field have It is importaiit to the long-term improvement commented that it would be more useful to of the statistical series that these early specifically delineate civil and criminal volumes iii the series be circulated widely enough caseload into their important components. The to encourage reader/user ideas and comientary, civil case types studied in this section are and that they be used as a vehicle for developing tort, contract, real property rights, and small solutions to problems eiicountered during the claims cases. The criminal case type identified statistical series production process. As each in these tables is felonies. successive volume is pub1 ished. the CSIM Project can consider the feedback subsequently received Court system charts (Part 111). After the froin users of tlie documents, thereby further 1984 case data available from each state were enhancing succeeding volumes. classified, a profile of the courts in each state It should also be pointed out that for the was constructed. See Appendix C for a prototype fourth year, the data contained in this report of the statistical profiles used in the 1984 data are available in computer-readable form. There collection. These statistical profiles are no are two data sets: appellate caseload and trial longer published in these volumes. They now caseload. These data sets were used to construct serve as worksheets for compilation of the data most of the summary tables. This year Tables 1, base. Each state court system chart for 1984 1, 9, 20, 24-25, and 30-37 were compiled by depicts the organization of the court system hand. This number should be reduced in future within the state, the jurisdiction and route of years. appeal for each court, the number of judges, and The jurisdiction guides have affected several information on the types of trials. aspects of summary table preparation. Most of these will be discussed in the face sheet Data interpretation accompanying each suimnary table. The process of building toward meaningful Several devices are used in the summary statistics takes time. Concurrent with expanding tables for analyzing the caseload data. The and refining the Annual Re ort riational measures selected for use vary according to the stati s tica 1 se r ie&f fort must data being analyzed and are explained in the face encourage movement toward quality and precision sheets accompanying each group of summary tab1 es in state court statistics. The necessarily under headings such as: disposed cases as a long-term nature of this evolutionary process percent of filed cases, filed cases per unit of will contribute greatly to year-to-year population, and filed and disposed cases per improvements and enhancements of the statisticdl judge. series. Given the complexity of the problems being faced, building toward comparability, Continuing development of the series quality assurance, and appropriate detail is d necessary incremental process. It is in this The Annual Re ort series is an evolving light that the CSIM Project preseiits the data and product. &iven the nature of this newly analysis contained in the Annual Keport, 1984. developing science of gathering, reporting, and Comments and corrections are a welcome part analyzing state court data, additions and of tlie revision process, and should be directed refinements will be a fact of life in successive to the Lourt Statistics and Information Project volumes of the series. As more is learned about of the tJationa1 Center for State Courts, 300 the quality of the data, more specific Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia, suggestions will be given for their proper use, 231 87-8798. along with warnings to help avoid their abuse.
7 FIGURE A: Reporting periods for all state courts, 1984.
~ ~~~
Reporting periods
January 1, 1984 July 1, 1983 September 1, 1983 October 1, 1983 State to to to to December 31, 1984 June 30, 1984 August 31, 1984 September 30, 1984
A1 abama X A1 aska Arizona X Arkansas Californta
Colorado X Connecticut X Del aware X District of Columbia X Florida X
Georgia X X X Court of Appeals Trial Courts Supreme Court Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X
Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X X Supreme Court Trial Courts Court of Appeals Louisiana X Maine X
Mary1and X X X Court of Appeals Trial Courts Court of Appeals Court of Special Appeals Court of Special Appeals Filings: March 1, 1983 to Dispositions: July 1, 1983 to Feb 28, 1984 June 30, 1984 Massachusetts X X Trial Courts Supreme Judicial Court Appeals Court Michigan X X Trial Courts Supreme Court Minnesota X Mississippi X Supreme Court
Missouri X Montana X X District Court Justice of the Peace Supreme Court Cfty Court Municipal Court Nebraska X X X District Court Workmen ' s Supreme Court County Court Compensation Court Municipal Court Separate Juventle Nevada X New Hampshire X X Municipal Court Probate Court Superior Court District Court Supreme Court
8 Figure A: Reporting periods for all state courts, 1984. (continued)
Reporting periods
January 1, 1984 July 1, 1983 September 1, 1983 October 1 , 1983 State to to to to December 31, 1984 June 30, 1984 August 31 , 1984 September 30, 1984
New Jersey New Mexfco New York X North Carolina North Dakota X
Oh1 o Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico
Rhode Island X X Trial Courts Supreme Court South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X X Munfcipal Court District Court County-level Courts Justice of the Peace Court Supreme Court Courts of Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals
Utah X X Suoreme Court Trial Courts Vermont X Virginia X X Trial Courts Supreme Court Jan. 16, 1984 to Jan. 11, 1985 Washington X West Virginla X Wisconsin X Wyoming X
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, an "X" means that all of the trial and appellate courts report data for the time period indicated by the column.
9 FIGURE B: Cross-reference to summary tables in previous editions of the Annual Report series.
Corresponding tab1e numbers for previous reports 1975 -197G -1977 __1978 -1979 -1980 -1981 1984 APPELLATE COURT SUWARY TABLES:
1. Caseload estimates 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. Total reported caseload 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3. Case processing - mandatory 7-18 5-10 ...... 5-7 5-7 7-9 7-9 7-9 4. Case processing - discretionary pet. 7-18 5-10 5- 7 5-7 7-9 7-9 7-9 5. Case processing--discr. pet. granted 7-18 5-10 5-7 5-7 7-9 7-9 7-9 6. Number of court opinions 10 10 10 7. Time interval data 21 13 10 11 11 11 10
1984 TRIAL COURT SUMMARY TABLES:
8. Caseload estimates 16 13 14 14 13 12 9. Grand total caseload 17-19 14-16 15-17 15 14 13 10. Reported total civil trial caseload 17-19 14-16 15-17 15 14 13 11...... Reported total criminal trial caseload 17-19 14-16 15-17 15 14 14 12. Reported total traffidother violation trial caseload 17-19 14-16 15-17 15 14 15 13. Reported total juvenile trial caseload 17-1Y 14-16 15-17 15 14 16 14. Tort, contract, real property rights, and smal 1 claims caseload 23-26 20-23 21-24 19-22 18-21 20 15. Domestic relations caseload 29 27 24 25 23 22 21 ^--_-___---______------16. Estate caseload 30 28 25 26 24 23 22 17. Mental heal th case1 oad 31 29 26 27 25 24 23 18. Civil appeals caseload 30 27 28 26 25 24 19...... Civil trials 48 47 2Y 27 26 25 20. Felony, misdemeanor, and DWI/DUI caseload 35,36 32-34.41 31-33.40 33-35,42 31-33,40 30-32,3Y 29 21. Criminal appeals caseload 37 36 38 36 35 30 22. Preliminary hearing proceedings 36 35 37 35 34 31 23...... Criminal trials 39,48 38,47 40 38 37 33 24. Type of disposition for criminal cases 38 37 39 37 36 32 25. Ordinance violation caseload 35 34 36 34 33 35 26. Criminal-type petition caseload 45 44 47 44 43 39 27...... Child-victim petition 47 46 49 46 45 41 28. Status petition caseload 46 45 48 45 44 40 29. Type of disposition for traffic/ other violation cases 43 42 44 41 40 36 30. Traffidother violation trials 48 47 45 42 41 37 31. Trend data for tort, contract, and real property rights cases 49.50 48,49 50.51 47,48 46 42
______----______^______------32. Trend data for small claims cases 49,50 48.49 50,51 47,48 46 42 33. Trend data for tort cases 49,50 48,49 50.51 47,48 46 42 34. Trend data for contract cases 49,50 48.49 50,51 47,48 46 42 35. Trend data for felony cases 49.50 48,49 50.51 47.48 46 42
Note: The Project is constantly developing, therefore in many instances, the composition of tables changed dramatically over time. The cross-references are intended to provide a quick reference to basic subjectmatter shared by the tables.
10 Part I 1984 State court caseload summary stat ist ics Appellate court summary statistics
In this seciion, tables are presented to show procedure. Discretionary cases that are granted the caseload of appellate courts in 1984. review usually follow the same appellate Appellate courts are subdivided into courts of procedures as do mandatory cases. This Repor! last resort (the final court of appeal within a therefore, organizes its specific case types into particular state) and intermediate appellate courts three categories: (1) mandatory cases; (2) (courts whose primary work is the disposition of discretionary petitions; and (3) discretionary initial appeals received from trial courts of petitions that are granted review. general jurisdiction or administrative agencies, The specific case types for each of the three and whose decisions are usually subject to appeal broad categories described above, include civil, or review by a court of last resort). States have death penalty, other criminal, administrative been divided further into the following agency and juvenile appeals from final judgments; categories: (1) states with one court of last as well as four types of other proceedings which resort and one intermediate appellate court; (2) include disciplinary, advisory opinions, original states with no intermediate appellate court; and jurisdiction, and interlocutory decision cases. (3) states with multiple appellate courts at any The second Variation in appellate court case level. This typology facilitates comparisons of data results from differences in the point at courts sharing a basic structure. which cases are counted, and how they are The significant differences in the definition counted. Some courts count cases as soon as the and classification of cases in appellate courts notice of appeal is filed, while others count them have led the CSIM staff to include as 'cases' any at a later event, such as the filing of the record appeal, any original proceeding, or any request to or the filing of the appellant's brief (see Figure appeal case. C). Data presented in the following tables are Additionally, courts may inflate or deflate compiled from all data that are available, both in their caseload by the way they count appeals of annual reports and in unpublished reports provided criminal convictions for two or more defendants, by indfvidual appellate court clerks and state by whether cross appeals are counted as separate court administrators. cases, and by the way they count appeals granted During the past several years, it became clear through discretionary jurisdiction. Courts with to Project staff that ambiguities existed among discretionary jurisdiction sometimes report the appellate court data elements in the national total number of cases filed without distinguishing database. The most significant questions stemned between mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction from an inability to distinguish between a court's cases; or they separate mandatory and mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction. The discretionary cases filed but do not indicate the 1984 Appellate Court Jurisdiction Guide for number of requests for discretionary review Statistical Reportin was prepared and published granted; or they provide separate data for to remedy this situa3ion. This volume of the mandatory cases, discretionary jurisdiction Annual Re ort series is the first to incorporate granted, and discretionary jurisdiction denied; or +mprovements mandated by the Jurisdiction Guide. they combine mandatory jurisdiction cases and Two factors restrict comparability from state cases accepted for review, but report separately to state of these appellate court caseload data: the total number of petitions for review filed, variations in court jurisdiction, and variations resulting in double counting of granted petitions in the way cases are counted. for review. Major variation from state to state in court In trying to deal with these many variations jurisdiction among appellate courts results from in case data, the Court Statistics and Information the kind and amount of discretionary jurisdiction Management Project has presented as much over initial appeals granted to courts of last information as possible about the caseload. The resort and to intermediate appellate courts. jurisdiction of each court is outlined briefly in The following tables facilitate the comparison the court system chart for each state located in of a court's discretionary and mandatory Part 111 of this Re ort. jurisdiction. Mandatory jurisdiction is defined The appellate&IZs that follow (Numbers 1 as those cases for which a court must reach a through 7) are sequenced from the presentation of decision on the merits--these cases are often general data to more specific analytical tables. referred to as appeals of right. Discretionary The tables present estimates of a national jurisdiction is defined as those cases to which a appellate caseload, total reported appellate court can decline review on the merits. In cases, productivity measures by general case discretionary cases, the courts first decide types, the number of opinions written by court, whether to grant review using some summary and time to disposition of appeals.
13 FIGURE C: Methods of counting cases in state appellate courts, 1984.
Caseload data are not comparable in state labelled, "Case filed with:" indicates the court appellate courts unless cases are counted in the with which the "intent to appeal document is same way among the courts. The method of filed. counting cases must be employed as one tool in organizing appellate courts so that their The last component of counting cases involves caseloads are comparable. Figure C illustrates an identification of whether a some of the more important components of the reinstatedheopened case is counted as a new various methods used in counting cases in state filing, or retains the same docket number. appellate courts. A blank space indicates that Although the practice of counting no information was available for that data reopened/reinstated cases is not as widespread as element. All codes used in this figure are it.is in the trial courts, and is less of a defined at the end of the figure. problem in courts of last resort than in intermediate appellate courts. the accuracy in The first component in understanding how count is still noteworthy. This ijlformation is appellate cases are counted is the point in the provided in the columns entitled, Does the court appellate process where the court counts a case count reinstated/reopened cases in its count of as part of its caseload. Courts that begin new filings?" A "NO" ind!,cates the case retains counting cases earlier in the process (e.g., at , the same docket number. RARELY" means that in a notice of "intent to appeal"), rather than at a few situations, cases are treated as new filings later point (e.g., completion or filing of the (e.g., a case remanded, that resulted in a new record). are likely to have a larger caseload trial and a new appeal based on a different point because they are counting as cases litlgation of law). "YES OR FREQUENTLY" indicates that the that is dismissed/wi thdrawn/settled before court routinely counts reopened and reinstated comple.tion of the,,record. The column entitled, cases as new filings. Occasionally, special "Case counted at: indicates the starting point situations are indicated in these columns. for counting each case in state appellate Courts, for example, that issue new docket courts. In some states, all appeals are filed numbers to such cases, but segregate these cases with the court of last resort, which then from other new filings for :tatistical purposes, assigns, (i.e., transfers) cases to the are indicattd by the words IDENTIFIED intermediate appellate court. This situation is SEPARATELY. indicated by the word "transfer." The column
14 FIGURE C: Methods of counting cases in state appellate courts, 1984.
Does the court count reinstated/reopened cases in its count of Case counted at: Case filed with: new f i1 i ngs? Notice Filing State: Court of of th6 Trial Appellate Yes, or court name type gpeal record Other point court court & Rarely frequently ALABAMA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Court of Civil Appeals ...... IAC X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Court of Criminal YES, FROM CIRCUIT COURT; Appeals ...... I AC X 0 0 X 0 NO, ON REMAND - -- -- ALASKA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY
ARIZOIIA: CIV FILING: YES, AFTER CLOSE0 Supreme Court ...... COLR X-CRIM 0 FEE PAID X X BY ORDER OR MANDATE Court of Appeals ... IAC X-CRIM 0 CIV FILING: X 0 YES, FOR REOPENED; FEE PAID NO, FOR REINSTATED
ARKANSAS : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... COLR 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0
CALIFORNIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... I AC 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 -- COLORADO: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 0 X IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 0 X 0 0 X
CONNECTICUT: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 FEE PAID X 0 X 0 0 Appellate Court .... I AC X 0 FEE PAID X 0 X 0 0
DELAWARE : Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 - -- -- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court of Appeals ... COLR X 0 0 X 0 0 0 X -- -- FLORIDA : Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X I AC X 0 0 District Court of Appeals ...... I AC X 0 0 CV/CR A0M.AGY. X 0 0 -- -- GEORGIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... I AC 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0
HAWAII : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... I AC 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 - -- -- IDAHO: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 TRANSFER 0 X X 0 0
15 FIGURE C: Methods of counting cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Does the court count reinstatedheopened cases in its count of Case counted at: Case flled with: new filings? Notice Filing State: Court of of the Trial Appellate Yes, or court name type appeal record Other point court & Rarely frequently ILLINOIS: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Appellate Court .... IAC X 0 0 X 0 IDENTIF I EO SEPARATELY -- IN0 I ANA : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 BRIEF X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY Court of Appeals ... I AC 0 0 BRIEF X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY -- IOWA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 0 X 0 X 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 TRANSFER 0 X X 0 0 -- KANSAS: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 DOCKETING” X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY Court of Appeals ... I AC 0 0 DOCKETING* X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY -- KENTUCKY: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... I AC X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0
LOUISIANA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0 Court of Appeals ... I AC 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0
MAINE: Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0
MARYLAND: Court of Appeals ... COLR 0 0 PETITIO14 0 X 0 X 0 Court of Specfal Appeals ...... IAC 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0
MASSACHUSETTS: Supreme Judicial Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 X 0 0 X 0 Appeals Court ...... IAC 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0 --- -- MICHIGAN: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 BRIEF 0 X 0 0 X Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 0 X 0 X 0
--- I -- MINNESOTA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 0 X X 0 0
MISSISSIPPI: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY
El ISSOUR I : Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0
MONTANA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 0 X 0
16 FIGURE C: I4etliods of counting cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Ooes the court count reinstated/reopened cases in its count of Case counted at: Case filed with: new filings? ].lotice Filina State: Court of of the Trial Appell ate Yes, or court name type appeal record Other point court court -No Rarely frequently NEBRASKA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 0 0 X -- NEVADA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0 -- NE14 HAI4PSHIRE : Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X X 0 0 - -- NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X X-OP 0 X 0 Appellate Division of Superior Court . IAC 0 0 X IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY - - NEW MEXICO: Supreme Court ...... COLR TRANSCRIPT 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC TRANSCRIPT 0 X X 0 0 - - NEW YORK : Court of Appeals ... COLR X 0 X Appell ate Oivi sion of Supreme Court .. I AC X 0 X Appellate Term of Supreme Court ..... I AC x-cv X-CR 0 - - - NORTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 0 Court of Appeals . . . I AC 0 X 0 0 0 - - NORTH DAKOTA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 0 - - - OHIO: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 X X 0 Court of Appeals . . . I AC 0 X* X* 0 X - OKLAHOMA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X* 0 0 X X* 0 X* Court of Criminal Appeals ...... COLR X* 0 0 X X* 0 X* Court of Appeals . .. IAC 0 TRANSFER -- -- X* 0 X* - OREGON: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 X 0 X Court of Appeals ... I AC 0 0 X 0 X - - - PENNSYLVANIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X-M* X-D* X 0 Superior Court . . .. . I AC 0 X 0 X 0 Commonwealth Court . I AC 0 X 0 0 X - PUERTO RICD: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X-CR x-CY IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY -- RHODE ISLAND: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 -- 17 FIGURE C: Methods of counting cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Does the court count reinstated/reopened cases in its count of Case counted at: Case filed with: new f i1 ings? p State: Court of of the Trial Appellate Yes, or court name type appeal record Other point court court Rarely frequently SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 TRANSCRIPT 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 TRANSFER -- -- X 0 0 --- -- SOUTH DAKOTA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0
TENNESSEE: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 0 X 0 0 X Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 0 X X 0 0 Court of Criminal Appeals ...... IAC X 0 0 0 X X 0 0
TEXAS : Supreme Court ...... CDLR X 0 0 X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY Court of Criminal Appeals ...... COLR 0 0 FIRST X 0 IOENTIFIED SEPARATELY CORRESPON. Court of Appeals .. . IAC X 0 0 X 0 IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY
UTAH : Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X X-AG X 0 0
VERMONT: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 0 X 0 0 X
VIRGINIA: PETITION FOR Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 APPEAL 0 X IOENTIFIED SEPARATELY
WASHINGTON: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 Court of Appeals . . . IAC X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0
WEST VIRGINIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0
WISCONSIN: ACCEPTS Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 JURISDIC. 0 X X 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC X 0 0 0 X IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY
WYOMING: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 X 0 0 X 0 0 X - NOT MANY OF SUCH CASES
-- = Data element is inapplicable. ADM. AGY. = Administrative agency cases only. CR = Criminal cases only. CV = Civil cases only. DP = Death penalty cases only. COLR = Court of last resort. IAC = Intermediate appellate court.
*Footnotes:
Kansas: Docketing occurs 21 days after a notice of appeal is filed in the trial court. Some cases are never docketed in the appell ate court. FIGURE C: Methods of counting cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Ohio--Court of Appeals: The clerk of the trial court is also the clerk of the Court of Appeals.
Oklahoma--The courts do not count reinstated cases as new filings, but do count any subsequent appeal of an earlier decided case as a new filing. The notice of appeal refers to the petition in error.
Pennsylvania--Supreme Court: Mandatory cases are filed with the trial court, and discretionary cases are filed with the appellate court.
Source: 1984 State Appellate Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting.
19 TABLE 1: Reported national caseload for state appellate courts, 1984.
Variations in court organization: incomplete and include some other case types. These figures are identified separately for All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and mandatory and discretionary cases/petitions, and Puerto Rico have courts of last resort. Oklahoma also aggregated on page 2 of this table in the and Texas have two courts of last resort, one summary section for all appellate courts. that hears civil cases and one that hears criminal cases. Number of cases/petitions per judge/justice: Thirty-two states have intermediate appellate courts; four of these states have two This measure is used to indicate the number intermediate appellate courts. of cases/petitions filed and disposed for each appellate judge/justice reporting cases/peti tions Variations in subject matter jurisdiction: for the appropriate category. The number of judges/justices for each court can be found in Courts of last resort in states with Tables 3-5. intermediate appell ate courts generally have wide discretion in setting their agenda. Most appeals Percent of population represented by data: are heard as a matter of right by intermediate appellate courts and by courts of last resort in State population figures used for all states without intenediate appellate courts. appellate courts and courts of last resort are (In 1984, the courts of last resort in Virginia from the revised 1Y84 Bureau of Census figures. and West Virginia are exceptions.) The denominator for these figures varied Total case figures are not comparable from depending on the category being reported. For state to state without considering the mix of example, the population for the mandatory mandatory and discretionary appeals heard by each jurisdiction states varied significantly from the court, and the variety of case types included in d is c ret iona ry juris d ic t ion s tate s . the jurisdiction of each court. The number of cases per lawyer support personnel : Sources of data are found in Appendix B. This measure is used to indicate the number Reported cases: of cases/petitions filed and disposed for each lawyerlsupport personnel in courts reporting The number of cases/petitioiis filed and cases/peti tons for the appropriate category. The disposed are reported separately for courts of number of lawyer support personnel for each court last resort, and for intermediate appellate can be found in Tables 3-5. courts. Additionally, these cases are identified separately as mandatory jurisdiction and Limitations on use: d isc ret iona ry j u r is d ic t ion cas e s /pet iti on s . There are generally three sub-categories These represent aggregate data, and due to within the mandatory, and discretionary the controls already exercised on this table, are jurisdiction categories: (1 the number of reported without regard to units of count. The reported complete and comparable cases; (2) the total summary section figures include sonie double number of reported complete cases that include counting of petitions granted review, and later some other case type(s); and (3) the number of refiled as mandatory cases. reported cases that are either incomplete, or are
21 TABLE 1: Reported national caseload for state appellate courts. 1984.
Reported Caseload Fi1 ed Disposed
Courts of last resort: I . Mandatory jurisdiction cases:
A . Number of reported complete and comparable cases ...... 13. 139 9. 666 1 . Number of cases per judge/justice ...... 76 86 2 . Number of cases per lawyer support personnel ...... 33 38 3 . Number of courts reporting complete and comparable data ...... 27 16 4 . Number of courts with mandatory jurisdiction ...... 5 O* 5O* 5 . Percent of the total population of states with mandatory jurisdiction represented by complete and comparable data ...... 60% 50% B . Number of reported complete cases that include some discretionary cases ...... 6. 121 4. 668 1 . Number of cases per judge/justice ...... 89 90 2 . Number of cases per lawyer support personnel ...... 41 51 3 . Number of courts reporting complete data with some discretionary cases .... 11 8 4 . Number of courts with mandatory jurisdiction ...... 52 52 5 . Percent of the total population of states with mandatory jurisdiction represented by complete data that include some discretionary cases ...... 11% 6% C . Number of reported cases that are either incomplete. or incomplete and include some discretionary cases ...... 1. 033 1. 229 1 . Number of cases per judge/justice ...... 37 44 2 . Number of cases per lawyer support personnel ...... 11 20 3 . Number of courts reporting incomplete data with some discretionary cases .. 4 4 4 . Number of courts with mandatory jurisdiction ...... 52 52 5 . Percent of the total population of states with mandatory jurisdiction represented by incomplete data that include some discretionary cases ...... 15% 5% I1. Discretionary jurisdiction petitions: A . Number of reported complete and comparable petitions ...... 27. 200 15. 608 1 . Number of petitions per judge/justice ...... 131 127 2 . Number of petitions per lawyer support personnel ...... 53 53 3 . Number of courts reporting complete and comparable petitions ...... 30 18 4 . Number of courts with discretionary jurisdiction ...... 49** 49** 5 . Percent of the total population of states with discretionary jurisdiction represented by complete and comparable data ...... 6 6% 42% B . Number of reported complete petitions that include some mandatory cases ...... 3. 732 4. 264 1 . Number of petitions per judge/justice ...... 31 1 224 2 . Number of petitions per lawyer support personnel ...... 75 69 3 . Number of courts reporting complete data with some mandatory cases ...... 2 3 4 . Number of courts with discretionary jurisdiction ...... 50 50 5 . Percent of the total population of states with discretionary jurisdict on represented by complete data that include some mandatory cases ...... 6% 7% C . Number of reported petitions that are either incomplete. or incomplete include some mandatory cases ...... 4. 752 3. 352 1 . Number of petitions per judge/justice ...... 170 120 2 . Number of petitions per lawyer support personnel ...... 65 55 3 . Number of courts reporting incomplete data with some mandatory cases ...... 4 4 4 . Number of courts with discretionary jurisdiction ...... 50 50 5 . Percent of the total population of states with discretionary jurisdiction represented by incomplete data that include some mandatory cases ...... 7% 8%
22 Table 1: Reported national caseload for state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Reported Caseload Filed Disposed
Intennediate appellate courts:
I. Mandatory jurisdiction cases: A. Number of reported complete and comparable cases ...... 74,035 50,165 1. Number of cases per judge/justice ...... 160 150 2. Number of cases per lawyer support personnel ...... 81 89 3. Number of courts reporting complete and comparable data ...... 24 18 4. Number of courts with mandatory jurisdiction ...... 38 38 5. Percent of the total population of states with mandatory jurisdiction represented by complete and comparable data ...... 6 5% 4 0% E. Number of reported complete cases that include some discretionary cases ...... 32,201 26,164 1. Number of cases per judge/justice ...... 177 21 1 2. Number of cases per lawyer support personnel ...... 62 72 3. Number of courts reporting complete data with some discretionary cases .... 11 9 4. Number of courts with mandatory jurisdfction ...... 38 38 5. Percent of the total population of states with mandatory jurisdiction represented by complete data that include some discretionary cases ...... 33% 28% C. Number of reported cases that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include some discretionary cases ...... 0 0 I I. Discretionary jurisdiction petitions : A. Number of reported complete and comparable petitions ...... 12,785 2,986 1. Number of petitions per judgeljustice ...... 41 20 2. Number of petitions per lawyer support personnel ...... 17 10 3. Number of courts reporting complete and comparable petitions ...... 16 10 4. Number of courts with discretionary jurisdiction ...... 26 26 5. Percent of the total population of states with discretionary jurisdiction represented by complete and Comparable data ...... 66% 31 % E. Number of reported complete petitions that include some mandatory cases ...... 0 0 C. Number of reported petitions that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include some mandatory cases ...... 0 0
Sumnary section for all appellate courts: Reported filings COLK --IAC Total A. Number of reported complete and comparable cases/peti tions ...... 40,339 86,820 127,159 E. Number of reported complete cases/petftions that include other case types ...... 9,853 32,201 42,054 C. Number of reported cases/petitions that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include other case types ...... 5,785 0 5,785 Total ...... 55,977 119,021 174,998
* Data for courts of last resort that reported ** Data for courts of last resort that reported complete and comparable mandatory jurisdiction complete and comparable discretionary cases do not include data from two courts who petitions do not include data from the have virtually no mandatory jurisdiction: the Mississippi Supreme Court which reported only Michigan Supreme Court reported only five two filings. filings, and the Texas Supreme Court reported no filings. COLR = Court of last resort IAC = Intermediate appellate court
23 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984.
Sources of data are found in Appendix B. process (at notice of appeal) should have a higher caseload per capita than courts that count Variations in court organization and subject cases later in the process (at completion of matter jurisdi c ti on : record).
The specific subject-matter jurisdiction of Appropri ate analysis : each court can be found in the court system charts located in Part 111 of this Report (e.g., Sum of mandatory cases and discretionary civil, non-capital, criminal, etc. 1. This etitions. It has never been an easy task to subject matter jurisdiction varies among courts +e ine an appellate case. Some argue that only within states, and among states. those cases given plenary review should be Courts also vary regarding the amount of counted. Others contend that discretionary mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction. Some petitions are a1 so important because they consume courts have total mandatory jurisdiction, some court resources and judge time. This first have total discretion in setting their agenda, measure provides a total figure for those but most courts have some mix between mandatory supporting the latter position. and discretionary jurisdiction. In addition to providing the sum of mandatory This table identifies the total cases and discretionary petitions, the number of cases/positions filed and disposed in all of the these cases/petitions filed per judge is also state appellate courts. These numbers are broken provided as a comparable statistic to indicate down into total mandatory cases, total the workload of the court. discretionary petitions, and total discretionary Sum of mandatory cases and discretionary petitions granted review. etitions granted review. tor those that argue States are organized in this table into one {nly cases given full consideration of the court of three categories: states with one court of should be counted, there is a total column which last resort and one intermediate appellate court; sums mandatory cases with discretionary petitions states with no intermediate appellate court; and granted review. This column also indicates the states with multiple appellate courts at any number of cases filed per judge. level. This typology provides one scheme for comparing state totals, and courts sharing at Limitations on use: least one major organization characteristic. Comparisons should only be made among those Variations in counting appellate court cases: courts that share similar units of count. Additionally. care should be taken to compare The point in the process at which an only those courts with similar subject matter, appellate court case is counted varies among the and mandatoryldi scretionary jurisdiction. When states. In some states it is counted at the comparing states, states are only comparable filing of the complete trial court record, other within the major categories by whicli the states courts count cases at the filing of the notice of are organized (e.g., states with one court of appeal, and still other courts count cases at last resort and one intermediate appellate court transfer from another appellate court. These represent one such category). Finally, some variations in counting cases are identified on trial courts of general jurisdiction have the right-side face sheet of this table (which incidental appellate jurisdiction, which may also provides statistics for total affect the number of appeals filed in the regular cases/petitions disposed). This is an important appellate courts. This information can be found variable to consider when comparing caseloads. in Figure H. For example, courts that count early in the
25 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984.
Total cases filed Totals Sum of mandatory Sum of mandatory cases and cases and discretionary Total d 1 sc ret io na ry petitions discretionary pe ti tions granted review Total Total pe ti tions Filed Fi1 ed mandatory discretionary granted Per pe I* State and court title: cases petitions review Number judge Number judge STATES WITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AND ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--STATE TOTAL ...... 787 284 1,071 134 Supreme Court ...... 320 221 541 108 Court of Appeals ...... 467 63 530 177
ARIZONA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,85ei 1,0663 3,924 196 Supreme Court ...... 1osi 1,0163 1,121 224 Court of Appeals ...... 2,753 50 2,803 187
CALIFORNIA--STATE TOTAL ..... 10,340i 9,829 873 20,1691 11,2131 Supreme Court ...... 2221 3,991 31 4,213’ 540i Court of Appeals ...... 10,118 5,838 555 15,956 21 6 10,673 144
COLORADO--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,836 81 3 2,649 156 Supreme Court ...... 256 81 3 1,069 153 Court of Appeals ...... 1,580 NH NH ------
CONNECTICUT--STATE TOTAL .... Supreme Court ...... Appel 1ate Court ...... 1,3625 49 1.4115
FLORIDA--STATE TOTAL ...... 12,357 3,026 15,383 290 Supreme Court ...... 587 1,056 1,643 235 District Court of Appeals . 11,770 1,970 13,740 299
GEORGIA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,7333’ 1,564 325 4,297j 3,05@ Supreme Court ...... 6334 941 158 1 ,604J 821J Court of Appeals ...... 2,0705 623 167 2,6935 2,2373
HAWAII--STATE TOTAL ...... 5725 32 5 6045 5775 Supreme Court ...... 471 J 32 5 5035 4765 Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... 101 NH NH --
IDAHO--STATE TOTAL ...... 4955 60 5555 Supreme Court ...... 3495 60 4095 Court of Appeals ...... 146 NH NH --
ILLINOIS--STATE TOTAL ...... 7,5055 Supreme Court ...... 371 1,675 204 2,046 292 575 82 Appellate Court ...... 7,134
INDIANA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... Court of Appeals ...... 1,150j
26 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Total cases disposed Totals Sum of mandatorycases and Point at Total Sum of which discretionary mandatory discretionary cases Total Total petitions cases and petitions Court are mandatory discretionary granted discretionary grdnted State and court title: type counted cases petitions review petitions review
STATES WITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AND ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--STATE TOTAL ...... 796 297 49 1,093 845 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 347 220 27 567 374 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 44Y 77 22 521, 471
ARIZONA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2.709: 1,107J 106 3.81 b 2,815 Supreme Court ...... COLR 9 111’ 1,0483 95J 1.159 2Ob Court of Appeals ...... IAC 9 2,598 59 11 2,657 2, bo9
CALIFORNIA--STATE TOTAL ..... Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2
COLORADO--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 NH NH --
CONNECTICUT--STATE TOTAL .... Supreme Court ...... COLR 9 Appellate Court ...... IAC 3 5683
FLORIDA--STATE TOTAL ...... 12.471 2,729 15,200 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 530 1,060 1,590 District Court of Appeals . IAC 1 11,941 1,669 13,610
GEORGIA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2 2,0903 629 2,719J - HAWAII--STATE TOTAL ...... 5795: 35 61 45: Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 4543 35 4893 Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2 125 NH NH -- --
IDAHO--STATE TOTAL ...... 5273 55 5823 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 3523 55 407 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 4 175 N H NH -- --
ILLINOIS--STATE TOTAL ...... 7,2003’ Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 309 1,715 378 2,024 687 Appellate Court ...... IAC 1 6,8915
INDIANA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,4943 Supreme Court ...... COLR 5 357. 143 500 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 5 1,1373
27 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984.
Total cases filed Totals Sum of mandatory Sum of mandatory cases and cases and discretionary Total discretionary pe titi ons d isc reti ona ry petitions granted review Total Total petitions Fi1 ed Filed mandatory discretionary granted Per Per State and court title: cases petitions review Number judge Number judge IOWA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... Court of Appeals ...... 569 NH NH -- --
KANSAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,21 d Supreme Court ...... 169 223 392 56 Court of Appeals ...... 1,0415
KENTUCKY--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,946 1,065 4,011 191 Supreme Court ...... 221 98b 128 1,207 172 349 50 Court of Appeals ...... 2,725 79 2,804 200
LOUISIANA--STATE TOTAL ...... 4,0175 3,9681: 8461 7,985 145 4,863 88 Supreme Court ...... 1474 2,1261 3591 2,273 325 506 72 Court of Appeals ...... 3,8705 1,842 48 7 5,712 119 4,357 91
MARYLAND--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,9975 1,069 158 3,0664 2,155 108 Court of Appeals ...... 2205 7 61 136 981J 356 51 Court of Special Appeals .. 1,777 308 22 2,085 1,799 138
MASSACHUSETTS--STATE TOTAL .. 1,516j Supreme Judicial Court .... 141 1,246 184 1.387 325 46 Appeals Court ...... 1,375J
MICHIGAN--STATE TOTAL ...... 4,801 4,103 585 8,904 356 5,386 21 5 Supreme Court ...... 5 2,347 95 2,352 336 100 14 Court of Appeals ...... 4,796 1,756 490 6,552 364 5,206 294
MINNESOTA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... Court of Appeals ......
MISSOURI--STATE TOTAL ...... 3,013J 846 106 3,859 3,119 Supreme Court ...... 161J 846 106 1,0075 2675 Court of Appeals ...... 2,852 NH NH -- --
NEW JERSEY--STATE TOTAL ..... 6,592J Supreme Court ...... 368 1,142i 138 1,510 21 6 50Gi Appellate Uivision of Superior Court ...... 6,224
NEW MEXICO--STATE TOTAL ..... 1,207 231 88 1.438 120 1,295 108 Supreme Court ...... 635 174 61 809 162 696 140 Court of Appeals ...... 572 57 27 629 90 599 86
28 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Total cases disposed ‘totals Sum of mandatory Point at Total Sum of cases and which discretionary mandatory discretionary cases Total Total petitions cases and petitions Court are mandatory discretionary granted discretionary granted State and court title: type counted cases petitions review petitions review IOWA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,378j Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 8463 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 4 532 NH NH -- --
KANSAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,388 Supreme Court ...... COLR 6 343 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 6 1,045
KENTUCKY--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,976 866 3,842 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 280 793 1,073 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 2,696 73 2,769
LOUISIANA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 Courts of Appeals ...... IAC 2
MARYLAND--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,107j 1,093 3,200J Court of Appeals ...... COLR 8 2303 785 1 ,015J Court of Special Appeals .. IAC 2 1,877 308 2,185
MASSACHUSETTS--STATE TOTAL .. Supreme Judicial Court .... COLR 2 Appeals Court ...... IAC 2 - MICHIGAN--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 5 2,495.1’ Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 - MINNESOTA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR Court of Appeals ...... IAC - MISSOURI--STATE TOTAL ...... 81 2i Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 81 zi Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 3,159 NH NH -- -- - NEW JERSEY--STATE TOTAL ..... 6,67d Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 408 1 ,O7!ji 138 1,483 546i Appellate Division of Superior Court ...... IAC 1 6.2623
NEW MEXICO--STATE TOTAL ..... Supreme Court ...... COLR 7 30 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 7 -
29 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984.
Total cases filed lotals Sum of mandatory Sum of mandatory cases and cases and discretionary Total d isc ret iona ry petitions discretionary petitions granted review Total Total petitions Filed Flled ma nda tory d isc reti on a ry g r a n t e d Per Pe I" State and court title: cases petitions review Number judge Number ju49e NORTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL . 1.5445 1,012 1275 2,5565 1.6715 Supreme Court ...... 230. 541 68 771 110 298. 43 Court of Appeals ...... 1,3143 471 54 1,78d 1,3733
OHIO--STATE TOTAL ...... 9,721 1,704 147 11,425 190 9,868 164 Supreme Court ...... 338 1,704 147 2.042 292 485 69 Court of Appeals ...... 9,383 NH NH ------
~ ~~ OREGON--STATE TOTAL ...... 4,033 870 105 4,903 288 4,138 243 Supreme Court ...... 205 870 105 1,075 154 31 0 44 Court of Appeals ...... 3,828 NH NH -_ -- -- __
SOUTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL . 883 13 896 81 Supreme Court ...... 479 13 492 98 Court of Appeals ...... 404 NH NH -- --
WASHINGTON--STATE TOTAL ..... 3,0941: 1,144 Supreme Court ...... 22813 881 ij Court of Appeals ...... 2,866 263 3;129 261
WISCONSIN--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,337 963 142 3,300 174 2,479 130 Supreme Court ...... 98 71 8 88 81 6 117 186 27 Court of Appeals ...... 2,239 245 54 2,484 207 2,293 191
STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
DELAWARE--Supreme Court ..... 3315
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-- Court of Appeals ...... 1 ,8ld 85
CIAINE--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ......
MISSISSIPPI--Supreme Court .. 838 2 840 93
MONTANA--Supreme Court ......
NEBRASKA--Supreme Court ..... 1,002J
NEVADA--Supreme Court ...... 799 NH NH 799 160
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Supreme Court. NH 603i 603i
30 TABLE 2: ‘Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Total cases disposed Totals Sum of mandatory Point at Total Sum of cases and which discretionary mandatory discretionary cases Total Total petitions cases and petitions Court are mandatory discretionary granted discretionary granted State and court title: counted cases petitions. review petitions review NORTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL . i.63iJ 888 2,519J Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 219. 465 50 684. 269 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2 1,4123 423 1.8353
OHIO--STATE TOTAL ...... 9,444 1,293 202 10,737 9,646 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 320 1,293 202 1,613 522 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 9,124 NH NH -- --
OREGON--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 3ooJ Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 NH NH -- --
SOUTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL . Supreme Court ...... COLR 7 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 4 441 NH NH -- --
WASHINGTON--STATE TOTAL ..... 2,9001J 1,175iJ 146ij 4,07515 3,046!J Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 176’3 905iJ 11215 1,0811J 28813 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 2,724 270 34 2 ,994 2,758
WISCONSIN--STATE TOTAL ...... 9305 Supreme Court ...... COLR 3 721 J 21 aJ Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 2,223 209 2,432
STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
DELAWARE--Supreme Court ..... COLR 1 3 54j - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-- Court of Appeals ...... COLR 1 1,51d
MAINE--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ...... COLR 1 4941 52 546i
MISSISSIPPI--Supreme Court .. COLR 2 637 2 639
MONTANA--Supreme Court ...... COLR 1
NEBRASKA--Supreme Court ..... COLR 1 - NEVADA--Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 788 NH NH 7883’ 784
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Supreme Court. COLR 1 NH 550i 390i 55ui 3YOi
31 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984.
Total cases filed Totals Sum of mandatory Sum of mandatory cases and cases and discretionary Total discretionary petiti on s discretionary petitions granted review Total Total petitions Filed Filed mandatory discretionary granted Per Per State and court title: cases petitions revim Number judge Number judge NORTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court . 370 NH NH 370 74 3 70 74
RHODE ISLAND--Supreme Court . 409 202 3 61 1 122 41 2 82
SOUTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court . 344J
UTAH--Supreme Court ...... 640 72 71 2 142
VERMONT--Supreme Court ...... 62 d 25 644
VIRGINIA--Supreme Court ..... 1,915 308
WEST VIRGINIA--Supreme Court of Appeals ...... HH 1,282 543 1,282 256 543 109
WYOMING--Supreme Court ...... 331 NH NH 331 66 331 66
STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
ALABPJdA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,677 71 2 3,389 199 Supreme Court ...... 745 71 2 1,457 162 Court of Civil Appeals .... 532 NH NH -- -- Court of Criminal Appeals . 1,400 NH NH _- --
ARKANSAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,334 Supreme Court ...... 479iJ Court of Appeals ...... 855 NH NH __ --
NEW YORK--STATE TOTAL ...... Court of Appeals ...... Appellate Division of Supreme Court ...... Appellate Term of Supreme Court ......
OKLAHOMA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,079 672 160 2,751 115 2,239 93 Supreme Court ...... 789 388 84 1,177 131 873 97 Court of Criminal Appeals . 502 284 76 786 262 578 193 Court of Appeals ...... 788 NH NH ------
PENNSYLVANIA--STATE TOTAL ... 10,073J Supreme Court ...... 268 2,7615 3,029J Superior Court ...... 5,793J Commonweal tti Court ...... 4,012 82 4,094 455
32 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Total cases disposed Totals Sum of mandatory Point at Total Sum of cases and which discretionary mandatory discretionary cases Total Total petitions cases and petitions Court are mandatory discretionary granted discretionary granted State and court title: type counted cases petitions review petitions revie* NORTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court . COLR 1 331 NH NH 331 331
RHODE ISLANO--Supreme Court . COLR 2 44 7 21 8 665
SOUTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court . COLR 1
UTAH--Supreme Court ...... COLR 1
VERMONT--Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 532j 26 558J
VIRGINIA--Supreme Court ..... COLR 8 1,919
WEST VIRGINIA--Supreme Court of Appeals ...... COLR 1 NH 1,124 3 94 1,124 394
WYOMING--Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 250 NH NH 250 250
STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
ALABAMA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 Court of Civil Appeals .... IAC 1 536 NH NH -- -- Court of Criminal Appeals . IAC 1 1,480 NH NH -- --
ARKANSAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,275iJ Supreme Court ...... COLR 2 4481 J Court of Appeals ...... COLR 2 82 7 NH NH ------NEW YORK--STATE TOTAL ...... Court of Appeals ...... COLR 1 391 3,477 320 3,868 71 1 Appellate Division of Supreme Court ...... IAC 2 Appellate Term of Supreme Court ...... IAC 2 . OKLAHOMA--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 Court of Criminal Appeals . COLK 1 645 256 901 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 4 801 NH NH -- --
PENNSYLVANIA--STATE TOTAL ... Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 Superior Court ...... IAC 1 5,908j Commonwealth Court ...... IAC 1
.
33 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984.
~ ~ ~~ ~- Total cases filed Totals Sum of mandatory Sum of mandatory cases and cases and discretionary Total discretionary petitions d is c ret ion a ry petitions granted review Total Total petitions Filed Filed mandatory disc reti onary granted Per Per State and court title: cases petitions review Number judge Number judge TENNESSEE--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,D3d Supreme Court ...... 21 6 842 1,058 21 2 Court of Appeals ...... 951 57 11 1.008 84 962 84 Court of Criminal Appeals . 868J
TEXAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 9,345 2,411 405 11,756 120 Y.750 99 Supreme Court ...... 0 1,130 105 1,130 126 105 12 Court of Criminal Appeals . 1,959 1,281 300 3,240 360 2,259 251 Court of Appeals ...... 7,386 NH NH -_ -- _- -_
Note: All available data that are at least 90% Louisiana--Supreme Court--Some discretionary complete are included in the table. Blank jurisdiction cases cannot be separated spaces indicate that either the data are from the mandatory caseload. unavailable or less than 90% complete or Maine--Data do not include mandatory that the calculations are inappropriate. discipllnary arid advisory opinion cases. Missouri --Supreme Court--Data do not include COLR = Court of last resort a few discretionary original proceedings. IAC = Intermediate appellate court New Hampshire--Supreme Court--Data do not NH = This case type is not handled in this court. include discretionary judge discipllnary -- - Inapplicable cases. New Jersey--Supreme Court--Data do not Points at which cases are counted: include discretionary interlocutory 1 = At the notice of appeal decisions. 2 = At the filing of record Washington--Supreme Court--Data do not 3 = Other include mandatory certified questions from 4 = At transfer the federal courts. 5 = At the filing of briefs 6 = At docketing JExplanation of data included in the category: 7 = Receipt of transcript Arizona--Supreme Court--Data include 8 = At filing of petition mandatory judge disciplinary cases. 9 = Varies Arkansas--Supreme Court--Data include a few discretionary petitions that were granted iData are incomplete: review . Arizona--Supreme Court--Data do not include Connecticut--Appell ate Court--Data include a mandatory judge disciplinary cases. few discretionary pet1tions that were Arkansas--Supreme Court--Data do not include granted review. mandatory attorney disciplinary cases, Delaware--Supreme Court--Data include some and certified questions from the federal discretionary petitlons that were granted courts. review . Cal ifornia--Supreme Court--Data do not include District of Columbia--Court of Appeals-Data mandatory judge disciplinary cases. include discretionary petitions that were Discretionary petitions granted review do granted review, and refiled as appeals. not incl ude discretionary ori91 nal Georgia--All courts--Data include proceedings initially heard in the Supreme discretionary petitions that were granted Court. review and refiled as appeals.
34 TABLE 2: Reported total caseload for all state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Total cases disposed Totals Sun1 of mandatory Point at Total Sum of cases and which discretionary mandatory discretionary cases Total Total petitions cases and petitions Court are mandatory discretionary granted discretionary granted State and court title: type counted cases petitions review petitions review TENNESSEE--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 1,010 57 Court of Criminal Appeals . IAC 1 851 j
TEXAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 10,511 2,115 328 12,626 10,839 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1 0 1,034 112 1,034 112 Court of Criminal Appeals . COLR 3 2.237 1,081 21 6 3.318 2,453 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1 8,274 NH NH -- --
Hawai i--Supreme Court--Data include a smal 1 Nebraska--Supreme Court--Data include a few number of discretionary petitions that discretionary pet1tions. were granted review. New Jersey--Appellate Uivision of Superior Idaho--Supreme Court--Data include Court--Data include discretionary dlscretlonary petltlons that were granted inter1ocutory decisions that were granted review. review. Illinois--Appellate Court--Data include all North Carolina--Court of Appeals-4ata discretionary petltlons. include a small number of discretionary Indiana--Court of Appeals--0ata include petltlons that were granted review. discretlonary Inter1ocutory declslon Oregon--Supreme Court--Data include petitions. discretionary petitions that were granted Iowa--Supreme Court--Data include some review. discretionary cases that were dismissed Pennsylvania--Supreme Court--Data include by the Court. some motions that could not be separated Kansas--Court of Appeals--Data include a few from caseload.--Superior Court--Uata discretionary cases that were granted include discretionary petitions that were review. granted reviw. Louisiana--Supreme Court--Data include a few South Dakota--Data include discretionary discretionary cases.--Courts of advisory opinions. Appeal --Data include refiled discretionary Tennessee--Court of Criminal Appeal s--Uata petitions that are granted review. incl ude discretionary Interlocutory Maryland--Supreme Court--Uata include decision cases that were granted review. discretionary petitions that were granted Vermont--Uata include discretionary review. petitions granted review. Massachusetts--Appeals Court--Data include a Washington--Supreme Court--Uata include some small number of discretionary discretionary petitions. interlocutory declslon petitions. Wisconsin--Supreme Court--Data include a1 1 Missouri--Supreme Court--Uata include disposed mandatory jurisdiction cases. discretionary petitlons that were granted review.
35 TABLE 3: Selected caseload and processing measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984. TABLE 4: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions in state appellate courts, 1984. TABLE 5: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions granted review in state appellate courts, 1984.
Sources of data are found in Appendix E. dividing the number of disposed cases by the Variations in court organization and subject number of filings, and then multiplying by 100. matter jurisdiction. A percentage over 100 indicates that the court disposed more cases than were filed. thus The subject matter jurisdiction of each court reducing pending caseload. A figure is outlined briefly in the court system charts significantly less than 100 indicates that cases located in Part I11 of this Report, (e.g., civil are not keeping up with the volume of cases being and criminal cases). This subject matter filed. jurisdiction varies among courts within states, Filed er jud e. If subject matter and among states. juris iction, man atoryldiscretionary Courts also vary regarding the amount of jurisdiction, use of law clerks, and use of mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction. This panels in the court (among other factors) are information can also be located in Part I11 of held- constant, then this measure permits this Report. The processing measures for these comparison of caseloads per judge. This figure tables are identified by table depending on is computed by dividing the number of filings, by whether they represent mandatory cases (i.e., the number of authorized appellate Table 31, discretionary petitions (i.e., Table .i-- u dqes/.i - u s tice s s e r v in a that c o u r t . 41, or discretionary petitions granted review Filed per lawyer sipport personnel. This is (i.e., Table 5). a similar measure to the number of filings per States are organized in this table into one judge, in that it is only meaningful across of three categories: states with one court of similar jurisdictions. This figure also last resort and one intermediate appellate court; complements the number of filings per judge by states with no intermediate appellate court; and providing a measure for consideration of lawyer states with multiple appellate courts at any support assistance in computing actual court level. This typology provides one scheme for workload. It too is computed by dividing the comparing states totals, and courts sharing at number of filings, by the number of lawyer 1 east one major organization characteristic . support personnel serving that court. Filed per 100.000 population. The unit of Variations in counting appellte court cases: state poDulation used on all court caseload charts. is 100,000. This measure compensates for The point in the process at which an variations in state population and gives a more appellate court case is counted varies among the realistic basis for comparison of caseloads among states. In some states it is counted at the states of various sizes. If all other factors filing of the notice of appeal, while other (e.g., jurisdiction, unit of count, etc.) are states count it later in the process (e.g., at similar, the filed per 100,001) figure permits completion of the trial court record). These direct comparisons among states of the number of variations are identified in Table 2. This is an filed cases. important variable to consider when comparing caseloads. For example, courts that count early Limitations on use: in the process (at notice of appeal) should report a higher caseload per capita than courts Comparisons should only be made among those that count cases later in the process (at courts that share similar units of count, completion of record). , jurisdictions, and structures. When comparing states, states are only comparable within the Appropriate analysis: major categories by which states are organized (e.g., states with one court of last resort and All percentage calculations that are less one intermediate appell ate court represent one than 1% and greater than .5% have been rounded up such category). to 1%. All percentage calculations that are less Finally, some trial courts of general than .5% and greater than 0% are displayed as 1%. jurisdiction have incidental appellate Disposed cases as a percent of filed. This jurisdiction, which may affect the number of measure represents the percent of filed cases appeals filed in the regular appellate courts. disposed by the court. The number is computed by This information can be identified in Figure H.
36 TABLE 3: Selected caseload and processihg measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984.
Mandatory cases Disposed Filed Number Filed Filed as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Fi1 ed Oisposed fi1 ed judges judge personnel personnel population STATES WITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AN0 ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--STATE TOTAL ...... 787 796 101% 8 98 22.5 35 157 Supreme Court ...... COLR 320 347 108% 5 64 13.5 24 64 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 46 7 449 96% 3 156 9.0 52 93
ARIZONA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,858! 2,709: 95%: 20 143: 58 4 9: 94i Supreme Court ...... COLR 1051 11 11 106%’ 5 21’ 16 7’ 31 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2,753 2,598 94% 15 184 42 66 90
CALIFORNIA--STATE TOTAL .... 10,3401: 81 1281 245 4Zi 40: Supreme Court ...... COLR 222’ 7 321 42 5i 1’ Court of Appeals ...... IAC 10,118 74 137 203 50 39
COLORADO--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,836 17 108 36 51 58 Supreme Court ...... COLR 256 7 37 14 18 8 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 1,580 10 158 22 72 50
CONNECTICUT-- Appellate Court ...... IAC 1,362J 5683’ 42xj 5 2723’ 7 1873’ 43j
FLORIDA--STATE TOTAL ...... 12,357 12,471 101% 53 233 109 113 113 Supreme Court ...... COLR 587 530 90% 7 84 15 39 5 District Court of Appeals. IAC 11,770 11,941 101% 46 256 94 125 107
GEORGIA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,739 16 1715 45 615 4 73: Supreme Court ...... COLR 663J 7 9q 17 39 11J Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2,0703 2,09d ioixj 9 2303 28 743 353
HAWAII--STATE TOTAL ...... 5725 5795 101x5 8 725 18 325 555 Supreme Court ...... COLR 4713 4543 96%J 5 94J 12 393 453 Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... IAC 101 125 124% 3 34 6 17 10
IDAHO--STATE TOTAL ...... 49!$ 5274 106g 8 625 14 3 5J 4YJ Supreme Court ...... COLR 3493 3525 101%J 5 705 10.5 333 353 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 146 175 120% 3 49 3.5 42 15
ILLINOIS--STATE TOTAL ...... 7,505J 7,200j 96xj 41 i8J 139 54J 6 5J Supreme Court ...... COLR 371 309. 83% 7 53 25 15 3 Appellate Court ...... IAC 7,134 6,8913 97%j 34 21Oj 114 63J 62j
INDIANA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,494j 17 (88)j 47 (32 )j (27)J Supreme Court ...... COLR 357. 5 (71) 11 (33) (6) Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1,15Oj 1,1373 99%J 12 36 21
IOWA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,3785 15 (92)J 21 (66)J (47 )J Supreme Court ...... COLR 8463 9 (9415 12 (71 )J (2913 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 569 532 94% 6 95 9 63 20
37 TABLE 3: Selected caseload and processing measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued 1
Mandatory cases Uisposed 1iled Number tiled 11led as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population
KANSAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,21d 1,38a 115d 14 8d 22 5sr 5a.j Supreme Court ...... COLR 169. 343 203% 7 24 7 24 7 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1,0413 1,045.1’ looxj 7 i49J 15 69J 43J
KENTUCKY--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,946 2,976 101% 21 140 34 87 79 Supreme Court ...... COLR 221 280 127% 7 32 12 18 6 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2,745 2,696 99% 14 195 22 124 73
LOUISIANA--STATE TOTAL ..... 4.01 75 55 7$ 162 29 9oj. Supreme Court ...... COLR 1474 7 21J 27 5J 3; Courts of Appeals ...... IAC 3,8705 48 813 135 293 873
MARYLANO--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,9975 2,107J 10bd 20 lo@ 43 46j 4 6? Court of Appeals ...... COLR 2203 2303 io5%J 7 313 14 1bj 53 Court of Special Appeals . IAC 1,777 1,877 106% 13 137 29 61 41
MASSACHUSETTS--STATE TOTAL . i ,516J 17 893’ 40 38j 2 6j Supreme Judicial Court ... COLR 141 7 20 19 7 2 Appeals Court ...... IAC 1,3753 10 13d 21 665 2ai
MICHIGAN--STATE TOTAL ...... 4,801 25 192 96 50 53 Supreme Court ...... COLR 5 7 1 35 41 <1 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 4,796 18 266 61 79 53 - MISSOURI--STATE TOTAL ...... 3,0133: 39 775 65 4 6J 6 Oj Supreme Court ...... COLR 1613 7 233 15 1 lj 3j Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2,852 3,159 111% 32 89 50 57 57
NEW JERSEY --STATE TOTAL .... 28 2353 61 1o8j 88j Supreme Court ...... COLR 7 53 17 22 5 Appellate Division of. Superior Court ...... IAC 21 2965 44 i4iJ 83 - NEW MEXICO--STATE TOTAL .... 1,207 12 101 24 50 85 Supreme Court ...... COLR 635 5 127 10 64 45 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 572 7 82 14 41 40
NORTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL. 1,544 1,6313’ io6%j 19 8ij 31 5oj 25j Supreme Court ...... COLR 230 219 95% 7 33 8 29 4 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1,314 1,4123’ i07%j 12 lld 23 5 7J 21 j
OHIO--STATE TOTAL ...... 9,721 9,444 97% 60 162 74 131 90 Supreme Court ...... COLR 338 320 95% 7 48 20 17 3 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 9,383 9,124 97% 53 177 54 174 87
OREGON--STATE TOTAL ...... 4,033 17 237 28 144 151 Supreme Court ...... COLR 205 39oJ 7 29 8.5 24 8 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 3,828 10 383 19.5 196 143
SOUTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL. 883 11 80 30 29 27 Supreme Court ...... COLR 479 5 96 19 25 15 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 404 441 109% 6 67 11 37 12
38 TABLE 3: Selected caseload and processing measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Mandatory cases 01 sposed Filed Number Filed Filed as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population WASHINGTON--STATE TOTAL .... 3,094iJ 2,900iJ 94%!j 25 124:J 51 61 iJ 71 I! Supreme Court ...... COLR 228’3 17613 77%1J 9 2513 19 1213 51 J Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2,866 2,724 95% 16 179 32 90 66 - WISCONSIN--STATE TOTAL ..... 2.337 19 123 33 71 49 Supreme Court ...... COLR 98 7 14 11 9 2 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 2,239 2,223 99% 12 187 22 102 47
STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT - DELAWARE--Supreme Court .... COLR 331 j 354 107d 5 6d 5 6d
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-- Court of Appeals ......
MAINE--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ...... COLR 4941’ 7 (71Ii 11 (45)i (43 )i - MISSISSIPPI--Supreme Court . COLR 838 637 76% 9 93 18 47 32
NEBRASKA--Supreme Court .... COLR 1,002j 7 14d 13 77J 6 2j - NEVADA--Supreme Court ...... COLR 799 788 99% 5 160 14 57 88 - NORTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court ...... COLR 370 331 90% 5 74 9 41 54
RHODE ISLANO--Supreme Court. COLR 409 447 10% 5 82 16 26 43 - SOUTH OAKOTA--Supreme Court. COLR 3443’ 5 69j 7 49j 4 9j - UTAH--Supreme Court ...... COLR 640 5 128 13 49 39 - VERMONT--Supreme Court ..... COLR 62d 53zj 85J 5 125i 5 125j llsi - WYOMING--Supreme Court ..... COLR 331 250 76% 5 66 7 47 65 - STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
ALABAMA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,677 17 157 37 72 67 Supreme Court ...... COLR 745 9 83 21 36 19 Court of Civil Appeals ... IAC 532 536 101% 3 177 6 89 13 Court of Criminal Appeals. IAC 1,400 1,480 106% 5 280 10 140 35
ARKANSAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,33415 1,275!J 96%iJ 13 103IJ 27 491J 421:J Supreme Court ...... COLR 479’j 44813 9J%iJ 7 6813 15 321 J 151J Court of Appeals ...... COLR 885 827 97% 6 143 12 71 27
39 TABLE 3: Selected caseload and processing measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued 1
Mandatory cases Disposed Filed Number Filed Fi 1ed as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population NEW YORK-- Court of Appeals ...... COLR 391 7 (56) 23 (17)
OKLAHOMA--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,079 24 87 32 65 63 Supreme Court ...... COLR 789 9 88 13 61 24 Court of Criminal Appeals. COLR 502 645 128% 3 167 6 84 15 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 788 801 102% 12 66 13 61 ’ 24
PENNSYLVANIA--STATE TOTAL .. 10,07J 31 32d 155 6d 8d Supreme Court ...... COLR 268 7 38 33.5 8 2 Superior Court ...... IAC 5,7933 5,9085 iozJ 15 386J 85.5 68j 4 9j Comnonwealth Court ...... IAC 4.01 2 9 446 36 111 34 - TENNESSEE--STATE TOTAL ..... 2,0355 26 78j 33 625 4 3J Supreme Court ...... COLR 21 6 5 43 9.3 23 5 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 951 1,010 106% 12 79 13.3 72 20 Court of Criminal Appeals. I AC 868J 8siJ 98% 9 96J 10.3 843’ i8j
TEXAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 9,345 10,511 112% 98 95 185 51 58 Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 9 0 25 0 0 Court of Criminal Appeals. COLR 1,959 2,237 114% 9 218 23 85 12 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 7.386 8.274 112% 80 92 137 54 46
Note: All available data that are at least 90% Del aware--Supreme Court--0ata include some complete are included in the table. Blank discretionary inter1ocutory decisions spaces indicate that either the data are that were granted review. unavailable or less than 90% complete, or District of Columbia--Data include that the calculations are inappropriate. discretionary cases that were granted States and/or courts omitted from this review, and refiled as appeals. table did not speccifically report Georgia--Supreme Court--Data include caseload data on mandatory cases, or did discretionary petitions that were not have mandatory jurisdiction. State granted review, and refiled as appeals. courts with mandatory jurisdiction can be --Court of Appeals--0ata include identified in the state court system discretionary petitions that were charts identified in Part 111 of this granted review. Report. Hawaii--Supreme Court--Data include a small number of discretionary petitions that iData are incomplete: were granted review. Arizona--Supreme Court--0ata do not include Idaho--Supreme Court--Data include judge disciplinary cases. discretionary petitions that were granted Arkansas--Supreme Court--Data do not include review. mandatory attorney disciplinary cases, Ill inois--Appellate Court--Data include all and certified questions from the federal discretionary petitions. courts, Indiana--Court of Appeals--Data include Cal ifornia--Supreme Court--Data do not discretionary interlocutory decision include judge disciplfnary cases. petitions. Maine--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Iowa--Supreme Court--Data include some Court--Data do not include mandatory discretionary cases that were dismissed disciplinary and advisory opinion cases. by the Court. Washington--Supreme Court--Data do not Kansas--Court of Appeals--Data include a few include mandatory certified questions discretionary cases that were granted from the federal courts. review. Louisiana--Supreme Court--Data include a few JExplanation of data included in the category: discretionary cases. Arkansas--Supreme Court--Data include a few --Courts of Appeal--Data include refiled discretionary petitions that were granted discretionary petitions that are review. granted review. Connecticut--Appellate Court--Data include a Maryland--Supreme Court--Data include few discretionary_. petitions that were discretionary-. petitions that were wanted granted review. review .
40 TABLE 3: Selected caseload and processing measures for mandatory cases in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued1
Massachusetts--Appeals Court--Uata include a Oregon--Supreme Court--Data include small number of discretionary discretionary pet1tions that were granted interlocutory decision petitions. review. Missouri --Supreme Court--Data include Pennsyl vania--Superior Court--Data include discretionary petitions that were granted discretionary petitions that were granted review . review. Nebraska--Data include a few dfscretlonary South Dakota--Supreme Court--Data include petitions. discretionary advisory opinions. New Jersey--Supreme Court--Data include Tennessee--Court of Criminal Appeal s--Data discretionary interlocutory decisions include discretionary interlocutory that were granted review. decision cases that were granted review. North Carolina--Court of Appeals--Data Vermont--Supreme Court--Data include include a small number of discretionary discretionary petitions granted review. petitions that were granted review. Washington--Supreme Court--Data include some discretl onary petiti ons.
41 TABLE 4: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions in state appellate courts, 1984.
Discretionary petitions Oisposed Filed Number Filed Filed as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population STATES WITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AND ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--STATE TOTAL ...... 284 297 105% 8 36 22.5 13 57 Supreme Court ...... COLR 221 220 100% 5 44 13.5 16 44 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 63 77 122% 3 21 9.0 7 13
ARIZONA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,066 1.107 104% 20 53 58 18 35 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1,016J 1,048J 103% 5 203J 16 64j 333 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 50 59 118% 15 3 42 1 2
CALIFORNIA--STATE TOTAL .... 9,829 81 121 245 40 38 Supreme Court ...... COLR 3,991 7 570 42 95 16 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 5,838 74 79 203 29 23
COLORADO--STATE TOTAL ...... 81 3 7 116 14 58 26 Supreme Court ...... COLR 81 3 7 116 14 58 26 - CONNECTICUT-- Appel 1ate Court ...... IAC 49 5 10 7 7 2
FLORIDA--STATE TOTAL ...... 3,026 2,729 90% 53 57 109 28 28 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1,056 1,060 100% 7 151 15 70 10 District Court of Appeals. IAC 1,970 1,669 85% 46 43 94 21 18
GEORGIA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,564 16 98 45 35 27 Supreme Court ...... COLR 941 7 134 17 55 16 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 623 629 101% 9 69 28 22 11
HAWAII--STATE TOTAL ...... 32 35 109% 5 6 12 3 3 Supreme Court ...... COLR 32 35 109% 5 6 12 3 3
~~ ~ IDAHO--STATE TOTAL ...... Supreme Court ...... COLR 60 55 92% 5 12 11 6 6 - ILLINOIS--Supreme Court .... COLR 1,675 1,715 102% 7 239 25 67 15 - KENTUCKY--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,065 866 81% 21 51 34 31 2Y Supreme Court ...... COLR 986 7 93 80% 7 141 12 82 26 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 79 73 92% 14 6 22 4 2
LOUISIANA--STATE TOTAL ..... 3,968’ 55 72i 162 25’ 89’ Supreme Court ...... COLR 2,1261 7 3041 27 791 481 Courts of Appeals ...... IAC 1,842 48 38 135 14 41
MARYLANO--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,069 1,093 102% 20 54 43 25 25 Court of Appeals ...... COLR 761 785 103% 7 109 14 54 18 Court of Special Appeals . IAC 308 308 100% 13 24 29 11 7
~
MASSACHUSETTS-- Supreme Judicial Court ... COLR 1,246 7 178 19 66 21
42 TABLE 4: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued
Discretionary petitions Disposed Filed Number Fi1 ed Fi1 ed as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population
MICHIGAN--STATE TOTAL ...... 4,103 25 164 96 43 45 Supreme Court ...... COLR 2,347 2,4955 7 335 35 67 26 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 1,756 18 98 61 29 19
MISSOURI--STATE TOTAL ...... 846 81 21 7 121 15 56 17 Supreme Court ...... COLR 846 81 21 7 121 15 56 17
NEW JERSEY--Supreme Court .. COLR 1 ,142i 1,0751 94%i 7 1631 17 67i 151
NEW MEXICO--STATE TOTAL .... 231 12 19 24 10 16 Supreme Court ...... COLR 174 5 35 10 17 12 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 57 7 8 14 4 4
NORTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL. 1,012 888 88% 19 53 31 33 16 Supreme Court ...... COLR 541 465 86% 7 77 8 68 9 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 471 423 90% 12 39 23 21 8
OHIO--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,704 1,293 76% 7 243 20 85 16 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1,704 1,293 76% 7 243 20 85 16
OREGON--STATE TOTAL ...... 870 7 124 8.5 102 33 Supreme Court ...... COLR 870 7 124 8.5 102 33
WASHINGTON--STATE TOTAL .... Supreme Court ...... COLR Court of Appeals ...... IAC
WISCONSIN--STATE TOTAL ..... 963 93g 19 51 33 29 20 Supreme Court ...... COLR 71 8 721 J 7 103 11 65 15 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 245 209 8 5% 12 20 22 11 5
STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-- Court of Appeals ...... COLR 85 9 9 25 3 14
MAINE--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ...... COLR 52
MISSISSIPPI--Supreme Court . COLR 2 2 100% 9 41 18 41 41
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Supreme Court ...... COLR 603i 550i 9l%j 5 1211 10 60i 62i
43 TABLE 4: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Uiscretionary petitioris Ui sposed Filed Nuiiiber Fi1 ed Filed as a (dis- of (disposed1 (disposed percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer ucr Court of of -per support .support lDb,UOO State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population
RHODE ISLAND--Supreme Court. COLR 202 218 108% 5 40 16 13 21
UTAH--Supreme Court ...... COLH 72 5 14 13 6 4
VERMONT--Supreme Court ..... COLR 25 26 104% 5 5 5 5 5
VIRGINIA--Supreme Court .... COLR 1,915 1,919 100% 7 274 16 120 34
WEST VIRGINIA--Supreme Court of Appeals ...... COLH 1,282 1,124 88% 5 256 18 71 66
STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
ALABAMA--STATE TOTAL ...... 71 2 9 79 21 34 18 Supreme Court ...... COLK 712 9 79 21 34 18
NEW YORK--Court of Appeals . COLR 3,477 7 (497) 23 (151 1 (20)
OKLAHOMA--STATE TOTAL ...... 672 12 56 19 35 20 Supreme Court ...... COLR 388 9 43 13 30 12 Court of Criminal Appeals. COLK 284 256 9U% 3 95 6 47 9
PENNSYLVANIA--Supreme Court. COLR 2,7615 7 3943’ 33.5 82J 2 3J Commonwealth Court ...... I AC a2 9 9 36 2 1
TENNESSEE--Supreme Court ... COLR 842 5 168 9.3 91 18 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 57 57 100% 12 5 13.3 4 1
TEXAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 2,411 2,115 88% 18 134 48 50 15 Supreme Court ...... COLR 1,130 1,034 92% 9 126 25 45 7 Court of Criminal Appeals. COLR 1,281 1,081 84% 9 142 23 56 8
Note: All available data that are at least 90% New Jersey--Supreme Court--Data do not complete are included in the table. Blank include discretionary interlocutory spaces indicate that either the data are decisions. unavailable or less than 90% complete, or Washington--Supreme Court--Data do not that the calculations are inappropriate. include some cases reported with mandatory States and/or courts omitted from this jurisdiction cases. table did not specifically report caseload data on discretionary petitions, or did jkxplanation of data included in the category: not have discretionary jurisdiction. Ari zona--Supreme Court--Da ta include State courts with discretionary mandatory judge disciplinary cases. jurisdiction can be identified in the Michigan--Supreme Court--Data include a few state court system charts identified in mandatory jurisdiction cases. Part 111 of this Report. Pennsylvania--Supreme Court--Data include some motions that could not be separated iData are incomplete: from the caseload. Louisiana--Supreme Court--Some discretionary Washington--Supreme Court--Data include jurisdiction cases cannot be separated mandatory certified questions from the from the mandatory caseload. federal courts. Missouri--Supreme Court--Data do not include Wisconsin--Supreme Court--Data include all a few original proceedings. disposed mandatory jurisdiction cases. New Hampshire--Supreme Court--Data do not include judge disciplinary cases.
44 TABLE 5: Selected caseload and Drocessing measures for discretionary petitions granted review in state appellate courts, 1984.
Discretionary petitions granted review 01sposed Filed Number tiled Filed as a (dis- of (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100,000 State and court title: type Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel population STATES WITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AND ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--STATE TOTAL ...... 49 8 (61 22.5 (2) (10) Supreme Court ...... COLR 27 5 (51 13.5 (2) (5) Court of Appeals ...... IAC 22 3 (7) 9 (2) (4)
ARIZONA--STATE TOTAL ...... 1 o6.j Supreme Court ...... COLR 95J Court of Appeals ...... IAC 11
CALIFORNIA--STATE TOTAL .... 873i 81 11: 245 4i 3 Supreme Court ...... COLR 3181 7 451 42 8i 1 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 555 74 8 203 3 2
GEORGIA--STATE TOTAL ...... 325 16 20 45 7 6 Supreme Court ...... COLR 158 7 23 17 9 3 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 167 9 19 28 6 3
HAWAII--STATE TOTAL ...... 5 5 1 12 1 1 Supreme Court ...... COLR 5 5 1 12 1 1
ILLINOIS--Supreme Court .... COLR 204 378 ’ 185% 7 29 25 8 2
INDIANA--Supreme Court ..... COLR 143 5 (29) 11 (13) (3)
KANSAS--Supreme Court ...... COLR 223 7 32 7 32 9 - KENTUCKY--Supreme Court .... COLR 128 7 18 12 11 3
LOUISIANA--STATE TOTAL ..... 8461 55 15I 162 5’ 19’ Supreme Court ...... COLR 3591 7 511 27 131 81 Courts of Appeals ...... IAC 487 48 10 135 4 11
MARYLAND--STATE TOTAL ...... 158 20 8 43 4 4 Court of Appeals ...... COLR 136 7 19 14 10 3 Court of Special Appeals . IAC 22 13 2 29 1 1 - MASSACHUSETTS-- Supreme Judicial Court ... COLR 184 7 26 19 10 3 - MICHIGAN--STATE TOTAL ...... 585 25 23 96 6 6 Supreme Court ...... COLR 95 7 14 35 3 1 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 490 18 27 61 8 5
MISSOURI--STATE TOTAL ...... 106 7 15 15 7 2 Supreme Court ...... COLR 106 7 15 15 7 2 - NEW JERSEY--Supreme Court .. COLR 138 138 100% 7 20 17 8 2
45 TABLE 5: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions granted review in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Uiscretionary petitions granted review Disposed Filed Number Flled ttled
as a (dis- of ~ (disposed) (disposed) percent Number posed) lawyer per lawyer per Court of of per support support 100.000 State and court title: Filed Disposed filed judges judge personnel personnel popuiation NEW MEXICO--STATE TOTAL .... 88 12 7 24 4 6 Supreme Court ...... COLR 61 30 49% 5 12 10 6 4 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 27 7 4 14 2 2
~~
NORTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL. 127J 19 7j 31 4j 2j Supreme Court ...... COLR 68 50 74% 7 10 8 9 1 Court of Appeals ...... IAC 59J 12 d 23 3j lj - OHIO--STATE TOTAL ...... 147 202 137% 7 21 20 7 Supreme Court ...... COLR 147 202 137% 7 21 20 7
OREGON--STATE TOTAL ...... 105 7 15 8.5 12 Supreme Court ...... COLR 105 7 15 8.5 12 - SOUTH CAROLINA--STATE TOTAL. 13 5 3 19 1 Supreme Court ...... COLR 13 5 3 19 1
WASHINGTON--STATE TOTAL .... Supreme Court ...... COLR Court of Appeals ...... IAC - WISCONSIN--STATE TOTAL ..... 142 19 7 33 4 3 Supreme Court ...... COLR 88 21 d 7 13 11 8 2 Court of Appeals ...... I AC 54 12 5 22 2 1
STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT - NEW HAMPSHIRE--Supreme Court ...... COLR 390i 5 (78)i 10 (3911 (40)’
RHOOE ISLANO--Supreme Court. COLR 3 5 1 16 41 41
VIRGINIA--Supreme Court .... COLR 308 7 44 16 19 5
~~ WEST VIRGINIA--Supreme Court of Appeals ...... COLR 543 394 73% 5 109 18 30 28 - STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
NEW YORK--Court of Appeals . COLR 320 7 (46) 23 (141
OKLAHOMA--STATE TOTAL ...... 160 12 . 13 19 8 5 Supreme Court ...... COLR 84 9 9 13 6 3 Court of Criminal Appeals. COLR 76 3 25 6 13 2
TENNESSEE--Court of Appeals . I AC 11 12 1 13 1 <1
TEXAS--STATE TOTAL ...... 405 328 81% 18 23 48 8 3 Supreme Court ...... COLR 105 112 107% 9 12 25 4 1 Court of Criminal Appeals. COLR 300 216 72% 9 33 23 13 2
46 TABLE 5: Selected caseload and processing measures for discretionary petitions granted review in state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Note: All available data that are at least 90% New Hampshire--Data do not include judge cmplete are included in the table. Blank disciplinary cases. spaces indicate that either the data are Washington--Supreme Court--Data do not unavailable or less than 90% complete, or include some cases reported with mandatory that the calculations are inappropriate. jurisdictlon cases. States and/or courts omitted from this table did not specifically report caseload JExplanation of data included in the category: data on discretionary petitions granted Arizona--Supreme Court--Data include review, or did not have discretionary mandatory judge disciplinary cases. jurisdiction. State courts with North Carol ina--Court of Appeal s--Data discretionary jurisdiction can be include some situations where relief, not identified in the state court system review, were granted. charts identified in Part I11 of this Washington--Supreme Court--Data include Report. mandatory certified questions from the federal courts. fData are incomplete: Wisconsin--Supreme Court--Data include all Cal ifornia--Supreme Court--Data do not mandatory jurisdiction cases that were include original proceedings initially disposed. heard in the Supreme Court. Louisiana--Supreme Court--Some discretionary cases granted review could not be separated from the mandatory jurisdiction caseload.
47 TABLE 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984.
Variations in court organization: figure in another court may indicate that court's preference to resolve disputes without opinion, Appellate courts in this table have been the lower figure may result from a variety of separated into courts in states without other factors, such as: a higher caseload than intermediate appellate courts, courts in states the first court; fewer resources that can be with intermediate appellate courts, and courts in devoted to opinion-writing than the first court; states with multiple appellate courts at any or a different set of cases that do not require level. This breakdown illustrates how the number elaborate explanations of decisions through of cases disposed of by opinion may vary be opinion-writing. In short, this may be more of a appellate court organization. workload measure than one which identifies opinion-writing as a method of announcing Variations in subject matter jurisdiction: decisions.
The types of appellate cases and their Number of cases disposed of by opinion per complexity vary from state to state, and from judge, and per judge plus lawyer support appellate court to appellate court within a personnel. This sumary statistic can be used as state. Variation in subject-matter jurisdiction but one component of a general workload measure. may be partially explained by court organization, A figure of 44 can be interpreted to mean that e.g., the presence of an intermediate appellate given that court's definition of an opinion, 44 court, or the existence of a specialized cases were disposed of by an opinion for each appellate court. The number of, and time authorized judge and/or 1 awyer support personnel consumed by, original jurisdiction cases is also assigned to that court. affected by several variables, including whether state statutes require that collateral attacks on Limitations on use: criminal convictions be filed originally in the trial court or in the appellate court. Uifferences between courts can 1 imit the value of the figures reported in this table. The Sources of data: use of different terminology by different courts to mean the same thing further complicates These are found in Appendix B. analysis. A per curiam opinion in one court may be the functional equivalent of a full opinion in Variations in case classification and definitions: another court, or a memorandum opinion in yet another court. An effort has been made to limit A case was classified as disposed of by the reporting of opinions in this table to opinion if it was so classified by the state full-length opinions, signed or unsigned, but annual report, e.g., a listing of "per curiam" some less than full-lenyth opinions are probably would only by classified as annopinion if it was included in these data. listed as "per curiam opinion. These data do Beyond the problem of distinguishing among not include dissenting and concuring opinions. types of opinions, full opinions may be of The contents of a court's opinion count are different lengths. Also, courts make varied use identified in this table in the columns labeled: of commissioners, law clerks, and other legal "Opinion count is by case or written document;" staff. Some courts may use staff to draft and "Does the opinion count include majority opinions, while others do not. These figures may opinions, per curiam opinions, and memos/orders." also vary depending on appellate court structure and the amount of discretionary jurisdiction. Appropriate analyses: For these reasons, figures such as the number of cases disposed of by opinion per judge, and the Number of cases disposed of by opinion as number of opinions written per judge are less ercent of dispositions. This summary statistlc than perfect indicators of the level of work done iav indicate the imoortance attributed by a by judges in these courts, and they are by no sGcific court to opinion-writing as a manner of means an all-encompassing measure of a judge's disposition. A figure of 68% can be interpreted workload. Behaviors other than opinion-writing to mean that 68% of that court's dispositions are important components of a judge's daily were resolved by an opinion. Although a lower activities.
49 TABLE 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984.
Admi n- istra- All Opinions as tive other Total Total a percent Court Civil Criminal agency case dispositions cases of cases State and court title: type appeals appeals appeals types by opinion disposed disposed
STATES UITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AND ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 148 374 4 Ob Court of Appeals ...... IAC -- X -- X 120 471 2 5% ----- ARIZONA--Supreme Court ..... COLR X X X X 157 206 76% Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 331 2,609 13%
CALIFORNIA--Supreme Court .. COLR X X X X 126 Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 8,509
COLORADO--Supreme Court .... COLK X X X X 21 7 448P 23XP Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 493k 1 ,411
CONNECTICUT--Supreme Court . COLR 162 56 21 8 Appellate Court ...... IAC X X X X 182
FLORIDA--District Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 4,636 13,61 Op 34%P
GEORGIA--Supreme Court ..... COLR X X X X 420 1 ,5490 27XdP Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 1,606 2,71!4@ 59Zdp
HAWAI I--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 21 5 489Q 44& Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 115 125 922
IDAHO--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 153 4074 38dP Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 156 175 89% ----- ILLINOIS--Appellate Court . . IAC X X X X 4,570 b,891p 66%p
INDIANA--Supreme Court ..... COLR X X X X 327 Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 1,121
IOWA--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 270 91 5 30% Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 455 532 86%
KANSAS--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 27bi 343i 80d Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 234 1,045 2 2%
KENTUCKY--Supreme Court .... COLR X X X X 339k 1,073p 32XkP .Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 1,955 2,769p 71%p
50 TABLE 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
opi riions Does the opinion per jus- Up in ioil count include? Number of Nuinber of ticeljudge count is by: Per Number of opinions lawyer plus lawyer written Majority curiam Memos/ justices/ per jus- support support State arid court title: --case document opinion opinion orders judges tice/judge personnel personnel STATES WITH ONE COURT OF LAST RESORT AND ONE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
ALASKA--Supreme Court ...... X 0 X 0 0 5 30 13.5 8 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 0 3 40 9 10
ARIZONA--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X X 0 5 31 16 7 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 15 22 42 6
CALIFORNIA--Supreme Court .. X 0 X X some 7 18 42 3 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 83k 103k 203 30k
COLORADO--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X 0 7 31 14 lo Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 some 10 4 9k 22 1 gk
CONNECTICUT--Supreme Court . X 0 X X some 6 36 9.25 14 Appellate Court ...... X 0 X X some 5 36 7.25 15
FLORIDA--District Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 0 46 101 94 33
GEORGIA--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X X 0 7 60 17 18 Court of Appeals ...... 0 X X 0 0 Y 178 28 43
HAWAII--Supreme Court ...... X 0 X X some 5 43 12 13 Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X X 3 38 6 13
IDAHO--Supreme Court ...... 0 X X X X 5 31 10.5 lo Court of Appeals ...... 0 X X X 0 3 52 3.5 24
ILLINOIS--Appellate Court .. X 0 X X some 34 134 114 31
INDIANA--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X X 0 5 65 11 20 Court of Appeals ...... X X X X X 12 93 36 23
IOWA--Supreme Court ...... 0 X X 0 0 9 30 12 13 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 0 6 7b 9 30
KANSAS--Supreme Court ...... X 0 X X some 7 3Yi 7 20i Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 7 33 15 11
KENTUCKY--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X some 7 48k 12 18k Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 14 140 22 54
51
.. Table 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984.
Admi n- istra- All Opitiions as tive other Total Total a percent Court Civil Criminal agency case dispositions cases of cases State and court title: type appeal s appeals appeals types by opinion disposed disposed
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-- Court of Appeals ...... COLR X X X X 322k ----- MAINE --Supreme Judi cia1 Court Sitting as Law Court ...... COLR X X X X 248i 5461 45zi ----~ MISSISSIPPI--Supreme Court . COLR X X X X 353k 03YP 5 5x1:P ----- MONTANA--Supreme Court ..... COLR X X X X 373 565P 66%p ----- NEBRASKA--Supreme Court .... COLR X X X X 499 Y86p 51 %P ----- NEVADA--Supreme Court ...... CDLR X X X X 142 788 182 ----~ NEW HAYPSHIRE--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 224i 55OiP 41%ip ----- NORTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court. COLR X X X X 247j 331 75%J ----- RHODE ISLAND--Supreme Court. CDLR 98 42 4 38 182 665p 2 J%p ----- SOUTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court. COLR X X X X 235 391 p GO’bp ----- UTAH--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X X X 305 677p 4SZP ----- VERMONT--Supreme Court ..... COLR X X X X 164 5StldP Z9ldP ----- VIRGINIA--Supreme Court .... COLR X X X X 17b ----- WEST VIRGINIA--Supreme Court of Appeals ...... COLR X X X X 194 394 4 9% ----- WYOMING--Supreme Court ..... COLR X X X X 135 2 so 54% ----- STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
ALABAMA--Supreme Court ..... COLR 5 94 1,451p 41 Zp Court of Civil Appeals ... IAC X _- X X 366 536 68% Court of Criminal Appeals. IAC -- 5 78 -- X 5 78k 1,480 39%
ARKANSAS--Supreme Court .... COLR X X X X 354i 448i 79xi Court of Appeals ...... COLR X X X X 506 827 61%
52 TABLE 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Number of opinions Uoes the opiniori ecr Jus- Upinion couiit include? Nuiiiber of Number of tice/judge count is by: Per Number of opinions lawyer plus lawyer written Majority curiam Memos/ justices/ per jus- support support State and court title: --case document opinion ginion orders judges tice/judge personnel personnel DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-- Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X 0 9 36k 25 9k --- MAINE--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ...... 0 X X 0 0 7 35i 11 14i ---
MISSISSIPPI--Supreme Court . X 0 X 0 some 9 39k 18 1 jk --- MONTANA--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X 0 0 7 53 14 18 ----- NEBRASKA--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X X 7 71 13 25 ---~- NEVADA--Supreme Court ...... X 0 X X 0 5 28 14 7 -___- NEW HAMPSHIRE--Supreme Court ...... X O X X some 5 451 10 15i --- NORTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court. X 0 X X some 5 4IM’ 9 18.j
RHOUE ISLAND--Supreme Court. X 0 X X some 5 36 16 9 ----- SOUTH DAKOTA--Supreme Court. X 0 X X 0 5 47 7 20 -~--- UTAH--Supreme Court ...... X O X X 0 5 61 13 17 --- VERMONT--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X 0 0 5 33 5 16 --- VIRGINIA--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X 0 9.5k 18.5k 16 7k --- WEST VIRGIN IA--Supreme Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X soiiie 5 39 18 8 ----- WYOMING--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X X some 5 27 7 11 --- STATES WITH MULTIPLE APPELLATE COURTS AT ANY LEVEL
ALABAMA--Supreme Court ..... X 0 X X some 9 66 21 20 Court of Civil Appeals ... X 0 X X X 3 122 b 41 Court of Criminal Appeals. X 0 X 0 some 5 97k 10 39k
ARKANSAS--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X 0 7 51 i 15 16i Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X 0 6 84 12 28
53 Table 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984.
Adniin- istra- All Upitiiotis as tive other Total lotdl d percerit Court Civil Criniinal agency case dispositions cases of cases State and court title: type appeals appeals appeals typcs by opinion disposcd disposed LOUISIANA--Supreme Court ... COLK X X X X 175 Courts of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 2,979 -___-~- MARYLAND--Court of Appeals . COLH X X X X 137 1 ,015dp 1jZidP
MASSACHUSETTS--Supreme Judicial Court ...... COLR X X X X 268 Appeals Court ...... IAC X X X X 184
MICHIGAN--Supreme Court .... COLH X X X X 70 2,4Y5P 3%P Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 3,775 6, b05p 57%P
MISSOUHI--Supreme Court .... COLR X X X X 121 - 1% 7 7% Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 1,735 3,159 5 5%
NEW JERSEY--Supreme Court .. COLR X X X X 76 546 14% Appellate Division of Superior Court ...... IAC X X X X 3,781 6,262 6 01
NEW MEXICO--Supreme Court . . COLR X X X X 21 2 Court of Appeals ...... I AC X X X X 1GS 541 P 30XP
NORTH CAROL INA--Supreme Court ...... COLR X X 160 269 59% Court of Appeals ...... I AC X X 1,306 1,412 92% - -- OHIO--Court of Appeals ..... I AC X X 4,544 9,124 502 - -- OREGON--Court of Appeals ... IAC X X 593 3,759 1GX -- SOUTH CAROLINA--Supreme Court ...... COLK X X X X 425k 443 Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 36tlk 441
WASHINGTON--Supreme Court .. COLR X X X X 201 366 5 52 Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 1,240 2,7S8 4 Yb
WISCONSIN--Supreme Court ... COLR X X X X 145 21 8 67% Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 81 3 2,432P 33%P ----- STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
DELAWARE--Supreme Court .... COLR X X X X 73 359 2 0%
54 TABLE 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts. 1984. (continued)
Nuiiibcr of opinioris Uocs tlic opiiiioii ycv- JII~,- Opiiiioti couti t i tic I utlc? Nuiiibcr 01 Nuiiibcr of ticc/judgc count is by: Per Number of opinions lawyer plus lawyer written Majority curiain Memos/ justices/ per jus- support support State and court title: case document opinion opiniori orders judges tice/judge personnel personnel
LOUISIANA--Supreme Court ... X 0 X 0 some 7 25 27 5 Courts of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 X 48 62 135 16 --- MARYLAND--Court of Appeals . X 0 X 0 U 7 20 14 7 --- MASSACHUSETTS--Supreme Judicial Court ...... 0 X X 0 0 7 38 19 10 Appeals Court ...... 0 X X 0 0 10 18 21 6
MICHIGAN--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X 0 7 10 35 2 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 18 21 0 61 48
MISSOURI--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X some 7 17 15 6 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 32 54 50 21
NEW JERSEY--Supreme Court .. 0 X X 0 0 7 11 17 3 Appellate Division of Superior Court ...... X 0 X X some 23k 164k 44 56k
NEW MEXICO--Supreme Court .. X 0 X 0 some 5 42 10 14 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 0 7 24 14 8 --- NORTH CAROLINA--Supreme Court ...... X 0 X 0 some 7 23 8 11 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 X 12 109 23 37 --- OHIO--Court of Appeals ..... X 0 X 0 X 53 86 54 42 --- OREGON--Court of Appeals ... X 0 X 0 0 10 59 19.5 20 --- SOUTH CAROLINA--Supreme Court ...... X 0 X X X 5 85k 19 18k Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X X 6 61 k 11 22k
WASHINGTON--Supreme Court . . X 0 X X some 9 22 19 7 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 16 78 32 26 -- WISCONSIN--Supreme Court ... X 0 X X 0 7 21 11 0 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 0 12 68 22 24 --- STATES WITH NO INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT --- DELAWARE--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X 0 5 15 5 7 ---
55 Table 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984.
Admin- istra- A1 1 Opinions as tive other Total Total a percent Court Civil Criminal agency case dispositions cases of cases State and court title: m appeals appeals appeals types by opinion disposed disposed NEW YORK--Court of Appeals . COLK X X X X 145 71 1 20% Appel 1 ate Term of Supreme Court ...... IAC X X 0 X 1,037 1,821 5 7% - OKLAHOMA--Supreme Court .... COLR X 0 X X 245 1,065p %3XP Court of Criminal Appeals. COLK 0 X 0 X 299 901 P 33XP Court of Appeals ...... IAC X 0 X X 759 801 9 5% - PENNSYLVANIA--Supreme Court. COLK X X X X ltllk Superior Court ...... IAC X X 0 X 3,941 5,908 GbX Commonwealth Court ...... I AC X X X X 1,316
TENNESSEE--Supreme Court ... COLR X X X X 244 1,128P 22ZP Court of Appeals ...... IAC X 0 X X 848 1,067P 79%P Court of Criminal Appeals. IAC 0 0 X X 792 851 p 930P
TEXAS--Supreme Court ...... COLR X 0 X X 91 112 til % Court of Criminal Appeals. COLR 0 X 0 X 28b 2,453 12% Court of Appeals ...... IAC X X X X 5,016 8,274 61 % --- -- dThis figure includes dfscretionary petitions JExplanation of data included in the category: that are granted review and counted once as North Uakota--Supreme Court--Uata include petitions. and then refiled as mandatory preargument dispositions. cases and counted again. kAdditiona1 information: PThis figure includes discretionary petitions Alabama--Court of Criminal Appeals--he that are granted and denied review. computed figure does not include 92 opinions written by retired and other iData are incomplete: active judges. Arkansas--Supreme Court--Data do not include Cal ifornia--Courts of Appeal --The tiumber of disciplinary and advisory opinion cases. judges are FTEs, because the riumber of Kansas--Supreme Court--Data do not include opinions written by authorized judges could discretionary cases. not be identified separately. Maine--Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Colorado--Court of Appeals--This figure does Court--Data do not include mandatory not include 461 unpublished opinions. disciplinary and mandatory advisory opinion Uistrict of Columbia--Court of Appeals--The cases. opinion count does not include 485 memo New Hampshi re--Supreme Court--Data do not opinions arid judgments. include judge disciplinary cases.
56 TABLE 6: Opinions reported by state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Nuiitber of opinions Does the opinion per jus- Opinion count include? Number of Number of tice/judge courit is by: Per Number of opinions lawyer plus lawyer written Majority curiam Memos/ justices/ per jus- support support State and court title: -~case document opinion opinion orders judges tice/judge personnel personnel NEU YORK--Court of Appeals . 0 X X 0 0 7 21 23 5 Appellate Term of Supreme Court ...... X 0 X X some 15 69 41 19 -- OKLAHOMA--Supreme Court .... X 0 X X 0 9 27 13 11 Court of Criminal Appeals. X 0 X X 0 3 100 6 33 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X X 12 63 13 30 --- PENNSYLVANIA--Supreme Court. X 0 0 7 26k 33.5 4k Superior Court ...... X 0 X X X 22k 269k 85.5 37k Commonwealth Court ...... 0 X X X X 12k llOk 36 27k
TENNESSEE--Supreme Court ... X 0 X X some 5 49 , 9.3 17 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X X some 12 71 13.3 34 Court of Criminal Appeals. X 0 X X some 9 88 10.3 41
TEXAS--Supreme Court ...... 0 X X 0 0 9 10 25 3 Court of Criminal Appeals. X 0 X 0 0 9 32 23 9 Court of Appeals ...... X 0 X 0 0 80 63 137 23
Kentucky--Supreme Court--Data include 117 --Commonwealth Court--The number of judges published and 222 unpublished opinions. includes 3 supplemental judges because Mississippi--Supreme Court--Uata include 55 the number of opinions written by the unpublished opinions on the merits. authorized judges could not be identified New Jersey--Appellate Uivision of Superior separately . Court--Number of judges include two South Carol ina--Supreme Court--Data include supplemental judges whose opinions could 244 unpublished opinions. not be separated from the opinions of --Court of Appeal s--0ata include 44 authorized judges. unpublished full opinions. Pennsylvania--Supreme Court--It is not clear Virginia--Supreme Court--The number of judges whether this number is an opinion or case includes 2.5 supplemental judges because count. the number of opinions written by the --Superior Court--The number of judges authorized judges could not be identified includes 7 supplemental judges because separately. the number of opinions written by the authorized judges could not be identified separately.
57 TABLE 7: Time interval (days) data for state appellate courts, 1984.
Variations in court organization: pending into the portion of time it is under the control of the court and the portion for which Appellate courts in this table have been lawyers are responsible. Comparisons can be made separated into courts of last resort and of the portion of the entire time the case is intermediate appellate courts. pending in a particular status with similar cases pending in another court of the same type. Where Sources of data: case types are available, comparisons can also be made of the length of time taken by different The sources of data for individual appellate types of cases in the same court. courts can be found in Appendix 6. Limitations on use: Variations in counting cases: Courts are grouped on this table by type of Some courts count cases as soon as the notice court (court of last resort or intermediate of appeal is filed while others count them at a appellate court), and by the events used to later event, such as at the filing of the record define the start and end of each interval. or the filing of the appellant's record. The Comparisons should be restricted to similar types latter method will exclude those cases that are of cases in courts that use the same events for withdrawn before the counting point from total the start and end of the interval of interest. dispositions. Figure C displays the various Although an attempt has been made to divide methods of counting cases among all the state the entire time a case is pending into the appell ate courts. portion over whlch the lawyers have control and the portion the court has control, they are not Appropriate analyses: the only factors that affect the pace of litigation. The lawyer may have to itait for the Comparison can be made of time to disposition court reporter to prepare the necessary for specific case types in courts at the same transcripts. The court may have to wait for level that use the same event for the start of another court to make a decision on a different the time interval. Unfortunately, there is so aspect of the case. This table indicates the little repetition of similar case typzs that average pace of litigation for large groups of there are few caseloads to compare. Total not necessarily homogeneous cases. A detailed cases" is the most comon category, but study of the pace of litigation should be represents only an average of all case types in a supported by data of far greater detail than are particular court. available here. The time intervals used on this tab1 e are designed to divide the entire time a case is
58 TABLE 7: Time interval (days) data for state appellate courts, 1984.
Beginning Beginning Argument or Beginning Type event event to submission event to of Type of Beginning to briefs argument or to decision decision sta- State and court title case event filed submission announced announced tistic
COURTS OF LAST RESORT
Alaska--Supreme Court ..... civil NOA 21 7 31 2 221 533 mean Delaware--Supreme Court ... criminal NOA 256.3 civil NOA 216.7 certifications NOA 84.6 original applications NOA 47.1 Lawyer disciplinary NOA Bd of Prof. Respon. 283.6 Bd. Bar Exam 238.0 Maine--Supreme Judicial Court ...... total cases with written opinions NOA 146.7 204.3 9 2 293.9 mean New Jersey--Supreme Court . total cases NOA or granting of certi- f icati on 77 126 323 mean total cases MOA or granting of certi- ficati on 44 227 302 median New Mexico--Supreme Court . total cases NOA 159 236 110 346 mean North Dakota--Supreme Court ...... civil NOA 128 176 100 228 mean criminal NOA 131 183 115 246 mean Oregon--Supreme Court ..... total cases by written opinion NOA 36 80 137 217 mean
Arkansas--Supreme Court ... civil: FOR No oral argument 158 19 177 meani Oral argument 170 32 202 meani criminal : FOR No oral argument 135 15 150 meani Oral argument 163 26 189 meani Iowa--Supreme Court ...... total cases SUB 164 mean Maryland--Court of Appeals ...... total cases di sposi- tion in 1ower court 125 222 187 409 mean tdississippi --Supreme Court. total cases FOA 21 5 24 239 mean total cases judgment in lower court 394 mean
59 Table 7: Time interval (days) data for state appellate courts, 1984. (continued)
Beginning Beginning Argument or Beginning Type event event to submission event to of Type of Beginning to briefs argument or to decision decfsion sta- State and court title case event filed submission announced announced tistic New Jersey--Supreme Court . total cases judgment bel ow 206 255 452 mean New Jersey--Supreme Court . total cases judgment bel ow 147 330 405 median
Wyoming--Supreme Court ma jority opinions FOR 334 mean
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS
Alaska--Court of Appeals . felony merit NOA 238 302 176 478 mean misdemeanor merit NOA 105 148 159 307 mean felony sentence NOA 85 108 145 253 mean misdemeanor sentence NOA 63 79 121 200 mean
California--Courts of Appeal civil NOA 5/9 12/19 median (Districts 11 I/IV) criminal NOA 5/6 13 median Oregon--Court of Appeals .. total cases NOA 167 221 58 285 mean Texas--Courts of Appeals .. civil NOA 70 277 mean criminal NOA 45.6 307 mean
Wisconsin--Court of Appeals total cases by opinion NOA 31 8
Arkansas--Court of Appeals criminal : FOR w/out oral argument 140 22 162 meani with oral argument 156 26 182 meani civil : FOR w/out oral argument 252 30 282 meani with oral argument 186 38 224 meani
Mary1 and--Court of Special Appeals ...... total cases disposi- tion in lower court 115 mean
Note: Times are often given in months, fractions At issue--Idaho Supreme Court, Oregon Supreme of months, or months and days. For Court, Oregon Court of Appeals. comparability, months were converted to days by using 30.4 days per month. For the time decision announced, the following All available data are entered fn the table. events were used: Blank spaces indicate that the data are not Opinion publication--Alaska Supreme Court and avail ab1 e. Alaska Court of Appeals Final decision--Oregon Supreme Court and ‘Time interval data for Arkansas are for a Oregon Court of Appeals sample of cases. Final closure--Idaho Supreme Court
For the time the briefs are filed, the following events were used: -KEY: Readiness--Iowa Supreme Court. Date perfected--Washington Supreme Court, and FOA = filing of appeal Washington Court of Appeals. NOA = notice of appeal Docketing--Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland FOR = filing of record Court of Special Appeals. SUB = ready for submission At issue--New Mexico Supreme Court.
60 Trial court summary statistics
This section contains tables that display the criminal data but not identify whether they 1984 statistical data from the trial courts. The include estate, domestic relations or mental data can be found in published annual reports, as health. This omission presents a problem in well as unpublished documents provided by state interstate comparisons. In addition, there are court administrators and appellate court clerks. states that are not consistent in their reporting All available documents from the 50 states, the of data. The general jurisdiction court, for District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico are example, may give detailed category breakdowns, used when appropriate and essentially complete. whereas the limited jurisdiction court may report Court systems that contributed to the first only total civil, criminal, and juvenile cases, Annual Report (1975) have provided more data as or not report at all. state court administrators have become aware of The fourth problem relates to questions of the CSIM Project data needs. Several states that validity of the data collected, both published djd not submit data for the 1975 report have and unpublislied. One of the major factors in since changed or inproved their data systems to data validity is the chance of human error. Many the extent that they now provide data for this elements (hidden data, transposition of figures, series. double counting of cases, manner used to verify Trial court data received from states are data) contribute to the scope of this problem. generally more detailed than appellate court A1 though many verification techniques have been data. Although the 1984 State Trial Court implemented by state court administrators and by Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting the Court Statistics and Information Management enabled staff to make quantum leaps forward in Project staff to keep errors to a minimum, the identifying units of count and the subject matter reader should understand that a verification jurisdiction of trial courts, some specific process does not guarantee absolute accuracy. problems make comparisons of the data presented The final problem is variation in the subject in this Re ort difficult. Among the problems are matter jurisdiction of the courts. In 1984, six (1) tlie i2kf uniform case classifications; (2) states, Illinois, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, lack of uniform ways of counting cases; (3) the Missouri, and South Dakota, the District of lack of complete data reported by the courts; (4) Columbia and Guam handled all cases in general questions relating to tlie validity of data jurisdiction courts. In other states, such as collected, both published and unpublished; and Florida and New Jersey, general jurisdiction (5) variations in the subject matter jurisdiction courts process only major criminal cases and of the courts. major civil actions, while other civil and The first problem in comparing data from criminal cases are handled by limited trial courts is the lack of uniformity in case jurisdiction courts. The 1984 state court system classification. Case categories and the data charts in Part 111 show that the number and types classified in the case categories vary from state of trial courts vary from state to state. This to state. For example, DWI cases may be counted difference in court structure must be kept in with criminal cases in one state, and with mind while examining the data in these summary traffic cases in another state. This sort of tables. classification problem, however, has been The reader should note that only states addressed in the 1984 State Trial Court reporting data that could be displayed in Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. specific case category tables (i.e., felony, real The second problem deals witli the units of property rights, status offenses, etc. 1 are count employed to measure cases. This problem included in such tables. For the sake of clarity has already been explained in the introduction to states that have jurisdiction over specific case this volume, and is examined in greater detail in types, but which failed to report data were Figures E and G. excluded from these tables. The third problem in comparing data from The following tables are sequenced from a trial courts is the lack of complete statistics general overview (national caseload totals for Some states report only total caseload. Others all courts) to the more specific caseload detail report individual case categories, but do not (civil, criminal, traffic/other violation, and descrlbe the contents of those categories. For juvenile case categories and caseload). example, a state may report total civil and
bl TABLE 8: Reported national civil and criminal caseload for state trial courts, 1984.
Reported cases: limited jurisdiction courts because several states do not have liiiiited jurisdiction courts. The number of cases filed and disposed are This perccntage rcpreseiits the percent of the reported separately for courts of general, and totdl population of states reporting coniplete limited jurisdictions. Additionally, these cases data for either its general jurisdictioti courts are identified separately as civil and criminal. or all of its limited jurisdiction courts. For There are generally three sub-categories: example, a statc which has two limited (1 1 the nuinber of reported complete and jurisdiction courts, but complete data from only comparable cases; (2) the number of reported one of them. would not be counted in section complete cases that include some other case II.A.3. of this table, but the reported cases type(s); and (3) the number of reported cases from the one court would be counted in section that are either incomplete, or are incomplete and 1I.A of this table. include some other case types. These figures are identified separately for civil and criminal Limitations on use: cases and also aggregated on page 2 of this table in the sumnary section for all trial courts. These represent aggregate data, and due to the controls already exercised on this table, are Percent of population represented by data: reported vithout regard to units of count. This problem is especially troublesome for the State population figures used for all trial criminal case count. Additionally, the total courts are from the revised 1984 Bureau of Census civil and criminal figures are incomplete, and figures. The denominator for these figures may include some juvenile and traffic figures. varied depending on the category being reported. These figures are not total estimates, and are For example, the population for the general not comparable to estimates reported in previous jurisdiction courts varied significantly from the editions of this Report.
63 TABLE 8: Reported national civil and criminal caseload for state trial courts, 1984.
~
Reported Caseload Filed Uisposed
Civil cases:
I. General jurisdiction courts:
A. Number of reported complete and comparable cases ...... 2,959,662 1,911,491 1. Number of courts reporting complete and comparable data ...... 26 23 2. Number of states with general jurisdiction civil courts ...... 52 52 3. Percent of the total population of states with general jurisdiction courts represented by complete and comparable civil data ...... 39% 31 % B. Number of reported complete civil cases that include other case types ..... 2,545,167* 2.072,091* 1. Nuniber of courts reporting complete civil cases that include other case types ...... 18 11 2. Number of states with general jurisdiction civil courts ...... 52 52 3. Percent of the total population of states with general jurisdiction courts represented by complete civil data that include some other case types ...... 31 % 25% C. Number of reported cases that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include rion-civil case types ...... 1,750,700 1,869,557 1. Number of courts reporting either incomplete civil data or incomplete civil data that include non-civil case types ...... 11 1s 2. Number of states with general jurisdiction civil courts ...... 52 52 3. Percent of the total population of states with general jurisdiction courts represented by either incomplete civil data, or incomplete civil data that include non-civil case types ...... 2 7% 30%
11. Limited jurisdiction courts:
A. Number of reported complete and coiiiparable cases ...... 4,371,812 2,951,326 1. Number of state courts reporting complete and comparable data ...... 46 35 2. Number of states with limited jurisdiction civil courts ...... 42 42 3. Percent of the total population of states with limited jurisdiction courts represented by complete and comparable civil data ...... 4 2% 2 7% 6. Number of reported complete civil cases that include other case types ..... 900,057 684,862 1. Number of courts reporting complete civil cases that include other case types ...... 4 3 2. Number of states with limited jurisdiction civil courts ...... 42 42 3. Percent of the total population of states with limited jurisdiction courts represented by complete civil data that include some other case types ...... 3% 3%
C. Number of reported cases that are either incomplete, or incomplete and incl ude non-ci vi1 case types ...... 1,052,669 979,935 1. Number of courts reporting either incomplete civil data or incomplete civil data that include non-civil case types ...... 12 lU 2. Number of states with limited jurisdiction civil courts ...... 42 42 3. Percent of the total population of states with limited jurisdiction courts represented by either incomplete civil data, or incomplete civil data that include non-civil case types ...... 2 5% 2 5%
Criminal cases:
I. General jurisdiction courts: A. Number of reported complete and comparable cases ...... 1,086,979 555,393 1. Number of courts reporting complete and comparable data ...... 20 18 2. Number of states with general jurisdiction criminal courts ...... 52 52 3. Percent of the total population of states with general jurisdiction courts represented by complete and comparable criminal data ...... 4 8% 4 2% 8. Number of reported complete criminal cases that include other case types ...... 311,459 296.658 1. Number of courts reporting coniplete criioinal cases that include other case types ...... 11 11 2. Number of states with general jurisdiction criminal courts ...... 52 52 3. Percent of the total population of states with general jurisdiction courts represented by complete criminal data that include some other case types ...... 11% 11%
64 Table 8: Reported national civil and criminal caseload for state trial courts, 1984. (continued)
Reported Case1 oad Fi1 ed Uisposed
C. Number of reported cases that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include non-criminal case types ...... 81 1,995 691 ,508 1. Number of courts reporting either incomplete criminal data or incomplete criminal data that include non-criminal case types ...... 15 15 2. Number of states with general jurisdiction criminal courts ...... 52 52 3. Percent of the total population of states with general jurisdiction courts represented by either incomplete criminal data, or incomplete criminal data that include non-criminal case types ...... 30% 32%
11. Limited jurisdiction courts:
A. Number of reported complete and coniparable cases ...... 854,225 219,430 1. Number of state courts reporting complete and comparable data ...... 8 3 2. Number of states with limited jurisdiction criminal courts ...... 41 41 3. Percent of the total population of states with limited jurisdiction courts represented by complete and comparable criminal data ...... 1% OX 6. Number of reported complete criminal cases that include other case types .. 1,770,945 1,674,776 1. Number of courts reporting complete criminal cases that include other case types ...... 9 9 2. Number of states with limited jurisdiction criminal courts ...... 41 41 3. Percent of the total population of states with limited jurisdiction courts represented by complete criminal data that include some other case types ...... 9% 9% C. Number of reported cases that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include non-criminal case types ...... 2,531,616 2,429,109 1. Number of courts reporting either incomplete criminal data or incomplete criminal data that include non-criminal case types ...... 25 22 2. Number of states with limited jurisdiction criminal courts ...... 41 41 3. Percent of the total population of states with limited jurisdiction courts represented by either incomplete criminal data, or incomplete criminal data that include non-criminal case types ...... 38% 41 7;
Summary section for all trial courts:
Reported filings General Limited Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Total -Civil Criminal civil --Criminal Civil Criminal Number of reported complete and comparable cases ...... 2,959,662 1,086,979 4,371,812 854,225 7,331,474 1,941,204 Number of reported complete cases that include other case types ...... 2,545,167 31 1,459 900,057 1 ,770,945 3,445,224 2,082,404 Number of reported cases that are either incomplete, or incomplete and include other case types ...... 1,750,700 81 1,9Y5 1,052,669 2,531,616 2,803,369 3,343,611 Total (incomplete) ...... 7,255,529 2,210,433 b,324,538 5,156,786 13,580,067 7,367,219
*Data for Minnesota could not be broken down into general and limited jurisdiction courts, 50 were reported general jurisdiction courts only.
65 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. TABLE 12: Reported totaI state trial court traff idother violation caseload, 1984. TABLE 13: Reported total state trial court juvenile caseload, 1984.
Variations in court organization: to 1%. All percentage calculations that were less than .5% but greater than 0% are displayed as Appropriate analyses: All percentage calculations that were less than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up 66 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. Oisposed k iled Criminal as a (disoosed) Juris- Park- unit of percent per ioo,ooo State and court name diction ing count filed Disposed of filed population ALABAMA: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G NH 2 -A 125,4075 124 ,9253: 100%J 3,1435 District Court ...... L NPA 2-C 470,1443 465,8223 99%J 11,7833 Probate Court ...... L NH NH Municipal Court ...... L NPA 2-C ALASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 149,061 iJ (29,812)iJ Superior Court ...... G NH 7-A 20,460 15,948. 78% 4,092 District Court ...... L CP 7-c i33,i i31J (26.623 )iJ ARIZONA: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G NH 4 -A 113,685: 106,895 3,501 f Justice of the Peace Court ... L NPA 1-C 457,558’ 437,023i 96Xi 14,9871 Municipal Court ...... L NPA 1-C - ARKANSAS: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G NH 1-A 57 659 53,627 93% 2,455 Chancery Court and Probate Court...... G NH NH 49,416 44,715 90% 2,104 Municipal Court ...... L NPA 1-C 491,573 323,843 66% 20,927 Court of Comnon Pleas ...... L NH NH 102. 4 Police Court and City Court .. L NPA 1-C 27,598’ 22,240i 81Xi 1 ,175i CALIFORNIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 18,333,359j 16,255,372J 71,553J Superior Court ...... G NH 2-A 750,065 617,759. 82% 2,927. Justice Court ...... L P 2-c 660,1933: 575,197; 87%4 2.577; Municipal Court ...... L P 2-C 16,923,1013 15,062,416J 8Y%J 66,0493 ~~ ~~ COLORADO: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court, Denver Superior Court, Denver Juvenile Court, and Denver Probate Court ...... G NH 4-E/A 114,56d 110,mJ 96%J 3,605J Water Court ...... G NH NH 1,688 1,955 116% 53 County Court ...... L NH 4-c 284,712 274,748 9 7% 8,959 Municipal Court ...... L NPA NH CONNECTICUT: STATE TOTAL ...... 740,253; 23.4 704 Superior Court ...... G NPA 2-A 691.2973 21,918J Probate Court ...... L NH NH 48 ,956 1,552 DELAWARE: STATE TOTAL ...... 289,3701 j 283,5091:J 98xi.J 47,206:J Superior Court ...... G NH 2 -A 7.5043 7.1573 95x3 1.2243 Court of Chancery ...... G NH NH 2;882 2;614 91 % 4 70 Court of Comnon Pleas ...... L NH 1-c 19,4771: 18,9951: 9S%! 3,177i Family Court ...... L NH 2-c 30,273: 28,972’ Y6X; 4,Y381: Municipal Court of Wilmington. L P 1-c 26,659’ 2!~,912~ 97%’ 4.349’ Alderman‘s Court ...... L P 1 -c 24.844 22.305 90% 4.053 Justice of the Peace Court ... L NH 1 -c 177,731 177;286 100% 28;994 ~ ~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: TOTAL ... 204,573 198,390 97% 32,837 *Superior Court ...... G NH 2-8 204,573 198.390 97% 32,837 FLORIDA: STATE TOTAL ...... 4.1 03,168 37,383 Circuit Court ...... G NH 5 -B 633,909 5,775 County Court ...... L NPA 1-C 3,469.259 3,219,225i 31,608 67 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. (continued) Uisposcd Fi1 cd Criminal as a (disposed) Juris- Park- unit of percent per 100,000 State and court name dictlon ing count Filed Uisposcd of filed population GEORGIA: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G NH 7 -A 189,511 183,8051:J 97%ij 3,24715 State Court ...... L NH 7-c 497,0431 J 381,60813 8,51515 Probate Court ...... L NH 2-c Municipal Court (located in Savannah and Columbus) ..... L NH N/A Magi strate’s Court ...... L NH 2-c Civil Court ...... L NH N/A County Recorder’s Court ...... L NPA N/A Atlanta Municipal and City Courts ...... L NPA N/A Juvenile Court ...... L NH NH 34,111 32,823 96% 584 GUAM: TOTAL ...... 31.565 29,048 92% 30,062 Superior Court ...... G NPA N/A 31,565 29,048 92% 30,062 HAWAII: STATE TOTAL ...... 959,105 926.71 6 97% 92.310 Circuit Court ...... G NH 2-8 39,645 47,286 119% 3,816 District Court ...... L P 2-8 91 9,460 879,430 96% 88,495 IDAHO: STATE TOTAL ...... 31 5,803iJ 312,200IJ 99%fJ 31,549!? District Court ...... G NPA 4-8 315,80313 312,20013 99’tlJ 31,549’3 ~~~~~ ILLINOIS: STATE TOTAL ...... 7,717,811: 5,730,6771 74%1 67,0471 Circuit Court ...... G P 7-A 7,717,811’ 5,730,677’ 74%’ 67,0471 INDIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... 1,079,55241’ 999,092i 93%i 19,6354 Superior Court and Circuit Court ...... G NH 7 -A 353,096! 351,6471 9O%I 6,4221’ County Court ...... L P 7-8 325,782’ 310,904’ 95%’ 5,9251 Probate Court ...... L NH NH 3,358 2,972 89% 61 Municipal Court of Marion County ...... L P 7-8 182,871 164,380 90% 3,326 Small Claims Court of Marion County ...... L NH NH 55,432 56,453 102% 1,008 City Court and Town Court .... L P 4-8 158,985 145,736 92% 2,892 IOWA: STATE TOTAL ...... 834,363: (28,672 Ii District Court ...... G CP 2 -A 834,3631 (28,672 )i KANSAS: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 2-E/A 404,155 407,229 101% 16,577 Municipal Court ...... L NPA NH KENTUCKY: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... District Court ...... LOUISIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 11-A 509,386J 11,416J Family Court and Juvenile Court ...... L NH NH 28,421 637 City Court and Parish Court .. L NH 7-8 642,974 508,007 79% 14,410 Justice of the Peace Court ... L NPA NH Mayor’s Court ...... L NPA NH 68 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Fi 1 ed Criminal as a (disposed) Juris- Park- unit of percent per 100,000 State and court name diction ing count FIl ed Disposed of filed population MAINE: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G NH 2 -A 15,7445 16,6195 106% 1,362J District Court ...... L P 9 -6 21 7,161 21 0,095’ 97% 18,7861 Probate Court ...... L NH NH Admini strative Court ...... L NH NH MARYLAND: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G NH 2-A 160,637 146,851 91 % 3,694 District Court ...... L NH 2-8 1,373,737 31,587 Orphan‘s Court ...... L NH NH MASSACHUSETTS : STATE TOTAL .... 1,847,909 31 ,871 Trial Court of the Commonw ea 1th ...... G NPA 2-A/C 1,847,909 31 ,871 MICHIGAN: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G NH 5 -A 191 ,703i 218,852i 114%i 2.11 Pi Court of Claims ...... G NH I4 H 539. 431 8 OX 6 District Court ...... L P 2-C 1,957,524’ 1.955,159i 21 ,571i Probate Court ...... L NH NH Municipal Court ...... L NH N /A MINNESOTA: STATE TOTAL ...... 1,885,834 2,077,466 11U% 44,21b District Court, Probate Court, County Court, County Municipal Court, 2-c and Conci 1i ation Court ..... G/L P 1-C 1,885,834 2,077,466 110% 44,216 MISSOURI: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G P 11-6 MONTANA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 7-A 30,421 26,117 86% 3,692 Justice of the Peace Court ... L NPA 2-C City Court ...... L NPA 2-C Municipal Court ...... L NPA 2-C NEBRASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 464.4781’5 28,921iJ District Court ...... G NH 2 -A 41,7953 42,lOd lOl%J 2,602J County Court ...... L NPA 2-8 263,6601 255,591’ 97%’ 16.41 7‘ Separate Juvenile Court ...... L NH NH 3,318. 138. Municipal Court ...... L NPA 2-C 1 56,500’ 9,745‘ Workmen’s Compensation Court.. L NH NH 305 295 9 7% 19 ~~~ ~ NEVADA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G N/A 11-A Justice Court ...... L N/A 11-C Municipal Court ...... L N/A 11-C NEW HAMPSHIRE: STATE TOTAL .... 333,463 34,131 Superior Court ...... G NH 1 -A 23,474 23,491 100% 2,403 Probate Court ...... L NH NH 14,768 1,512 District Court ...... L CP 1-c 286.786 29,354 Municipal Court ...... L CP 1 -c 8,435 863 NEW JERSEY: STATE TOTAL ...... 5,800,609i 4,805,778i 84% 77,187j *Superior Court ...... G NH 2-A 71 0.781 721.903 102% 9.458 Surrogate’s Court ...... L NH NH Municipal Court ...... L P 2-C 5,089,828 4,163,875 82% 67,729 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. (continued) UisDosed F iled Criminal as a (disposed) Juris- Park- unit of percent per 100,000 State and court name diction ing count Filed Disposed of filed population NEW MEXICO: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 2-c 65,4743’ 61,7643’ 94zJ 4,5983’ Magistrate Court ...... L NH 2-c 1DD,253i 7, O4Oi Municipal Court ...... L NH NH Probate Court ...... L NH NH Bernal illo County Metropolitan Court ...... L P 2-c 243,934 208,208 85% 17,130 NEW YORK: STATE TOTAL ...... *Supreme Court and County Court ...... G NH 7 -A 175,908iJ 183,883iJ iosxi3’ 981 ij Surrogate’s Court ...... L NH NH 83,993 68,098 81 % 468 Family Court ...... L NH NH 357,504 31 6,541 89% 1,993 Civil Court of the City of New York ...... L NH NH 247,228i 232,005i 94Ei 1 ,37&Ii Criminal Court of the City of New York ...... L 9-0 District Court and City Court. L NH 2-C 807,001 ( 4,500) Court of Claims ...... L NH NH 1,678 1,346 80% Y Tarn and Village Justice Court ...... L NPA 1-C NORTH CAROLINA: STATE TOTAL ... 1 ,596,860i 1 ,584,993i 99%i 25,9OZi Superior Court ...... G NH 2 -A 1 50,680. 149,169 99% 2,444 District Court ...... L CP 3-C 1,446,1801 1,435,8241’ Y9Zi 23,458i ___~~___~ ~ NORTH DAKOTA: STATE TOTAL ..... District Court ...... G NPA 2-A 16,8985 15,978IJ 2,4635 County Court ...... L NPA 5-6 96,876l 97,8681 1Ol%i 14,122’ Municipal Court ...... L NPA 2-C OHIO: STATE TOTAL ...... Court of Comon Pleas ...... G NH 2 -E 513,2243’ 506.9963’ 99%j 4,7735 Municipal Court ...... L P 2-c 1,948,498 1,937,171 99% 18,122 County Court ...... L NH 2-c 229,421 227,133 9 9% 2.134 Mayor‘s Court ...... L NPA N/A Court of C1 aims ...... L NH NH 2,770 2,420 87% 26 OKLAHOMA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G * NH 9 -A 492,l 57i 468,667i 95%‘ 14,9231 Municipal Criminal Court of Record ...... L NPA NH Municipal Court Not of Record. L NPA NH Court of Tax Review ...... L NH NH 0 0 -_ 0 OREGON: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G NH 5-8 Tax Court ...... G NH NH 249 296 119% 9 District Court ...... L NH 5-8 419,796i 420,9631’ lOO%i 15,6991 Justice Court ...... L NPA 5-C County Court ...... L NH NH 143i si Municipal Court ...... L NPA 1-C PENNSYLVANIA: STATE TOTAL ..... 3,533,578i 29,691! Court of Comnon Pleas ...... G NH 2 -A 358,2 71 343,9801 96x1 3.01 0’ District Justice Court ...... L P 2-C 1,771,835 1,588,163 90% 14,888 Philadelphia Municipal Court . L NH 2-c 109,543i 107,730i 98%‘ 921 Philadelphia Traffic Court ... L P NH 910,610 375,304 41% 7,652 Pittsburgh City Magistrate Court ...... L P 2-c 383,31gi 3,221i 70 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Filed Criminal as a (disposed) Juris- Park- unit of percent per 100,000 State and court name diction ing count Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population PUERTO RICO: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G NH 1-c 90,997i 88,310i 97%’ 2,7851’ District Court ...... L NH 1 -c 147,823 146,083 99% 4,525 Municipal Court ...... L NPA NH Justices of the Peace ...... L NH NH RHODE ISLAND: STATE TOTAL ..... Superior Court ...... G NH 4 -A 12,5053 i,3ooJ Family Court ...... L NH NH 11,479’ District Court ...... L NH 1 -c 69,076iJ 58,2iiiJ 84%iJ 7,iaoiJ Probate Court ...... L NH NH Municipal Court ...... L NPA NH _____~~~ ~ SOUTH CAROLINA: STATE TOTAL ... Circuit Court ...... G NH 2 -A 82,206J 84,716J io3%J 2,491J Family Court ...... L NH NH 62,413 63,830 102% 1,891 Probate Court ...... L NH NH 18,595 11.400 61 % 564 Magistrate Court ...... L NPA 2-C Municipal Court ...... L NPA 2-C 332,165i 330,165i 10OXi 10,066i SOUTH DAKOTA: STATE TOTAL ..... 190,595i 26,9961 Circuit Court ...... G NPA 2-C 1 90,595i 26,996’ ______TENNESSEE: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court, Criminal Court and Chancery Court ...... G NH 11 -A 141 ,504ij 132,620ij 94%iJ 3,oooiJ General Sessions Court ...... L NPA N/A Probate Court ...... L NH NH Juvenile Court ...... L NH NH Municipal Court ...... L NPA N/A ~ ~______~~ TEXAS: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 2-A 563,340 520.41 1 92% 3,523 County Level Courts ...... L NH 2-8 613.794 3.839 Municipal Court ...... L NPA 1-C Justice of the Peace Court ... L NPA 1-C UTAH: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 9 -A 33,697J 26,8871J 2,040J Circuit Court ...... L P 9-c 703.3603 654,7925 93xJ 42,5763 Justice of the Peace Court ... L P 2-c Juvenile Court ...... L NH NH 42,929 2,599 ~~ ~ VERMONT: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G NH 2 -A 8,244 8,956 109% 1,555 District Court ...... G NH 4 -E 139,438 139,198 100% 26,309 Probate Court ...... L NH NH 4.1 56 (784) VIRGINIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 2,507,977i 2,357,O1Oi 94Zi 44.49gi Circuit Court ...... G NH 1 -A 149,399 140,496 94% 2,651 District Court ...... L P 1-C 2,358,578i 2.216,514i 94%i 41 ,84ai WASHINGTON: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G NH 7 -A 150,476: 124,377iJ 3,4603 District Court ...... L P 3-c 675.868! 15,541 Municipal Court ...... L P 3-C 1,081,014’ 24,857’ 71 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed F iled Criminal as a (disposed) Juris- Park- unit of percent per 100,000 State and court name diction ing count Filed Disposed of filed population WEST VIRGINIA: STATE TOTAL .... Circuit Court ...... G NH 9 -A 60.1 24J 53,73@ 89%J 3,08d Magistrate Court ...... L NH 9-c 281,8601 277,0841 98%' 14,4404 Municipal Court ...... L NPA 1-C WISCONSIN: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G P 4-E 536,203 537,598 100% 11,251 Municipal Court ...... L NPA 1-C WYOMING: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G NH 9 -A 12,740iJ 12,5595iJ 99%ij 2,493ij Justice of the Peace Court ... L NPA 9-6 County Court ...... L NPA 9-A 101,398 98,398 97% 19.832 Municipal Court ...... 1 NPA 1-C Note: Mississippi is not included in this table 6. At the filing of the information or because it did not report trial level data compl ain t for 1984, and did not respond to the Trial C. At the filing of the complaint (warrant or Court Jurisidi cti on Guide ; therefore , accusation) grand total jurisdictional information is D. At the assigning of a docket number unavailable. All other state courts are E. At the arraignment (first appearance) listed in this table, regardless of N/A = The data are not available whether data are available. All data that are at least 90% complete are entered in iData are incomplete: the table. Blank spaces indicate that Alaska--District Court--Data do not include either data are unavailable or less than limited felonies. 90% complete, or that the calculations are Arizona--Superior Court--Data do not include inappropritte. The "filed per 100,000 mental health cases. population STATE TOTAL figure may not --Justice of the Peace Court--Data do not equal the sum of the individual state include limited felony, and courts due to rounding. miscellaneous traffic cases. Arkansas--City Court--Data were unavailable *Civil Unit of Count: for six months from five cities. These courts count their civil cases "at Delaware--Family Court--Data do not include issue" as opposed to the filing of the status petitions and child-victim petition or complaint. petitions. --Court of Common Pleas and Municipal Court PARKING CODES: of Wilmington--Data do not include all NH = Court does not handle parking cases. limited felonies. NPA = The court handles parking cases but the Florida--County Court--Disposed data do not data are unavailable. include reopened cases. P = The data include contested and uncontested Georgia--Superior Court--Data do not include parking. ordinance violations and moving traffic CP = The data include contested parking only. cases from Ware County. --State Court--Data are incomplete for Criminal case unit of count codes: Fulton County and do not include llmlted Contents of case (number of defendants/number felony cases. of charges) : Idaho--Uata do not include limited felony 1. Single defendant/single charge cases. 2. Single defendant/single incident Illinois--Circuit Court--Data do not include 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum all parking cases. number of charges) Indiana--Superior Court--Total data do not 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents include mental health, criminal appeals!, 5. Single defendantharies with prosecutor miscellaneous criminal, and "redocketed 6. One or more defendants/single charge or "other" cases 7. One or more defendantshingle incident --Count{ Court--Data do not include,,"other 8. One or more defendants/single incident cases and "reopened proceedings. (maximum number of charges) Iowa--0ata do not include family in need of 9. One or more defendants/one or more assistance, some estate, and ill incidents juvenile cases. 10. One or more defendants/varies with Kentucky--District Court--Data do not nclude prosecutor limited felony cases. 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with Maine--District Court--Uata do not inc ude prosecutor 1imi ted felony cases. Point at which case is counted: A. At the filing of the information or indictment 72 TABLE 9: Reported grand total state trial court caseload, 1984. (continued) Michigan--Circui t Court--Data are missing JExplanation of data included in the category: 'from four counties. Alabama--Circui t Court--Uata include --District Court--Data do not include all postconviction remedy proceedings. limited felonies. and are missing from --District Court--Data include preliminary four cities. hearings. Nebraska--County Court and Municipal Alaska--District Court--Uata include Court--Data do not include limited probation revocation and search warrant felonies. cases. New Jersey--State totals do not include data Cal ifornia--Justice Court and Municipal from Surrogate's Court. Court--Data include preliminary hearings. New Mexico--Magistrate Court--Data do not Colorado--District Court--Data include include limited felonies. extradition, revocation hearings, and New York--Supreme Court and County release from commitment hearings. Court--Data do not include civil Connecticut--Superior Court--Data include appeal s, criminal appeals, and postconviction remedy proceedings. miscellaneous criminal cases. Georgia--Superior Court--Da ta include --Civil Court of New York City--Uata do not probation revocation hearings. include miscellaneous civil cases. Idaho--Data include sentence review only North Carolina--District Court--Uata do not and postconviction remedy proceedings. include limited felonies. Kentucky--Circui t Court--Data include North Dakota--District Court--Disposed data postconviction remedy and sentence do not include juvenile traffic/other review only proceedings. violation cases. --District Court--Data include sentence --County Court--Data do not include review only proceedings. 1 imited felony cases. Louisiana--District Court--Data include Oklahoma--District Court--Data do not include postconviction remedy proceedings. juvenile data. Maine--Superior Court--Uata include Oregon--County Court--Data were unavailable postconviction remedy and sentence from bo counties. review only proceedings. --District Court--Uata do not include Nebraska--District Court--Data include limited felonies. postconviction remedy proceedings. Pennsylvania--Court of Common Pleas--Data do New Mexico--District Court--Data include not include mental health and criminal postconviction remedy proceedings. appeal s cases. North Dakota--District Court--Data include --Pittsburgh City Magistrates--Data do not sentence review only and postconviction include limited criminal cases. remedy proceedings. --Philadelphia Municipal Court--Data do not Ohio--Court of Common Pleas--Data include incl ude 1 imited felony cases. postconviction remedy proceedings. Puerto Rico--Superior Court--Data do not Rhode Island--Superior Court--Data include include estate cases. postconviction remedy proceeaings . Rhode Island--District Court--Data do not --District Court--Data include preliminary include civil appeals and mental hearings. health cases. South Carolina--Circuit Court--Data include --Family Court--Data do not include postconviction remedy proceedings. paternity/bastardy cases. Tennessee--Circui t Court and Criminal South Carol ina--Municipal Court--Data do not Court--Data include postconviction remedy include limited felony cases. proceedings. South Dakota--Data do not include limited Utah--District Court--Data include felony cases. postconviction remedy proceedings and Tennessee--Circui t Court and Criminal sentence review only cases. Court--Data do not include traffic cases. --Circuit Court--Data include Utah--District Court--Disposed cases do not postconviction remedy proceedings. include spouse abuse cases. Washington--Superior Court--Data include Washington--Superior Court--Di sposed data do postconviction remedy proceedings. not include domestic violence petitions. West Virginia--Circuit Court--Data include --District Court--Data do not include postconviction remedy proceedings. limited felonies. Wyoming--District Court--Data include --Municipal Court--Data are unavailable postconviction remedy proceedings. from two courts. West Virginia--Magistrate Court--Data do not include limited felonies.- Wyoming--District Court--Data do not include cases from Sublette County for six months. 73 TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. Ui sDoscd Filed as a (disposed 1 Juris- percent per 100,OOU State and court name diction Filed Disposed of filed population ALABAMA: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G 76,0095 75,5945 99aj 1,9055 Oistrict Court ...... L 128,499 130,709 102% 3,221 Probate Court ...... L ALASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 32,5845 25,742! J 6,5175 Superior Court ...... G 16,6303 13,10213 3,326ij Oistrict Court ...... L 15,954 12,640 7 9% 3.191 ARIZONA: STATE TOTAL ...... 172,615i 5,6541 Superior Court ...... G 85,355’ 83,045 2,7961 Justice of the Peace Court ... L 86,088 76, 502i 2,820 Municipal Court ...... L 1,172 38 ARKANSAS: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G 28,879 28,791 100% 1,229 Chancery Court and Probate Court ...... G 49,416. 44,715 90% 2,104 Municipal Court ...... L 36,704’ 15,57ai 48%f 1 ,563i County Court ...... L Court of Comon Pleas ...... L 102 4 City Court ...... L 303i 239j 79ai 1li CALIFORNIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 1,614,555 1,278,854 . 79% 6,301 Superior Court ...... G 598,330 487,505 81 % 2,335 Justice Court ...... L 44,337 34,093 7 7% 173 Municipal Court ...... L 971,888 757,256 78% 3,793 COLORADO: STATE TOTAL ...... 170.563 162,724 95% 5,367 Oistrict Court, Uenver Superior Court, and Oenver Probate Court ...... G 86,930 82,128 94% 2,735 Water Court ...... G 1,688 1,955 11 6% 53 County Court ...... L 81 ,945 78,641 96% 2,579 CONNECTICUT: STATE TOTAL ...... 204.6375 6,4885 Superior Court ...... G 155,6813 4,9363 Probate Court ...... L 48,956 1,552 DELAWARE : STATE TOTAL ...... 52,638 51,543 98% 8,587 Superior Court ...... G 3,825 3,486 91 % 624 Court of Chancery ...... G 2,882 2,614 91 % 470 Court of Comnon Pleas ...... L 4.046 3.510 8 7% 660 Family Court ...... L 20,929 20,320 97% 3,414 Alderman’s Court ...... L 150 330 220% 24 Justice of the Peace Court ... L 20,806 21 ,283 102% 3,394 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 140,261 1 35,364 97% 22,514 *Superior Court ...... ti 140,261 135,364 97% 22.51 4 FLORIDA: STATE TOTAL ...... 665,231 6,061 Circuit Court ...... G 383,516 3,494 County Court ...... L 281 ,715 2,567 74 I c TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. (continued) Uisposed Filed as a (disposed1 Juris- percent per 100,000 State and court name diction Filed Disposed of filed population GEORGIA: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... State Court ...... Probate Court ...... Municipal Court (located in Savannah and Columbus ..... Magistrate’s Court ...... Civil Court ...... GUAM: Superior Court ...... HAWAII: STATE TOTAL ...... 45,5235 50,6483 111x5 4.3815 Circuit Court ...... G 25.91 65 31.7283 122x5 2.4945 District Court ...... L 19,607 18,920 96% 1,887 IDAHO: STATE TOTAL ...... 59,117 59,251 100% 5,906 District Court ...... G 59,117 59,251 100% 5,906 ILLINOIS: STATE TOTAL ...... 661 ,1995 665,4845 101%j 5,7445 Circuit Court ...... G 661 ,199J 665,4843 101 %J 5,7445 INDIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... 341 ,551 i j (6,21 z )ij Superior Court and Circuit Court ...... G 190,5631: 196,500! 103%: 3,4661: County Court ...... L 70,9471 66,9231 94x1 1,2901 Probate Court ...... L 1,625 1,485 91 % 30 Municipal Court of Marion County ...... L 10.37d 11,3673’ 11 oxj imj Small Claims Court of Marion County ...... L 54,380 55,510 102% 989 City Court and Town Court .... L 9,7661 (168)i IOWA: STATE TOTAL ...... 146,0801’ 142,575i 5,0201 District Court ...... G 146.O8Oi 142,575i 5,0201 KANSAS: STATE TOTAL ...... 11 7.888 122,691 104% 4,835 District Court ...... G 11 7,888 122,691 104% 4,835 KENTUCKY: STATE TOTAL ...... 182,498ij 174.9341:j 96%i j 4,902ij Circuit Court ...... G 65,629j 67.9785 104%J 1,763j District Court ...... L 116,8691 106,956i 92%’ 3,1391 LOUISIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G 164,2075 3,68d Family Court and Juvenile Court ...... L City Court and Parish Court .. L 88,438 54,553 62% 1,982 Justice of the Peace Court ... L MAINE: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G 6,775 7,469 110% 586 District Court ...... L 47.429 45,203 95% 4,103 Probate Court ...... L Admi ni strative Court ...... L MARYLAND: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G 97,674 89,218 91 % 2,246 District Court ...... L 549,068 12,625 Orphan‘s Court ...... L 75 TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Fi1 ed as a (disposed 1 Juris- percent per 100,000 State and court name diction Filed Uisposed of filed population MASSACliUSETTS: STATE TOTAL .... 433,606 7,479 Trial Court of the Commonwealth ...... G 433,606 7,479 MICHIGAN: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G 149,713i 175,243i 11 7Xi 1,6501 Court of Claims ...... G 539 431 80% 6 District Court ...... L 305,692i 307,912i 101%i 3,36gi Probate Court ...... L Municipal Court ...... L MINNESOTA: STATE TOTAL ...... 194,038j 195,i 97j ioi%j 3,989j District Court, Probate Division, County Court, County Municipal Court, and Conciliation Division .. G/L 194,038j 195,197j 101%j 3,984 MISSOURI: STATE TOTAL ...... 213,533:J 202,928iJ 95XiJ 4 ,264ij Circuit Court ...... G 21 3,533’J 202.9281 J 95X’J 4,264ij MONTANA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G 26,346 22,661 86% 3,197 Justice of the Peace Court ... L City Court ...... L Municipal Court ...... L NEBRASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 90,893i 5,6601 District Court ...... G 35,51 gi 35,5791 1ooxf 2,2121 County Court ...... L 34 ,298 35,151 102% 2.1 36 Municipal Court ...... L 20,773 1,293 Workmen’s Compensation Court.. L 305 295 97% 19 NEVADA: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G Justice Court ...... L Municipal Court ...... L NEW HAMPSHIRE: STATE TOTAL .... 73,079 7,480 Superior Court ...... G 16,622 16,653 100% 1,701 Probate Court ...... L 14,768 1,512 District Court ...... L 41,123 4,209 Municipal Court ...... L 566 58 NEW JERSEY: STATE TOTAL ...... *Superior Court ...... G 566,791 573 ,548i 101%i 7 ,542” Surrogate‘s Court ...... L NEW MEXICO: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G 50,271 j 47,3295 94%j 3,530j Magistrate Court ...... L 18,308 1,286 Probate Court ...... L Bernal i11 o County Metropol 1tan Court ...... L 9,744 8,931 92% 684 76 TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. (continued) DiSDosed Fi1 ed as a (disposed1 Juris- percent per 100,000 State and court name diction Filed Disposed of filed population NEW YORK: STATE TOTAL ...... *Supreme Court and County Court ...... G 126,717iJ 133,529iJ io5%iJ 707iJ Surrogate’s Court ...... L 83,993 68,098 81 % 468 Family Court ...... L 319,435 280,211 88% 1,781 Civil Court of the City of New York ...... L 247,2281’ 232.0051 94%i 1,3781’ District Court and City Court. L 116,358 112,590 9 7% 649 Court of Claims ...... L 1,678 1,346 80% 9 Town and Village Justice Court ...... L NORTH CAROLINA: STATE TOTAL ... 381,600 381 ,328 100% 6,190 Superior Court ...... G 82,604 82,160 99% 1,340 District Court ...... L 298,996 299,168 100% 4,850 NORTH DAKOTA: STATE TOTAL ..... 32,516j 31,3453’ 96% 4,740j District Court ...... G 13,734. 13,378. 97% 2,002. County Court ...... L 18.7823 17,9673 96x3’ 2,7383 OHIO: STATE TOTAL ...... 636,887 631,447 99% 5,923 Court of Common Pleas ...... G 290,980 285,972 8 8% 2,706 Municipal Court ...... L 318,983 318,716 100% 2,967 County Court ...... L 24,154 24,339 101% 225 Court of Claims ...... L 2,770 2,420 8 7% 26 OKLAHOMA: STATE TOTAL ...... 21 4,644 200,107 93% b,508 District Court ...... G 214,644 200,107 93% 6,508 Court of Tax Review ...... L 0 0 -- 0 OREGON: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court ...... G 64,4873’ 61,302iJ 2,4i 2J Tax Court ...... G 249 296 1 19% 9 District Court ...... L 62,542 64,720 103% 2,339 Justice Court ...... L County Court ...... L 119i 4i PENNSYLVANIA: STATE TOTAL 491,654 4,131 Court of Comnon Pleas ...... G 219,9921 204,019’ 93%i 1,8491’ District Justice Court ...... L 183,143 177,927 97% 1,539 Philadelphia Municipal Court . L 83,342 82,954 100% 700 Pittsburgh City Magistrate Court ...... L 5,177 44 PUERTO RICO: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... G District Court ...... L 53,268 53,220 100% 1,630 RHODE ISLAND: STATE TOTAL ..... Superior Court ...... G 7.2394 7533 Family Court ...... L 5,588: 581: District Court ...... L 30,846’ 21,4791 70%i 3,206’ Probate Court ...... L Municipal Court ...... L SOUTH CAROLINA: STATE TOTAL ... Circuit Court ...... G 41,835j 42,528.1’ 102~3’ 1 ,2683 Family Court ...... L 51 ,924 53,827 104% 1,573 Probate Court ...... L 18.595 11,400 61% 564 Magistrate Court ...... L 77 TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. (continued) Oisposed Filed as a per(disposed) 100,000 Juris- percent State and court name diction Filed Disposed of filed population SOUTH DAKOTA: STATE TOTAL ..... 38,910 5.511 Circuit Court ...... G 38,910 5,511 TENNESSEE: STATE TOTAL ...... Circuit Court and Chancery Court ...... G 101 ,5433 94,3383 93x3 2,1535 General Sessions Court ...... L Probate Court ...... L Juvenile Court ...... L TEXAS: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G 443,159? 404,6423 91 %j 2,7725 County Level Courts ...... L 149.4505 9355 Justice of the Peace Court ... L UTAH: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G 29.76d 24,076iJ 1,8013 Circuit Court ...... L 69,393 45,023 6 5% 4,201 Justice of the Peace Court ... L VERMONT: STATE TOTAL ...... 28,985 (5,469) Superior Court ...... G 8,233 8,951 109% 1,553 District Court ...... G 15,226 15,878 104% 2,873 Probate Court ...... L 4,156 (784) VIRGINIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 803,9693 731 ,9353 91 %j 14,2655 Circuit Court ...... G 82,514 76,407 93% 1,464 District Court ...... L 721,455J 655,528j 91 J 12,8013 WASHINGTON: STATE TOTAL ...... 205,443i 4, 724i Superior Court ...... G 1 13.1 50. 91 ,56!jij 2,602 District Court ...... L 91 ,724' 2,1Ogi Municipal Court ...... L 56gi 13' WEST VIRGINIA: STATE TOTAL .... 101 ,093 94,650 94% 5,179 Circuit Court ...... G 45,912 41,092 90% 2,352 Magistrate Court ...... L 55,181 53,558 97% 2,827 WISCONSIN: STATE TOTAL ...... 314,6123 31 8,6923 101 %J 6,601J Circuit Court ...... G 31 4,612J 318,6923 lOl%J 6,6013 WYOMING: STATE TOTAL ...... District Court ...... G 11 11 ,I 63iJ mi3 2,207ij Justice of the Peace Court ... L County Court ...... L 18,861 18,823 100% 3,691 Note: Mississippi is not included in this table *UNIT OF COUNT: because it did not report civil data for The following courts count their civil cases "at 1984, and did not respond to the Triar issue" as opposed to the filing of the petition Court Jurisdiction Guide; therefore, civil or compl aint--Di strict of Columbia Superior jurisdiction information is unavailable. Court, New York Supreme Court and County Court, All other state courts with civil and the New Jersey Superior Court. jurisdiction are listed in this table, regardless of whether data are available. iData are incomplete: All data that are at least 90% complete are A1 aska--Superior Court--Disposed data do not entered in the table. Blank spaces include domestic violence cases. indicate that either the data are Arizona--Superior Court--Data do not include unavailable or less than 90% complete, or mental health filings. that the calculations are inapprop-iate. --Justice of the Peace Court--Data do not The "filed per 100,000 population STATE include miscellaneous civll TOTAL figure may not equal the sum of the dispositions. individual state courts due to rounding. 78 TABLE 10: Reported total state trial court civil caseload, 1984. (continued) Arkansas--Municipal Court--Data are missing Wyoming--District Court--One county reported from several courts. data for only 6 months. --City Court--Data are missing from several courts. JExplanation of data included in the category: Guam--Some civil data are included in Alabama--Circuit Court--Data include some juvenile data. postconvictfon remedy proceedings. Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit A1 aska--Superior Court--Data include Court--Data do not include mental postconviction remedy proceedings. health filings. Connecticut--Superior Court--Data include --County Court--Data do not include mental postconviction remedy proceedings. heal th or miscell aneous civi 1 cases. Georgia--Superior Court--Data include --City Court and Town Court--Some civil probation revocation hearings. cases would not be separated out of the Guam--Data include some traffic and some grand total. juvenile cases. Iowa--Fil ings do not include mental health Hawaii--Circuit Court--Data include some cases, and dispositions do not include a criminal and traffidother violation few domestic relations and some estate cases. cases. I11inois--Data include some miscellaneous Kentucky--District Court--Data do not include criminal cases. paternity/bastardy cases. I n d ian a --Mu n ic ipa 1 Co u r t o f Ma r io 11 Micliigan--Circui t Court--Data were County--Data include miscellaneous unavailable from four small counties. criminal cases. --District Court--Data were unavailable Kentucky--Circuit Court--Data include from four cities. postconviction remedy proceedings. Missouri--Data do not include adoption or Louisiana--District Court--Data include termination of parental rights cases. postconviction remedy proceedings. Nebraska--District Court--Data do not include Minnesota--Data include criminal appeals. civi 1 appeal s. New Mexico--District Court--Data include New Jersey--Superior Court--Data do not postconviction remedy proceedings. incl ude adoptions, termination of New York--Supreme Court and County parental rights, some paternitylbastardy , Court--Da ta inc 1ude postconviction remedy and some estate cases. proceedings. New York--Supreme Court and County North Dakota--County Court--Data include Court--Data do not include civil criminal appeals. appeal s. Oregon--Circuit Court--Data include criminal --Civil Court of New York City--Data do not appeals. include miscellaneous civil cases. Rhode Is1 and--Superior Court--Data include Dregon--Circuit Court--Dispositions do not postconviction remedy proceedings. include adoption or mental health South Carol ina--Circuit Court--Data include cases. criminal appeals and postconviction --County Court--Data do not include some remedy proceedings . estate cases. Tennessee--Ci rcuit Court--Data include Pennsylvania--Court of Common Pleas--Data do miscellaneous criminal cases and not include mental health cases. postconviction remedy proceedings. Hhode Is1and--District Court--Data do not Texas--District Court--Data include include civil appeals and mental chi1 d-victim pet1tions. health cases. --County Level Courts--Data include --Family Court--Data do not include child-victim petitions. paternitylbastardy cases. Utah--Uistrict Court--Data include Utah--District Court--Disposed data do not postconviction remedy proceedings . include miscellaneous domestic relations Virginia--District Court--Data include cases. criminal cases filed in the Juvenile and Washington--Superior Court--Dispositions do Domestic Relations Court. not include domestic violence petitions. Washington--Superior Court--Data include --District Court--One court did not report postconviction remedy proceedings. data for 1984. Wisconsin--Ci rcuit Court--Data include --Municipal Court--Two courts did not traffic/other violation appeals. report data for 1984. Wyoming--District Court--Data include criminal appeals and juvenile cases. 79 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. 01 sDosed tiled Criminal as a (disposed 1 State and court name Juris- unit of percent per 100,000 diction count Filed Disposed of filed population ALABAMA : Circuit Court ...... G 2-A 31,241 30,354. 97% 1,085 District Court ...... L 2-C 98,4733’ 97,0593 99x3’ 3,4193’ Municipal Court ...... L 2-c ALASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 30,433:J 27~04~j 9,oo4!J Superior Court ...... G 7-A 1,846’ 1,5881 86Xi 546: District Court ...... L 7-c 28,587iJ 25,516iJ 89vJ 8,458’J ARIZONA: STATE TOTAL ...... 249,251 11 ,350i Superior Court ...... G 4-A 17,475 16,010 92% 7 96 Justice of the Peace Court ...... L 1-c 44,9571’ 2,047i Municipal Court ...... L 1-C 186,819 8,507 ARKANSAS: STATE TOTAL ...... 169,978iJ 11 7,458iJ 69dJ 10,016ij Circuit Court ...... G 1-A 28,780, 24.836 86% 1,696 Municipal Court ...... L 1-C 134,883:J 87,416:J 65%iJ 7,94813’ City Court ...... L 1-C 6,315’5 5.206’3 8ZXiJ 372iJ CALIFORNIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 884,356iJ 75~,039iJ 86XiJ 4,664iJ Superior Court ...... G 2-A 78,044.. 69,704.. 89%. . 41 2 Justice Court ...... L 2-C 63,001:: 52.529:: 83%?J 332!j Municipal Court ...... L 2-C 743,311’3 636,606’3 86X’J 3,920’3 COLORADO: STATE TOTAL ...... 49,880i.J 49,621iJ 9d.J 2,148!J District Court ...... G 4-E/A 15,785: 16,241j 103%: 680: County Court ...... L 4-C 34.095’ 33,380’ 98%’ 1,4681 CONNECTICUT: STATE TOTAL ...... izi,9201:J 123,1271:J ioixij 5,065jJ Superior Court ...... G 2-A 121,9201J 123,127’3 lOl%iJ 5,065’3 DELAWARE: Superior Court ...... G 2-A 3,6794 3,6714 1 oorJ 8034 Court of Common Pleas ...... L 1-C 15,431’ 15,485’ 100x1 3,369’ Family Court ...... L 2-C 2,781 2,643 95% 607 Municipal Court of Wilmington ...... L 1-c Alderman’s Court ...... L 1-C 2,685: 2,6215 98XJ 5865 Justice of the Peace Court ...... L 1-C 35,164’ 34,882’ 99%’ 7,678’ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Superior Court ...... G 2-8 FLORIDA: Circuit Court ...... G 5-8 174,193 152,267i 2,058 County Court ...... L 1-c GEORGIA: Superior Court ...... G 7-A 49,153ij 47.922jj 97x‘J 1 ,16giJ State Court ...... L 7-C 83,5Oli 75,3191 9DXi 1 ,986i Probate Court ...... L 2-c Municipal Court (located in Savannah and Col urnbus) ...... L N/A Magistrate‘s Court ...... L 2-c Civil Court ...... L N/A County Recorder’s Court ...... L N /A Atlanta Municipal and City Courts ...... L N/A 80 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Fi1 cd Criminal as a (disposed) State and court name Juris- unit of percent per 100,000 - diction count Filed Uisposed of filed population GUAM: STATE TOTAL ...... 9863 556J 56%4 Superior Court ...... G N/A 9863 5565 56%J HAWAII: STATE TOTAL ...... 31,511: 32,507: 103%: 4,1901 Circuit Court ...... G 2-8 3,138! 4,6161 147%: 41 7: District Court ...... L 2-8 28,3731 27,8911 98%1 3,773’ IDAHO: STATE TOTAL ...... 51,86215 49,3071:J 95xi3’ 7,63815 District Court ...... G 4-8 51,86215 49,30713 95xiJ 7,63813 ILLINOIS : Circuit Court ...... G 7 -A INDIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... i73.086iJ 153, ,574fJ mi3’ 4,341 ij Superior Court and Circuit Court ...... G 7-A 38,134 35,832 94% 957. . County Court ...... L 7-8 48,6731J 46.69313 96%iJ 1,221 1.J Municipal Court of Marion County ...... L 7-8 60,73313 46,87315 77x13 1,52315 Small Claims Court of Marion County ...... L N/A 1,052 943 90% 26 City Court and Town Court ...... L 4-8 24.4941 23,2331 95%i 61 4i IOWA: District Court ...... G 2-A KANSAS: STATE TOTAL ...... 31,009 33,637 108% 1,736 District Court ...... G 2-E/A 31,009 33,637 108% 1,736 KENTUCKY: STATE TOTAL ...... 193,246:J 193,399iJ iooxij 7,203ij Circuit Court ...... G 2-A 14,335J 13,063J 91 %J 5333 District Court ...... L 2-c 178,91113’ 180,33613’ ioi%ij 6,671 1j LOUISIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... 476,2561 1 5, 32ai District Court ...... G 11-A 331,816 10.680. City Court and Parish Court ...... L 7-8 144,4401 155,2491’ 107%i 4,6491 MAINE: Superior Court ...... G 2-~ 6,766iJ 6,661iJ gsxij 796iJ District Court ...... L 9-8 MARY LAN0 : Circuit Court ...... G 2-A 36.4Y3 34,271 94% 1,118 District Court ...... L 2-8 MASSACHUSETTS: STATE TOTAL ...... 280,803iJ 6.334iJ Trial Court of the Commonwealth ...... G 2-A/C 280,80313 6.3341J MICHIGAN : Circuit Court ...... G 5-A 41,Y90i 43,6091’ 104%i 637i District Court ...... L 2-C Municipal Court ...... L N/A ~~ MINNESOTA: STATE TOTAL ...... 132,9051:J 141 ,80613’ 107%!3’ 4,37513’ District Court ...... G 2-C 17,536: 22,207: 127%’ 577: County Courts ...... L 1-C 115,3695 119,5993 1o4%J 3,7983 81 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Filed Criminal as a (disposed) State and court name Juris- unit of percent per 100,000 diction count Filed Disposed of filed population MISSOURI: STATE TOTAL ...... 96,2874 91,7025 95%5 2,6075 Circuit Court ...... G 11 -B 96,2873 91 ,7023 95%3 2,6073 MONTANA: District Court ...... G 7-A 2,936 2,628 90% 499 Justice of the Peace Court ...... L 2-c City Court ...... L 2-c Municipal Court ...... L 2-c NEBRASKA: District Court ...... G 2-~ 6,2761 6,5214 104x5: 5405 County Court ...... L 2-8 40,573ij 39,609’j 98%’ J 3,489’j Municipal Court ...... L 2-c NEVADA: District Court ...... G 11-A Justice Court ...... L 11-c Municipal Court ...... L 11-c NEW HAMPSHIRE: STATE TOTAL ...... 47,348 6,531 Superior Court ...... G 1-A 6,852 6,838 100% 94 5 District Court ...... L 1-C 39,063 5,388 Municipal Court ...... L 1-c 1,433 198 NEW JERSEY: STATE TOTAL ...... 398,7755 399,3035 iood 7,0441 Superior Court ...... G 2-A 41,141. 42,671 104% 727 Municipal Court ...... L 2-C 357,6343 356,632j 1OO%J 6,3185 NEW MEXICO : District Court ...... G 2-C 8,831 7,777 88% 894 Magistrate Court ...... L 2-c Bernal illo County Metropolitan Court ..... L 2-c NEW YORK: Supreme Court and County Court ...... G 7-A 49,191i 50.354i 102%i 3691 Criminal Court of the City of New York ... L 9-0 231,120. 215,864. 9 3% 1,732 District Court and City Court ...... L 2-C 259,0995 194,6033 7 5xj 19di Town and Village Justice Court ...... L 1 -c NORTH CAROLINA: STATE TOTAL ...... 428,1665 424,9711 99x1 9,3813 Superior Court ...... G 2-A 68,067 67,009. 98%. 1,491 District Court ...... L 3-C 360,0993’ 357,9623 99%J 7,890j NORTH DAKOTA: District Court ...... G 2-A 1,335 1,273 95% 2 74 County Court ...... L 5-6 Municipal Court ...... L 2-c OHIO: Court of Common Pleas ...... G 2-E 37,073. 36,339 9 8% 471 . Municipal Court ...... L 2-C 355,603J 354,2825 1OO%J 4,541J County Court ...... L 2-C 38,9035 38,0643 98XJ 4943 Mayor’s Court ...... L N/A OKLAHOMA: STATE TOTAL ...... 76,6225 72,4535 95%J 3,2235 District Court ...... G 9-A 76,6223 72,4533 95%J 3,2233 82 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. (continued) Uisposed Fi 1 ed Criminal as a ,(disposed) State and court name Juris- unit of percent per 100,000 diction count Filed Disposed of filed population OREGON: Circuit Court ...... G 5-8 19,9131: 19,593: 98%: 1,0131: District Court ...... L 5-8 83,4261J 76,1411J 9ivj 4,2461J Justice Court ...... L 5-c Municipal Court ...... L 1-c PENNSYLVANIA: Court of Common Pleas ...... G 2-A 86.0831 88,3551: 103%: 991 i District Justice Court ...... L 2-C 147,5355 119,8433 81 %J 1,6413 Philadelphia Municipal Court ...... L 2-c Pittsburgh City Magistrate Court ...... L 2-c PUERTO RICO: Superior Court ...... G 1-C 23,102 22,050 95% District Court ...... L 1 -c RHODE ISLAND: STATE TOTAL ...... Superior Court ...... District Court ...... SOUTH CAROLINA: Circuf t Court ...... G 2-A 40,371i 42,1881 105Oi 1,701i Magistrate Court ...... L 2-c Municipal Court ...... L 2-C 60,4541’ 2,5481’ SOUTH DAKOTA: Circuit Court ...... G 2-c TENNESSEE: Circuit Court, and Chancery Court, and Criminal Court ...... G 11-A 39,961i 38,28Zi 96%i 1,151i General Sessions Court ...... L N/A Municipal Court ...... L N/A TEXAS: District Court ...... G 2-A 108,796 104,480 96% 965 County-Level Courts ...... L 2-8 384,435 383,2191 3,411 Municipal Court ...... L 1 -c Justice of the Peace Court ...... L 1 -c UTAH: District Court ...... G 9-A 3,937; 2.811; 71 %j 3835 Circuit Court ...... L 9-c 41,6161J 41,0931J 99xiJ 4,05211 Justice of the Peace Court ...... L 2-c VERMONT: STATE TOTAL ...... 19,7565 10.45ij 98xj 5,0661 Superior Court ...... G 2 -A 11. 5. 4 5% 3 District Court ...... G 4-E 19.7453 19.4465 98%j 5,0631 VIRGINIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 364,187:J 343,520i.J 94%iJ 8,655:J Circuit Court ...... G 1-A 66,885; 64.0894 96%; 1,589; District Court ...... L I-c 297,3021J 279.43iiJ 94vJ 7,06511 83 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Filed Criminal as a (disposed State and court name Juris- unit of percent per 100,OOc) diction count Filed Disposed of filed population WASIiINGTON: STATE TOTAL ...... 1 84,8391’ 5,7941 Superior Court ...... G 7-A 16,395 14,594 89% 51 4 District Court ...... L 3-C 101.181~ 3,17zi Municipal Court ...... L 3-C 67,263’ 2,1091 WEST VIRGINIA: Circuit Court ...... G 9-A 6,911J 6,105j 88XJ 4865 Magistrate Court ...... L 9-C 123,753’ 113,195’ Y1%‘ 8,7091 Municipal Court ...... L 1 -c WISCONSIN: Circuit Court ...... G 4-E Municipal Court ...... L 1 -c WYOMING: District Court ...... G 9-A 1,462i 1,4321’ 98Xi 41 7i Justice of the Peace Court ...... L 9-8 Municipal Court ...... L 1 -c County Court ...... L 9-A 7,522 2,143 Note: Mississippi is not included in this table Point at which case is cbunted: because it did not report any criminal A. At the filing of the information or data in 1984. and did not respond to indictment questions in-the Trial Court Jurisdiction 6. At the filing of the information or Guide for Statistical Reportiny; com p 1a in t therefore, criminal .jurisdiction C. At the filin of the complaint (warrant or information is unavailable. All other accusation4 state courts with criminal jurisdiction D. At the assigning of a docket number are listed in this table, regardless of E. At the arraignment (first appearance) whether data are available. All data that are at least 90% complete are entered in ioata are incomplete: the table. Blank spaces indicate that Alaska--Superior Court--Total criminal data either the data are unavailable or less do not include criminal appeals. than 90% complete, or that the. Alaska--District Court--Total criminal data talculations are inappropriat:. The do not include limited felonies. filed per 100,000 population STATE TOTAL Arizona--Justices of the Peace--Total figure may not equal the sum of the criminal data do not include limited individual state courts due to rounding. felonies. Arkansas--Municipal Court--The following N/A = Information is unavailable. courts did not report or reported -- - Not applicable. partially : Alma, Crawfordsvi 1 le, Farmington, Humnoke, Mountainburg, Ash Criminal case unit of count codes: Flat, Bryant, Clinton, Crossett, Dermott, Contents of case (number of defendants/number of De Valls Bluff, Endora, Fordyce. Lake charges) - Point at which case is counted Village, Lake City, Mammoth Spring, Contents of case: Marshall, Osceola, Siloam Springs, 1. Single defendanthingle charge Magnolia, Russellville, and Star City. 2. Single defendant/single incident Total criminal data do not include 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum number limited felony data for six months. of charges) --City Court--There were no reports or only 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents 6 months of data reported from the cities 5. Single defendantharies with prosecutor of Alma, Crawfordsville, Farmington, 6. One or more defendants/single charge Humnoke, and Mountainsburg. 7. One or more defendants/single incident California--Justice Court and Municipal 8. One or more defendants/single incident (maximum Court--Total Criminal data do not include number of charges) DWI/DUI cases. 9. One or more defendants/one or more incidents Colorado--County Court--Total criminal data 10. One or more defendants/varies with prosecutor do not include DWI/DUI cases. 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with prosecutor 84 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. (continued) Connecticut--Superior Court--Total criminal Virginia--District Court--Total criminal data data do not include DWI/DUI cases. do not include limited felonies and cases Del aware--Court of Common Pleas--Total filed in Juvenile and Domestic Relations criminal data do not include all limited Court involving adult offenses against felonies. juveniles. --Justice of the Peace Court--Total Washington--District Court--One court did not criminal data do not include most report any data during 1984, and one DWI/DUI cases. other did not submit all reports. Total Florida--Circuit Court--Criminal disposition criminal data do not include limited data do not include reopened cases. felonies. Georgia--Superior Court--Criminal data do not --Municipal Court--Two courts did not include DWI/DUI cases. report data for 1984. --State Court--Criminal data do not include West Virginia--Magistrate Court--Total limited felony and some DWI/DUI cases. criminal data do not include limited Hawaii--Circuit Court--Total criminal data do felony cases. not include reopened prior cases. Wyoming--District Court--Total criminal data --District Court--Total criminal data do do not include criminal appeals. not include some misdemeanor cases included with ordinance violations. JExplanation of data included in the category: Idaho--District Court--Total criminal data do Alabama--District Court--Total criminal data not include all limited felonies. include preliminary hearings. Indiana--County Court--Total criminal data do Alaska--District Lourt--Total criminal data not include miscellaneous criminal include ordinance violations and cases. misdemeanor traffic cases. --Municipal Court of Marion County--Total Arkansas--Municipal Court--Total criminal criminal data do not include data include ordinance violation cases. miscellaneous criminal cases. --City Court--Total criminal data include --City Court and Town Court--There were ordinance violation cases. 1,068 filings and 637 dispositions that Cal ifornia--Justice Court and Municipal were not identified by case categories. Court--Total criminal data include Kentucky--District Court--Total criminal data preliminary hearings bound over, other do not include limited felonies. transfers, and some ordinance violations. Louisiana--City Court and Paush Court--Total Col orado--Di strict Court --To tal c rimi na 1 data criminal data do not include DWI/DUI include extraditions, revocations, parole, cases. and release from commitment hearings. Maine--Superior Court--Total criminal data do Connecti cut--Superi or Court--Total criminal not include DWI/DUI cases and some data include ordinance violations. criminal appeals. Delaware--Superior Court--Total criminal data Massachusetts--Trial Court of the include postconviction remedy Commonweal th--Total criminal data do not proceedings. include all DWI/DUI filings. --Alderman's Court--Total criminal data Michigan--Circui t Court--No data were include ordinance violations. available for Hillsdale, Osceola, Kalkaska, Georgia--Superior Court--Total criminal data and Delta counties. include ordinance violations. Minnesota--District Court--Total criminal Guam--Superior Court--Total criminal data data do not include criminal appeals. include traffic and ordinance violation Nebraska--County Court--Total criminal data cases. do not include limited felonies. Idaho--District Court--Total criminal data New York--Supreme Court and County include ordinance violations. Court--Total criminal data do not include I nd ian a - -County C o u r t - -Tot a 1 c r im in a 1 d a t a criminal appeals filed in the County include ordinance violations. Court. --Municipal Court of Marion County--Total Oregon--Circui t Court--Total criminal data do criminal data include ordinance not include criminal appeals. violations. --District Court--Total criminal data do Kentucky--Circuit Court--Total criminal data not include limited felonies. include postconviction remedy and Pennsylvania--Court of Common P1 eas--Total sentence review only proceedings. criminal data do not include criminal --District Court--Total criminal data appeal s. include ordinance violations and South Carol ina--Circuit Court--Total criminal sentence review only proceedings. data do not include criminal appeals. Maine--Superior Court--Total criminal data --Municipal Court--Total criminal data do include ordinance violations, not include limited felonies. postconviction remedy and sentence review Tennessee--Circuit Court--Total criminal data only proceedings. do not include DWI/DUI cases. Massachusetts--Trial Court of the Texas--County Level Courts--Total criminal Commonweal th--Total criminal data include disposition data do not include traffic ordinance violations from the District appeals. Court Department. Utah--Circuit Court--Total criminal data do Minnesota--County Courts--Total criminal data not include all miscellaneous criminal include ordinance violations. cases. 85 TABLE 11: Reported total state trial court criminal caseload, 1984. (continued) Missouri--Circuit Court--Total criminal data Oregon--District Court--Total criminal data include those ordinance violation cases include ordinance violations. that request jury trials. Pennsylvania--District Justice Court--Total Nebraska--District Court--Total criminal data criminal data include ordinance include civil appeals and violations. postconviction remedy proceedings. Rhode Is1and--District Court--Total criminal --County Court--Total criminal data include data include prelfmfnary hearings, movlng ordinance violations. traffic cases and ordinance violations. New Jersey--Municipal Court--Total criminal Utah--Uistrict Court--Total criminal data data include ordinance violations include postconviction remedy and North Carolina--District Court--Total sentence review only proceedings. criminal data include ordinance --Circuit Court--Total criminal data viol ations. include postconviction remedy North Dakota--Total criminal data include proceedings. sentence review only and postconviction Vermont--District Court--Total criminal data remedy proceedings. include ordinance violations. Ohio--Municipal Court and County Court--Total Virginia--Circuit Court and District criminal data include ordinance Court--Total criminal data include violations. ordinance violations. Oklahoma--District Court--Total criminal data West Virginia--Ci rcuit Court--Total criminal include ordinance violations. data include postconvictin remedy proceedings and extraordinary writs. 86 TABLE 12: Reported total state trial court trafficlother violation caseload, 1984. Disposed Fi1 ea as a (disposed) State and court name Juris- percent per 100.000 diction Parking Filed Uisposed of filed population ALABAMA: District Court ...... L N PA 21 4,3861’ 210,8311’ 98%i 5,3731’ Municipal Court ...... L N/A ALASKA: District Court ...... L CP ARIZONA: Justice of the Peace Court ...... L N/A City Magistrate Court ...... L N /A ARKANSAS: Municipal Court ...... L NH City Court ...... L NH CALIFORNIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 15,868,09513 14,243,549 iJ 90%iJ 61,9321:J Justice Court ...... L P 660,1931 J 575,197:; 87x14 2,5771J Municipal Court ...... L P 15,207,902’3 13,668,354’5 90%1J 59,35513 COLORADO: County Court ...... L NH 168,6725 162,727j 96xJ 5,3U73 Municipal Court ...... L NH ~~~ ___ ~~ CONNECT1 CUT : Superior Court ...... G CP DELAWARE : Family Court ...... L NH 493 508 103% 80 Municipal Court of Wilmington ... L P Alderman’s Court ...... L P 22,0091 21,354i 97%: 3,590i Justice of the Peace Court ...... L NH 121 ,7613 121,1215 99x5 19.8633 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: STATE TOTAL. 20,7273 19,8583 96g 3,327J Superior Court ...... G NH 20,7273 19,8583 96%3 3,3275 FLORIDA: STATE TOTAL ...... 2.938.0993 2,759,9634 94%J 26,768J County Court ...... L NH 2,938,0995 2,759,9635 94x3 26,7685 GEORGIA: Superior Court ...... G NH State Court ...... L NH 245,3433 226,901 3 9zxj 4,2033 Probate Court ...... L NH 173,31 zij 171,4185 2,9691J Juvenile Court ...... L NH 1,12b 1.098 98% 19 Magistrate’s Court ...... L NH County Recorder’s Court ...... L N/A Municipal Court and the City Court of Atlanta ...... L N/A GUAM: STATE TOTAL ...... 24,8971 24,2681 97%: 23,711 I Superior Court ...... G N /A 24,8971 24,2681 97%’ 23,711’ HAWAII: STATE TOTAL ...... 871,596fJ 832,76013’ 96x13’ 83,8881 j Circuit Court ...... G NH 116: 1411 122%? 1 1 1. District Court ...... L P 871,4803 832,6195 96%J 83.8773 87 TABLE 12: Reported total state trial court traffic/other violation caseload, 1984. (continued) UisDosed Fi 1 ed ai a (disposed) State and court name Juris- percent per ioo,ooo diction Parking Filed Uisposed of filed population IDAHO: District Court ...... G CP ~~~ ~~ ILLINOIS: Circuit Court ...... G P INDIANA: Superior Court and Circuit Court ...... G N/A 88,396. 85,848. 97% 1,608 County Court ...... L P 201,977’ 193.436’ 96Xi 3.674i Municipal Court of Marion County ...... L P City Court and Town Court ...... L P 118,750i 112,l ooi 94x1 2,160i IOWA: STATE TOTAL ...... 650,3355: (22,348 )J District Court ...... G P 650,3353 (22,348)J ~~ KANSAS: District Court ...... G NH 245,382j 242,706i 99%i 1O,06!ii Municipal Court ...... L N/A KENTUCKY: District Court ...... L CP LOU I S IANA : City Court and Parish Court ..... Justice of the Peace Court ...... Mayor’s Court ...... MAINE: Superior Court ...... G NH District Court ...... L P 136,6935 11,8253 MARYLAND: STATE TOTAL ...... 693,57014 693.570iJ lOO%!J 1 5,948fj District Court ...... L NH 693.570’3 693,57015 1OOX’J 15,9481.1 MASSACHUSETTS: STATE TOTAL ...... 1,100,7491:J Trial Court of the Commonwealth . G NPA 1,100,7491J MICH IGAN: District Court ...... L N/A 1,766.344iJ 1,762,964iJ looxij 19,464ij Probate Court ...... L NH Municipal Court ...... L NH MINNESOTA: STATE TOTAL ...... 1,529,9261 1 ,699,078i lll%j 36, 75g1 County Courts ...... L P 1 ,529,926’ 1 ,699,07ai lll%i 36 ,7591 MISSOURI: Circuit Court ...... G P MONTAN A : Justice of the Peace Court ...... L P City Court ...... L P 88 TABLE 12: Reported total state trial court traffic/other violation caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Filed as a (disposed) State and court name Juris- percent per 100,000 diction Parking Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population NEBRASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 320,855:j 19,979:J County Court ...... L CP 185,128’ 177,8991 96%i 11,527’ Municipal Court ...... L NPA 135,7273 8,4513 NEVADA: Justice Court ...... L P Municipal Court ...... L P NEW HAMPSHIRE: STATE TOTAL ...... 206,286 21 ,114 District Court ...... L CP 199,850 20,455 Municipal Court ...... L CP 6,436 659 NEW JERSEY: STATE TOTAL ...... 4,732,1941: 3,807,2431 80%: 62,9701 Municipal Court ...... L P 4,732,1941 3,807,2431 80%’ 62,9701 NEW MEXICO: Magistrate Court ...... L NH 36,671 2,575 Municipal Court ...... L N/A Bernal illo County Metropol itan Court ...... L P 200,847i 169,602i 84%i 14,104j NEW YORK : Criminal Court of the City of New York ...... L P District Court and City Court ... L P Town and Village Justice Court .. L N/A NORTH CAROLINA: District Court ...... L CP NORTH DAKOTA: District Court ...... G N/A 502 73 County Court ...... L NPA 60,899 60,899 100% 8,877 Municipal Court ...... L NH OHIO: Municipal Court ...... L P 1,273,9121: 1,264,175I 9YXi 11.8481 County Court ...... L NH 166,364’ 164,730’ 99%’ 1,547’ Mayor’s Court ...... L N/A OKLAHOMA: District Court ...... G NH 200,891 196,107i 98%i 6,091i Municipal Criminal Court of Record ...... L N/A Municipal Court Not of Record ... L N/A OREGON: District Court ...... L NH Justice Court ...... L NPA 85,568 81.81 1 9 6% 3,200 Municipal Court ...... L CP PENNSYLVANIA: District Justice Court ...... L P 1,441.1 571 1.291.1 63i 90%i 12,110i Philadelphia Municipal Court .... L NH Philadelphia Traffic Court ...... L N/A 910,610 375,304 41 % 7,652 Pittsburgh City Magistrate Court ...... L N /A 367,242i 3,08tii 89 TABLE 12: Reported total state trial court traffic/other violation caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Filed as a (disposed) State and court name Juris- percent per 100,000 diction Parking Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population PUERTO RICO: District Court ...... L NH Municipal Court ...... L P RHODE ISLAND: Municipal Court ...... L N/A District Court ...... L NH SOUTH CAROLINA: Family Court ...... L NH Magistrate Court ...... L N /A Municipal Court ...... L P 271,711 8,234 SOUTH DAKOTA: STATE TOTAL ...... 131 ,9964 127,8825 97%J 18,6964 Circuit Court ...... G CP 131,9963 127,8825 97%J 18,6963 TENNESSEE: Circuit Court and Criminal Court ...... General Sessions Court ...... Municipal Court ...... TEXAS: County-Level Courts ...... L NH 77,673 71 ,803i 48b Municipal Court ...... L P Justice of the Peace Court ...... L P UTAH: Circuit Court ...... L P 592,351 j 568,6735 96x5 35,8575 Justice of the Peace Court ...... L P Juvenile Court ...... L NH 8,797 533 VERMONT: STATE TOTAL ...... 102,842! 1O2,37gi lOOXi 1 9,404i District Court ...... G NH 102,842’ 1O2,37gi lOOXi 19,404i VIRGINIA: Circuit Court ...... G NH District Court ...... L P WASHINGTON: STATE TOTAL ...... 1 .496,145i 34,402i Oistrict Court ...... L NH 482,9631 11,105i Municipal Court ...... L N/A 1 .013,182i 23,297i WEST VIRGINIA: Magi strate Court ...... L NH 102,926 110,331 107% 5,273 Municipal Court ...... L N /A WISCONSIN: Circuit Court ...... G CP 132,6863 i32.79iJ looxj 2,7865 Municipal Court ...... L P W Y OM1 NG : Justice of the Peace Court ...... L P County Court ...... L P 74,956 14.b68 Municipal Court ...... L P 90 TABLE 12: Reported total state trial court traffic/other violation caseload, 1984. (continued) Note: Mississippi is not included in this table New Mexico--Bernal illo County Metropol itan because it did not report any Court--Total traffidother violation data traffidother violation data in 1984, do not include ordinance violations. and did not respond to questioris in the Oh 1o- -Mun ic ipal Cou rt and County Court --lo td1 Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for traffic/other violation data do riot include Statistical Report ordinance violations. information on tra Oklahoma--District Court--Total traffic/ottier information is unavailable. All other violation data do not include ordinance state courts with traffidother violations . violation information are listed in this Pennsylvania--District Court and Pittsburgh table, regardless of whether complete data City Magistrates Court--Total traf f ic/other are available. All data that are at least violation data do not include all 90% complete are entered in the table. ordinance violations. Blank spaces indicate that either the data Vermont--District Court--Total traffic/other are unavailable or less than 90% c,omplete, violation data do not include ordinance or that the calculations are violations. inappropriate. The "filed per 100,000 Washington--District Court--One court did not population" STATE TOTAL figure may not report any 1984 data and one court did equal the sum of the individual state not submit all the reports. courts due to rounding. --Municipal Court--Two courts did not report 1 984 data. P = Reported data include contested and uncontested parking cases. JExplanation of data included in the category: CP = Reported data include contested, but not Cal ifortiia--Justice Court and Municipal uncontested parking cases. Court--Total traff ic/other viol ati on data NH = Court does not handle parking cases. include DWI/DUI cases. NPA = The court handles parking cases but the Col orado--Di s t ric t Court --To ta1 t raf f ic/o ther data are unavailable. violation data include DWI/DUI cases. N/A = The data are not available. Connecticut--Justice of the Peace Court--Total traffic/other violation data {Data are incomplete: include DWI/DUI cases. Cal iforna--Justice Court and Municipal District of Columbia--Superior Court--Total Court--Total traffic/other violation data traffic/other violation data include do not include all ordinance violations. DWI/DUI cases. Connecti cut--A1 derman ' s Court--Total Florida--County Court--Total traffic/other traffic/other violation data do not include violation data include DWI/DUI cases. ordinance violations. Georgia--State Court and Probate Court--Total Georgia--Probate Court--One court did not traffic/other violation data include report total filing data. DWI/DUI cases. Guam--Superior Court--Total traffic/other Hawaii --Di strict Court--Total traffidother violation data do not include all violation data include some misdemeanor ordinance violations. cases. Hawaii --Circuit Court--Total traffic/other Iowa--District Court--Total traffidother violation data do not include reopened violation data: include some misdemeanor prior cases. cases. Indiana--County Court--Total traffidother Louisiana--City Court and Parish Court--Total violation data do not include ordinance traff ic/other violation data incl ude violations. DWI/DUI cases. --City Court and Town Court--There were Maine--District Court--Totdl traffic/other 1,068 filings and 637 dispositions for violation data inlclude DWI/DUI cases. this court which could not be identified Mary 1 and - -0 Is t r ic t Lou rt- - To t a 1 t r a f t ic/o t he r by specific case category. violation data include DWI/DUI cases. Kansas--District Court--Total traffic/other Massachusetts--Trial Court of the violation data do not include juvenile Commonweal th--Traffi c/other viol ation data traffic cases. include DWI/DUI cases. Mary 1 and - -0i s t r ic t Cou r t - -Tot a 1 t raf f ic /other Michigan--District Court--Total traffic/other violation data do not include ordinance violation data include OWI/OUI cases. violations. Nebraska--Municipal Court--Total Massachusetts--Trial Court of the traffidother viol a tion data include Commonweal th--Total traffic/other violation misdemeanor and DWI/DUI cases. data do not include ordinance violations South Dakota--Ci rcuit Court--Total and all moving traffic cases. traffic/other violation data include Michi gan--Di strict Court--Di strict courts in misdemeanor and criminal appeal cases. the cities of Dearborn, Lincoln Park, Texas--County-level Courts--Total Romulus, and East Lansing did not report. traffic/other violation disposition data Minnesota--County Courts--Total traffic/other include traffic appeal S. violation data do not include ordinance Utah--Ci rcuit Court--Total traffidother violations. violation data include miscellaneous Nebraska--County Court--Total traffic/other criminal cases. violation data do not include ordinance Wisconsin--Circuit Court--Total traffic/other violations. violation data include some DWI/DUI cases. New Jersey--Municipal Court--Total traffic/other violation data do not include ordinance violations. 91 TABLE 13: Reported total state trial court juvenile caseload, 1984. Disposed Filed as a (disposed) State and court name percent per 100,000 Jurisdiction Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population Juvenile cases are counted at the filing of the petition in the following courts: ALABAMA: STATE TOTAL ...... 46.943 46,200 98% 4,229 Circuit Court ...... G 18,157 18,977 105% 1,636 District Court ...... L 28,786 27,223 95% 2,543 ALASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 2,058 1.333 65% 1,270 Superior Court ...... G 1,984 1,258 63% 1,225 District Court ...... L 74 75 101% 46 ARIZONA: Superior Court ...... G 10,855 7,840 72% 1,267 CALIFORNIA: Superior Court ...... G 73,691 60,550 82% 1,106 COLORADO: STATE TOTAL ...... 11,845 11,923 101% 1,384 District Court, Denver Superior Court, Denver Juvenile Court, and Denver Probate Court ...... G 11,845 11,923 101% 1,384 DELAWARE : Family Court ...... L FLORIDA: Circuit Court ...... G 76,200 3,035 IDAHO: Oistrict Court ...... G 5,667 5,757 102% 1,760 ILLINOIS: Circuit Court ...... G 28,099 27,308 97% 909 INDIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... 30,3475 27,9855 92%J Z,008? Superior Court and Circuit Court ... G 28,6143 26.4983 93%J 1,8943 Probate Court ...... L 1,733 1,487 86% 115 IOWA: District Court ...... G 6,061 773 KANSAS: District Court ...... G 9,876 8,195 83% 1,515 KENTUCKY: District Court ...... L 37,7873 33,8353 9O%j 3,664 92 TABLE 13: Reported total state trial court juvenile caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed Filed as a (disposed) State and court name percent per 100,000 Jurisdiction Fi1 ed Ui sposed of filed population LOUISIANA: STATE TOTAL ...... 52.83d 3,899j District Court ...... G 13,363 986 Family Court and Juvenile Court .... L 28,421.1 2,097J City Court and Parish Court ...... L 11,051 8,540 77% 81 6 MAINE: District Court ...... L 3,065 2,920 95% 1,002 MARYLAND: STATE TOTAL ...... 30,595 27,080 89% 2,820 Circuit Court ...... ti 26,470 23,362 88% 2,440 District Court ...... L 4,125 3,718 90% 380 MICHIGAN: Probate Court ...... L MINNESOTA: STATE TOTAL ...... 28,938 41,385 143% 2,575 County Courts and District Court ... G/L 28,938 41,385 143% 2,575 MISSOURI: Circuit Court ...... G 19,720j 19,301j 98zj 1,501J MONTANA : District Court ...... G 1,139 838 74% 483 NEBRASKA: STATE TOTAL ...... 5 ,249 1,185 County Court ...... L 3.031 2,218 9 7% 684 Separate Juvenile Court ...... L 2,218 501 NEVADA : District Court ...... G NEW HAMPSHIRE: District Court ...... L 6,750 2,679 NEV MEXICO: District Court ...... G 6,372 6,658 104% 1,461 NEW YORK : Family Court ...... L 38,069 36,330 95% 86 7 NORTH CAROLINA: District Court ...... L 18.682 21,077 113% 1,167 NORTH DAKOTA: District Court ...... G 1,327 1,327 100% 670 OREGON: STATE TOTAL ...... 13,5021 1 ,9041 Circuit Court ...... G 13,4781 1,901 i County Court ...... L 24 3 TABLE 13: Reported total state trial court juvenile caseload, 1984. (continued) 01 sposed tiled t' as a (disposed) State and court name percent per 100.000 Jurisdiction Fi1 ed Disposed of filed popul a tion SOUTH CAROLINA: Family Court ...... L io,48~J 10.0033 95x3 i,i3iJ Magistrate Court ...... L SOUTH DAKOTA: Circuit Court ...... G 1,891 91 8 TEXAS: District Court ...... G County-Level Court ...... L ~~ ~~~ UTAH: Juvenile Court ...... L 34,132 5,461 VERMONT: District Court ...... G 1,625 1,495 92% 1,161 VIRGINIA: District Court ...... L 128,7623' 115,2353 89%3 9,0173 WASHINGTON: Superior Court ...... G 20,931 18,218 87% 1,806 WEST VIRGINIA: Circuit Court ...... G 7 ,301 6,533 8 9% 1,375 WISCONSIN: Circuit Court ...... G 30,235 29,833 9 9% 2,366 ~ ~ ~~ WYOMING: District Court ...... G Juvenile cases are counted at intake or referral in the following courts: ARKANSAS : County Court ...... L 6,803 6,292 92% 1,043 CONNECTICUT: Superior Court ...... G 11,857 11,882 100% 1,587 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Superior Court ...... G 11,484 11,424 9 9% 8,507 GEORGIA: STATE TOTAL ...... 32,985 31,725 96% 2,021 Superior Court and Juvenile Court .. G 32.985 31 ,725 96% 2,021 HAWAII: Circuit Court ...... G 10,475 10.801 103% 3,650 94 TABLE 13: Reported total state trial court juvenile caseload, 1984. (continued) Disposed ____ Fired--- as a (disposed 1 State and court name percent per 100,000 Jurisdiction Filed Disposed of filed population MASSACHUSETTS: Trial Court of the Comnonweal th .... G 32,405 2,374 NEW JERSEY: Superior Court ...... L ioz.849J 105,684J i03xJ 5,547J OHIO: Court of Common Pleas ...... G 99,524 99,024 99% 3,457 PENNSYLVANIA: Court of Common Pleas ...... G 52,196 51,606 99% 1,794 PUERTO RICO: Superior Court ...... G 4,714 4,914 104% RHODE ISLAND: Family Court ...... L 5,891 2,607 TENNESSEE: General Sessions Court ...... L Juvenile Court ...... L Juvenile cases are counted at different points in the process, or the point is unknown in the following courts: GUAM: Superior Court ...... G MISSISSIPPI : Chancery Court ...... G County Court ...... L Family Court ...... L OKLAHOMA: District Court ...... G Note: All state courts with juvenile jurisdiction Kentucky Superior Court--Total juveni 1e are listed in this table, regardless of casel oad includes paternity/bastardy whether data are available. All data that cases. are at least 90% complete are entered in Louisiana Family Court and Juvenile this table. Blank spaces indicate that Court--Total juvenile data include either the data are unavailable or less domestic relations and mental health than 90% complete, or that the cases. $alculations are inappropriatt. The Missouri Circuit ,Court--Total juvenile filed per 100,000 population STATE TOTAL figures include adoption and termination figure may not equal the sum of the of parental rights cases. individual state courts due to rounding. New Jersey Superior Court--Total juvenile figures include adoptions, some 1 Data are incomplete: miscellaneous domestic relations cases Oregon Circuit Court--Juvenile data does (termination of parental rights) and not include petitions filed in Marion paternity cases without monetary awards. County. South Carolina Family Court--Total juvenile data include traffic/other violation jExplanation of data included in the category: cases. Guam Superior Court--Total juvenile data Virginia District Court--Total juvenile include miscellaneous domestic relatlons caseload includes juvenile traffic and cases and estate cases involving support/custody cases. juveni 1es. Indiana Superior Court--Total juvenile casel oad includes paternlty/bastardy cases. 95 ,. FIGURE D: Dollar amount jurisdiction for original tort, contract, real property rights, and small claims filings in state trial courts, 1984. Figure 0 lists all of the state courts that constructed to indicate which courts must be handle tort, contract, real property rights and included in each state if valid comparisons are small claims cases, and the dollar amount to be made. jurisdiction of each court in the various case This figure also reveals that there is little types. Only when the courts are listed in this uniformity in what states are calling small way does the wide variation in dollar amounts in claims cases. Four states and Puerto Rico have civil cases become apparent. The comparability no small claims procedure. Some states permit of caseloads among individual courts requires, of jury trials in small claims cases; some do not course, that courts being compared handle cases permit lawyers; informal summary procedures with similar dollar ranges. predominate but are not universal. Most states have one court in which there is In Table 14, tort, contract, real property no maximum dollar amount that can be sought, one rights, small claims. and unclassified civil or more courts in which the dollar amount is caseloads are displayed without regard to the limited, and one or more courts that hear smal dollar amount jurisdiction of the courts claims cases. Comparisons among states can on Y involved. Any attempt to make comparisons among be valid when they are based on aggregate courts should take into account the dollar amount caseload of all the courts in each state hand1 ng jurisdiction of the specific courts. these kinds of cases. This figure has been 96 FIGURE D: Dollar amount jurisdiction for original tort, contract, real roperty rights, and small claims filings in state trial courts, 198d: Unl imited dol 1ar Limited dol 1 ar General / amount amount Small claims 1 imited TORTS, CONTRACTS, TORTS, CONTRACTS Maximum Summary Lawyers juris- REAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY dollar Jury proce- per- Name of court diction Mfnimum/maximum Minimum/maximum amount trials dures mitted ALABAMA: Circuit Court G $1,00O/No maximum ------District Court L -- $1,000/ $5,000 $1,000 No Yes Optional ALASKA: Superior Court G 0 /No maximum ------District Court L -- 0 /$10,000 $2,000 No Yes No $1 5,000 auto tort ARIZONA: Superior Court G $500/No maximum ------Justices of the Peace Court L -- 0 / $2,500 $500 No Yes No ARKANSAS : Circuit Court G $1 OO/No maximum ------Court of Common Pleas L -- 5500/ $1,000 ------(contract only Municipal Court L -- 0 / $300 $300 No Yes No (contract and real property 1 City Court, Pol ice Court L -- 0 / $300 ------(contract and real property 1 CALIFORNIA: Superior Court G $1 5,00O/No maximum ------Justice Court L -- 0 /$15,000 $1,500 No Yes No Municipal Court L -- 0 /$lS,OOO $1,500 No Yes No COLORADO: District Court G 0 /No maximum _------Water Court G 0 /No maximum ------(only real property) County Court L -- 0 / $5,000 $1,000 No Yes No CONNECTICUT: Superior Court G 0 /No maximum -- $1,000 No Yes Yes DELAWARE: Court of Chancery G 0 /No maximum ------Superior Court G 0 /No maximum -- -- -_ -- -- Court of Common Pleas L -- 0 /$15,000 ------Justice of the Peace Court L -- -- $2,500 No Yes Yes DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: before Nov. 1. 1984: Superior Court G $750*/No maximum -- $750 Yes Yes Yes (*except for torts, where jurisdiction below $750 is concurrent with smal 1 claims) After Nov. 1. 1984: J2,000/No ma ximum $2,000 Yes Yes Yes FLORIDA: Circuit Court G $5,00O/No maximum ------County Court L -- $1,500/$5.000 $1,500 Yes Yes Yes 97 FIGURE 0: Dollar amount jurisdiction for original tort, contract, real property rlghts, and small claims filings in state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Unl imited dollar Lt mited dollar General 1 amount amount Small claims 1 imited TORTS, CONTRACTS, TORTS, CONTRACTS Raximum Summary Lawyers juris- REAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY dollar Jury proce- per- Name of court diction Minimum/maximum Minimum/maxi mum amount trials dures mitted GEORGIA: Superior Court G 0 /No maximum -- State Court L 0 /Varies (No real property) -- Varies No Yes Yes Civil Court L -_ 0 /$3,000- 25,000 Varies No Yes Yes Magistrate Court L -- -- 52,500 Yes Yes Yes Municipal Court L -_ 0 /$1,500- $1 ,500- 7,500 7.500 Yes Yes Yes HAWAII: Circuit Court G 55,OOWNo maximum ------_ -- District Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOO $2,500 No Yes No I DAH0 : District Court G 0 /No maximum ------_ Magistrates Divtsion G -- 0 /$10,000 $2,000 No Yes No ILL INO IS : Circuit Court G 0 /No maximum -- $2,500 Yes Yes Yes I NO IANA: Superior Court and Circuit Court G 0 /No maximum -- $3,000 No Yes Yes County Court L -- 0 / $5,000 $3,000 No Yes Yes Municipal Court of Marion County L -- 0 /$15,000 (July 1, 1984) Small Claims Court of Marion County L -- -- $3,000 No Yes Yes City Court and Town Court L -- 0 /$500------2,500 (No real property) IOWA: District Court G 0 /No maximum -- $2,000 No Yes Yes KANSAS: District Court G 0 /No maximum -_ $500 No Yes No KEN TUCK Y : Circuit Court G Q2,500/No maximum ------__ Distrtct Court L -- 0 /32,50D $1,000 No Yes Yes LOUISIANA: District Court G 0 /No maximum ------City Court, Parish Court L -- 0 /$5,000 $1,500 No Yes Yes Justice of the Peace Court L -- -- $1,200 No Yes Yes MAINE: Superior Court G 0 /No maximum -- -- ..- -- -- District Court L -- 0 /$30,000 $1,400 No Yes Yes MARYLAND: Circuit Court G $2,50O/No maximum ------District Court L -- 0 /$10.000 $1,000 No Yes Yes 98 FIGURE D: Dollar amount jurisdiction for original tort, contract, real property rights, and small claims filings in state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Unlimited dollar Limited dollar General / amount amount Small claims 1imi ted TORTS, CONTRACTS, TORTS, CONTRACTS Raximum Sumnary Lawyers juris- REAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY dollar Jury proce- per- Name of court diction Minfmum/maximum Minimum/maximum amount trials dures mitted MASSACHUSETTS: Trial Court of the Comnonweal th: G Superior Court Dept. $7,50O/No maximum -- -_ ------Housing Court Dept. -- 0 / $7,500 $1,200 No Yes Yes (only real property Distrfct Court Dept. -- 0 / $7,500 $1,200 No Yes Yes Boston Municipal Court Dept. -- 0 / $7,500 $1,200 No Yes Yes MICHIGAN: Circuit Court G S10,000/No maximum -_ ------District Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOO $600 No Yes No Municipal Court L -- 0 / $1.500 $1,500 No Yes No MINNESOTA: Di s t r f c t Court G 0 /No maximum _------County Court L -_ $1,000/$15,000 $1.250 No Yes Yes County Municipal Court L -- $1.000/$15,000 $1,250 No Yes Yes Concfliatfon Court L -- -- $1,250 No Yes Yes (except 1and titles 1 MISSISSIPPI: (No data available) MISSOURI: Circuit Court G 0 /No maximum ------Associates Divis1 on -- 0 / S5.000 $1,000 No Yes No MONTANA: District Court G $50/No maximum ------Justice of the Peace Court and Municipal Court L -- 0 / $3,500 $1,500 No Yes No NEBRASKA: District Court G 0 /No maximum ------County Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOD $1,000 No Yes No $5,000 for (real property 1 Municipal Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOD $1,000 No Yes No NEVADA: Di strict Court G S1,000/No maximum ------Justice Court L -_ 0 / $1,250 $1,000 No Yes Yes Municipal Court L __ 0 / $1.250 $1,000 No Yes Yes NEW HMPSH IRE: Superior Court G $500/No maximum _------_ District Court L -_ 0 /$lO,OOO $1,500 No Yes Yes Municipal Court L -_ -- $1 ,500 No Yes Yes (only landlord-tenant, small claims 1 NEW JERSEY: Superior Court (Law Divi- sion and Chancery Division1 G 0 /No maximum ------(Law Division, Special Civil Part) L -- 0 / $5,000 $1,000 No Yes Yes 99 FIGURE 0: Dollar amount jurisdiction for original tort, contract, real property rights, and small claims filings in state trial courts, 1984.(continued) Unl imited dol lar Limited dol 1ar General / amount amount Small claims 1 imited TORTS. CONTRACTS, TORTS. CONTRACTS Maxi mum Sumnarv- Lawvers-- ~ juris- REAL-PROPERTY . REAL-PROPERTY dollar Jury proce- per- Name of court diction Minimum/maximum Minimum/maximum amount trials dures mitted NEW MEXICO: District Court G 0 /No maximum __ _- -- -- _- Magistrate Court L -- 0 1 $2,000 -_ -- -- -_ Bernalil lo County Metropol itan Court L -- 0 / S5,OOO ------ NEW YORK : Supreme Court G $6,000- -_ -- _- -_ -- $25,00O/No maximum County Court G -- 0 / $6,000- -- _- -- __ Civil Court of the City 25,000 of New York L -- 0 /$2S,OOO $1,500 Yes Yes Yes District Court and City Court L -- 0 / 92,000- S1,OOO Yes Yes Yes 6,000 Court of Claims L 0 /No maximum -- -- -_ -- -- Town Court and Village Justice Court L -- 0 / $3,000 $1,000 No Yes Yes NORTH CAROLINA: Superior Court G 910,00O/No maximum _- -- -- __ -- District Court L __ 0 /$10,000 91,000 No Yes Yes NORTH DAKOTA: District Court G S1,000/No maximum ------_ -- County Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOO S1,500 No Yes Varies OHIO: Court of Common Pleas G $500/No maximum -- -_ -- -_ _- County Court L -- 0 / S3.000 $1,000 No Yes Yes Municipal Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOO $1.000 No Yes Yes OKLAHOMA: District Court G 0 /No maximum -- $1,500 Yes Yes Yes OREGON : Circuit Court G 93,00O/No maximum -- -_ -- -_ -- District Court L _- 0 / $3,000 $1,000 No Yes No Justice Court L -- 0 / $2,500 $1,000 No Yes No PENNSYLVANIA: Court of Common Pleas G 0 /No maximum -- -- -_ -- District Justice Court L __ 0 / $4.000 -_ -- __ -- Phi 1adelphia Municipal Court L -- _- $5,000 No Yes Yes Pittsburgh City Magis- trates Court L -- 0 /No maximum -- -- _- -- (only real property 1 PUERTO RICO: Superior Court District Court RHODE ISLAND: Superior Court G S5,000/No maximum -_ -- _- -_ -- District Court G -_ $1 ,OOO/ $5,000- S1.000 No Yes Yes 10,000 100 P FIGURE D: Dollar amount jurisdictton for original tort, contract, real property rights, and small claims ftlings in state trtal courts, 1984. (continued) Unlimtted dollar Ltmited dollar General / amount amount Sniall claims 1imt ted TORTS, CONlRACTS, TORTS, CONTRACTS kaximum Summary Lawyers jurts- REAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY dollar Jury proce- per- Name of court dt ction Minimum/maximum Minimum/maximum amount trials dures mitted SOUTH CAROLINA: C1 rcut t Court G 0 /No maximum ------Magistrate Court L -_ 0 / $1.000 -- -- _- -- (no max. in 1and1 ord-tenant) SOUTH DAKOTA: Circuit Court G 0 /No maximum .- $2,000 No Yes Yes TENNESSEE: Cfrcuit Court and Crimt nal Court G $50/No maximum ------Chancery Court G $50/No maximum ------_- -- (no torts 1 General Sessions Court L -_ 0 / $5,000- $10,000 $5,000 No Yes Yes (torts TEXAS: Dt s tri ct Court G $500/No maxtmum ------County Court at Law, Constitutional County Court, Probate Court L _- $ZOO/ $1,000- $5,000 $150- Yes Yes Yes 200 Justtce of the Peace Court L -_ 0 /s 1,000 $1,000 No Yes Yes (No max. in real property 1 UTAH: District Court G 0 /No maximum ------Circuit Court L -- 0 /$lO,OOO $600 No Yes Yes Justice Court L -- 0 / $750 $COO No Yes Yes VERMONT: Superior Court Dtstrict Court VIRGINIA: Ct rcut t Court G S1,000/No maximum 0 /No maximum In condemnation Distrtct Court L -_ 0 / $7,000 ------ WASHINGTON: Superior Court G 0 /No maximum ------Dlstrtct Court L -- 0 / $7,500 $500 No Yes Yes WEST VIRGINIA: Circuit Court G $300/No maximum ------Magtstrate Court L -- 0 / $2,000 ------ WISCONSIN: Ct rcuit Court G 0 /No maximum -- $1,000 Yes No Yes WYOMING : District Court G $4,00O/No maximum ------County Court L -- 0 / S7,OOO $750 No Yes Yes Justice of the Peace Court L -- 0 / $1.000 5750 No Yes Yes -- - Data element is inapplicable. Source: 1984 State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. 101 TABLE 14: Tort, contract, real property rights, and small claims filings and dispositions for state trial courts, 1984. Variations in court organization and subject point. Those states that do not count cases at matter jurisdiction: the filing of the petition or complaint are indicated by an "*' in the table. Caseload in this table is from both general jurisdiction and 1 imited jurisdiction courts. Appropriate analyses: The same case types may be handled in different courts from state to state. Only state totals All percentage calculations that were less can be compared. To facilitate comparisons, the than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up states in these tables have been grouped into to 1%. All percentage calculations that were three categories: those states where a court has less than .5% and greater then 0% are displayed exclusive jurisdiction over a case type and where as a C1%. it submitted complete data; those states where more than one court handles a case type and each Disposed cases as percent of filed. This court submitted complete data; and those states measure represents the percent of filed cases that reported incomplete data from any one of which the court disposed. The percent is these courts with that case type jurisdiction. computed by dividing the number of cases disposed The court system charts in Part 111 should be by the number filed, and then multiplying by one consulted for a brief summary of the jurisdiction hundred. A percent over one hundred indicates of each court. that the court disposed of more cases than were filed, thus reducing pending caseload. A percent Sources of data are found in Appendix E. significantly less than one hundred indicates that the court is not keeping up with the volume Variations in case classification and definitions: of cases being filed. This figure was not computed when the filed and disposed figures were The COSCA CSIM Committee has chosen to not compa rable. classify cases according to subject-matter r$then than the remedy sought. Categories such as law Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population. The and "equity" have been reclassified according to unit of state population used on all court what was learned about case types handled in each caseload charts is 100.000. Filed per 100,000 court in the Trial Court Jurisdiction hide. population compensates for variations in state Given what was learned about dollar amount population and gives a more realistic basis for jurisdiction in the Trial Court Jurisdiction comparison of caseloads among states of various Guide (See Figure U), this table displays sizes. If the number of filings was not together all the case types in which money available but the number of dispositions was damages may be requested and all the courts that available, the number of cases disposed per unit handle those types of cases, regardless of dollar of population was entered in this column in place amount jurisdiction. Small claims are simply of the number of cases filed per population unit, torts, contracts, and real property rights cases and the use of this alternative quantity was of small dollar amounts that are handled by indicated by enclosing it in parentheses. summary procedures. States with small claims If all other factors (court jurisdiction, procedures will probably have a smaller tort, case definition, etc.) are similar, the contract, and real property rights case count fi1 ed-per-uni t-of-popul ation statistic wi11 than states without such procedures. In permit direct comparisons among states of the addition, some states report one combined figure number of filed cases. For civil cases in trial for torts, contracts, and real property rights courts, this measure will indicate, among other cases. These cases are reported on this table in things, the propensity to litigate among the the unclassified category. In most instances, citizens in a given state. the state and court totals are the comparable figures. Limitations on use: Only states reporting data that could be displayed in the specific case type are included In this table, only the STATE TOTALS can be in these tables, and then only if the data are compared in those states where more than one 90% complete. court has jurisdiction over the case type. In each case type (tort, contract, real Comparisons can be made between the data property rights, small claims, and unclassified), reported for a state where an individual court the caseload of a single-tiered trial court can has exclusive jurisdiction over the type of case only be compared to the entire state caseload in and the STATE TOTALS for states where more than states with two-tiered trial courts. one court has jurisdiction. Comparisons cannot be made for states reporting incomplete data. Variations in counting cases: Comparisons should be made only between those courts that use the same unit of count for Caseload cannot be compared among courts that counting civil cases. do not count cases at the same begintiing and end 102 -7 ' '3 '? '3 N-4 m m'Z h -0 0 Nh m-m 03- UIU OIC mmm wUN -Nm ?ah '2 m-w 0 ?.?Z k92.2 '4 0: '0.0. '4 0:"'u. - 99 m. v o no o e, m N mN mmmm dN 0 0 - 4 ~-aona 4- '-l '3 VI vu # as## '3.2 # W2'Z *#'Z xas W2 - I warw m ~+m mww -mm ON '2 m m VIVI 0- mmm msm cmm NO m .- 0 VI .r zms N- c) 0Y name- UL '3'3 .1 .r .- --J '3 '? lnWN e 3 v r( hmm -ow m mm- W0 mN wwo wmo m~hm -?mu mN U VI 4-.9 *. ". ".C'? '94'4 N. 0 -- m a m mhw mmo mu- m-m m~ 0 m 5 N- NhN N- 0 0 VI 4 ONh mNm a .r 4 +.-I u U 0 .3-7 '3 '3 .3 -wm mom -2 Nmm '30'2 m 0 w m m m - mme NNOI~OO U mN mW mum umm wom 0m '2 - '9N.m. 1vi *. 974 9'90: m-m." m - m- N .r 4 NON wmm mmm N4- WN m o N N N um W U N4 h -om mNN +- mm u0 + 4.4 .'I .r .- '7mu- -3 I u '3 '7 v COWN '5.22: -om~im I 1.3 N d 'Z .+mm m~-t IO I lU UN'? I M NU h vm 0: -.0?'4 '0. P-mu 4 m wo 9 ?".e N c .- a W wln -mm mum r. 4 N0 -4 N W 2 &VI mNm N .- .r VIO VI m -7 '1 '3 I Im 7 mW I ow0 '$2 g '2 g'S mW uv ow0 I im '2 cw m 3- 0: 0: o.?? Cm.9 9 0: .r U hW cmc, mrtN m N0 Nh U r(c mhlm W N D 0 m NSN hIh "0x"0 Ism oxsxos u U W N NZN ozo uz* zzm OZzzmz 0 uIn mm hh h m C-2 EO '4 0:0: ..I 99 0 hb m U .r (1 N0 hr. mm mm mm .-. mm hh 4 2 ? .r N uo .- c - m msm OXO In X'L XI0 oxssos U 0 v mN N 4z+ mzm mzm zzw mzzzmz +I. 0kE hr. r.h 4 d d:.r .. '4'9 L. 4 0 mN 0 A+ ww W h U d uu hh22 4 d N.-I .r .- .C .- .- xxx xxx sx hmx ox-sm x vW 0 -om Iz W m moo z Nm 0 '?TU mh *VI CN'9 -m.. w-c 00a NN U m-.4 m NN ne,WVI .-VI or n a~m .- .r .- .r .r .r xxx oxxxm x h L m mN mmw xxx XXI xx mmx -v c r.WM z z wm w zm m mw r( In N W 0- 9 SN". 9'4 N d mm m E .r Nd4 U m 4 NN .r v I mx xxx xxxs x -xx x x -x x x x 0 z r. '7z VI 0: OX - on. h4 N UVI d m .- LD e, .r .- X N xxx xm XXXSNX xxxsx x x uv0 mx OX% m W+ m ZO r.L z 0: m 'u. 7 LL.r r( N0 N m U c v - .r x WX xxx xxxxIx 01% xcx-xx N x m m zzzz NZ '7 z m Y m n0 '0. m. VI m 0 '- 0 I-0 ! .- .r "- .- x m mx xxx mmo XXISXS msx xxxxx m x u<00 m r.A VIr mom rzzz mz z hN -.- ! 9 '0.2" A Ul U m ff 4- 0 4 I cU ... E ...... L. ... I& ...... : .: : ...... L...... Y...... o w. : :c 3 ...... L.... .L...... L 0 ...... w. e. 3 .3 ..... 4: . -0.U ...... ::g:::: ., ...... 0 . .C.. m. X ...... " I- * :VI I . I...... :u : : w... . .VI. e, U -I .m. -10. 2 .a .w E .w.U - .. .a. -. . 2.. 4 .Y. .w. < 4..w .U 3 wx 3 .. ... UL 5: 3 .m -em - 2 <*. 2.. cu ... I-. V0 m. 4 *w 4.. & ::: : : OC a U0 a e.. :z .. :?nu: .z 2 I- en 3.. I-.. I-.o . . +me, E 0 r. .LY .C. L.. u Y 3. 0 I-. 0 we,uo3wWCL U w nL SO. wua .- 2. 4.8U CYLS 0 I-uuLL .. U. z WYL I-* +LO. e,LW 3. YU U3 .r w3o eW I-La w33 4LvZc)z: aau e, Z2SIS5 3c L eo a30 I-00 momI-~CULO 3uo I-0 UL I- or 0 .- I- 103 '1 'c)h -7 ' mh oah .-lh 0 W00 own Wm N.m ? m N om m~ cv VI - '2 3'384 m h-W 4J m 0-0 Ad+ 4-2 u .-I L .r 3 m '5: 0 d 0 '2.2 U 'an m N 0. .W m N 291 m LI 4 mmm Um N I?. +.-I n -7N '2'3W '? WhW '5 N. "0. mmm... h m r( a WON a Nm 4- r( mN c3 W '1am m I1II .r '3 '3 : hWCO + 4 u 0. "-9'9 C0 m o m * mmm -U '1 N 0 UA m '5.22 m h 2 '2 .-I 9",4 9 - N(u mum N 0 r( w VI UL .C 03 N mxm mxmm 0 xZ I m U ? WZW UZWW z m 9 0. 0. h 7 0. N.7 .rID 0 m mm o mh a 04 m 0 Nh L om c-' LIW m0 '3 NXN UXmm W air( h mzm OZNh Eo0 m N N m hZh UVI a- 323 0 0:o: co. N.". 9 L. 0. T? m 0m mm N ON m \DO N mm L a mm h 4W -mu a- 60 .r mC v xxx h x x ma xxxr mxx mf. hvl m .r uo 0 4-2 a N. .- WVI m UN e au .r r( 0m ma Lmor a .- a .rL xxx - V 0 x Wxx -0 N0 x-W\ow xxxz 0 -a mw m coh d 4 V w- mC 0: .r (0 m s 4 U m mm 4 m - c( mmow m e .- u xxx x x -.r xxxxz xxx xx x *- m0 ua VI UVI .-c m .- m ~a U - C U uv0 xxx X x xxxxZ xxx xx - mOX m - '0. Y.r mB 2 V V m x x xxxxZ xxx "XX x 4 VI m I.' J=m mm- 0 .r m L I- h v xxx x x .r 42 xxxzz xxx wxx mx L W 4 aal -.- hmN Y xxx ?"o'? 9 mm- h co. L m WN a ... w...... c ... r.u- ...... m ... a .a ...... en ...... L ... u-. ...- ...... * .U ...... e...... I 0: .C A...... e.. ... e...... u ... *e 4... -I.. ... L. ... u. . e.. u *a I-... u.. 2...... mU - e.. ... 3. I-.. u...... a -I...... e.. .. -I.'= . E::: 0.. I-.. ... u... U0 ... e.. -I.. 2: 4 .hC : I-.. 0.. ... U W am. I- .uo .. I-... .. *. I-:: -I.. L C - I-.. 0 .C.? w.. -1.. e. U -. . 0 z 2::: 0 -I.. u me I- .=.VI. I-.. W.. YL .- 2;: 2:: .C 4.. .- .O.r . I-.. 0.. w::. 2:: U . <.. 0.. 3 I-.. I-.L. 2 we, u> I- *u I- I- .u WL I-.. e, mu. I-uu u0 0. UL I-UL I zz .sg L mLL uu a I-uUL UL3 WLL P I5Cuk a a IC au 33 +=a ma~o I-LUWU L I-0 I-30 mu zarvs ..OL 00 eo0 2 WL~ 0U m ou I-- u3cm aux ..UU I-uu m 0 0 e30 V k.v 0 .r GZV I-I ;r$k .c ww m I-03 m L .'UU .. u - U0 - ouu ZLU LY W a mu SSU 0 Vc m3 YU ou ou I- 4bWX aW muuu d so3c ;r .: he 'S .-U m OLU3C p: .-LL .r *..- .- w z .r u .r 2 .. a .r .r 2 'E 3 I-LL L W mucoo uz 3alU z wu I- u33 m .. 3 Ual w VI 3uu +am V I - 2E z.r 0 o auI W El,"= I Z2i n m mo :nu I--ro M3.r c~ma0 ->ax Z e.-0 m mu p:ou wm3 r 2WlT.T 3 r I- mc) WY x4 g z ovu U3 ZGZ L 3 2 L 0L n Ww -u u U c) S 104 .r .r .r 0 N N um W U m m -Nv) m NW m m N N W 0: I In? N. r. 4 m N m .-I r. .r .r .r M Re *as0- Nb4 10m m m W mo m 44 .r .r .- r( 4 'o m m m mNW4 N In h 0 m VI 0: m 50: 0: h -4- m n W 0In QN VI m WO .r m n .r .r .- 'qN h InN m 0(0 m 0- U 'o 0 2 om m UhWh m 0h m m 0 9 co. 4'4 0. .. .r - 0 m m r( hln W 00NN m m h m m r. Y m 000 I V .C .r .C 0 101 lW -0 IW r( a U lm m m (Inm I im mo .r 0" 1 '9'4 co. 0: U wo Y m C .- a m m W 00 N4 0 0 4 mm +VI + U .- .C Y VIO VI .r .r .- m I m(u m c I~I10 mN mm I U WU am I IW LnN I+- 0 r-U U UT) + m Cal N. ". m. ?? 2 m4 a- '9 9 .r m m W um <\Ih m m m 44 4 LL m 4 m.-.I NN 4 VI UL .r .r - hlh m 3 v- NO? X X'L Nh S I Ir 0 xxz hTh z rm z m z " wm em-m m e. m. 0:". co. 9 P6". 4 ..- n U 00 h I. + mN - maWO NN W m mv)m h .r c .r .-I "L UD .r .- .r .r c In h W NOem W rxx XXz r-XN W Iz m zX zX U 'oo 2iE2 04 m hh 4 UVI $,E?.r 9N. W. L. 9 w In- r( NN 4 m 4 LLm mw h NN m r( m L r( +0 .r .r c x x m x m x x VI U x XhIn 0 0C m 40 m 4 hu7 0. 9 .r 00 m e, L n 0 .r alv, VI Nr( VI nu .- 4 0 n n or VI a~m .- .r .- c .r L X X x em mx 0 x X mm xhm 0 m 0 -0 : .-I mal Nh In 'o I co, al- 0 m 4 E Y.r m m m Nr( v) m c .- r x x ox xx x x m X x .r N *m c.C m mW L r( m m VI m .- I-( m .r r - h U x x W% xx m XX x x ox0 m 0 0 4 7 9 9 2 m 4 m 0 4 E m VI U c .r c x W x x m x x m-3% m ux x m +h 4 m h 0: VI 4 + m U m cm m 0 .r L .r .r -I r x x ax m xx N x x mxm axN 4 ULh m hN r( m al 9 m. a N 0 m 4 r( .-I N 0 P .e.. a e. e...... e. ... *...... C...... m..u . -m ...... U ...... r . L ...... U u-. .LU ... aL ...... LO. uo3 ...... 3 3a- e, LUO ...... 00 3v ... u...... U UL.e,. ... L.3. e,.. U ..I mL -malor ... L.. d... L W .- u 3.. x e... 0 Zg! : Uc U u~m.. s: I-... .r - U0 L U umal -I.. 2:: z... U .r 3 .- n .a u-. e,. .. W U uumc. " L ouuI- .c ue, 1 U uu w .r u L .r m3 .r 3 . 3u 3L1 U U v)cr I-LL33 ULL3 U3 =no. U .r 4 u u30 * mu. 3 U n woo UU LOU r. I-0 .r Y+ I-UU .- 0 .C 10. .r U 0U L LO u- U 0-. I-4: LU * 3- UVI uoal3 .. e,u .r 0 .. mou :sz I mW v e, .r .r .- n Zr .- .r I L U4 zuu .- -- Y m n u '- LL ZL CCLU Y %m3 I he, .. al 4.8 u u .r 7W wco - uu 3 LU I mYVI w -mc al e,al am *dVI .r 0 z c zzU - .r 3 z 3.- x..- 3 m n m 3V7 -ma LTO unr x xn I-m 0 - W mL 3 2 2 d.E r E: F z 105 .r .r -0 wmm '-7N Oh W ma u UIV OIC hU m Nm ma u WVIULO~O Wd m - .- VI w - n..- 2'0 '0. 5" .- u o no o u m N N 4 u-n oc~m 4- VI vv - I w mu- w CEt: m mVI 0.- mmm e, .r 0 VI 0 n amxZ e, U a U 4 m '3 h h U VI W 0 '4 4 . a c1 Lo VI 0 N e,m .r U n Y) --Ih .- .C www mu In m+ h In m U NY)h Y) -0 h uo h 0 h N.1". 0: WN 0 ". cF .. T". v: "0. -ID- m or( N no v) c( v) LL N-Ud ON W mu N W N m r( -0 '-7 2 VW 10110 I m m Nihl I 1100 I I.I1 I W II I IU .r VIA coh N4 ,I I IW e,C 00 '42 0' '0. 2 .- n ID- U m n LV) ID Nh h U .- .r 0, h4 4 N .- mn mVI - l4co I I1 mi I 0 uu lhh I I, 2 01 I mW cw '2ID VI 4 r( + a- ". .- W-Io In 0 m U 0 N 2 VI e,L a U I ID-x mxm NX~V)m xco IIW I 0 I WNZ -x+ t I xm hzh hzhm m zu ZIX I 0 I Iv) U VIVI mrnlowh~Y, EZZ z EO N.5 ...... -9 '4 - .- n Wv) UUNO-4 h h hhW m mu) Inn0 mmmw-w m N .r c .- -4 N L un e, W - InhI -4s- hIInN 4 Xh I TIP) V I WWZ I -I- m x I Ih e, NZN -zm10 zv) XILn z WZW In Z Z ZID m mm N e,VI 2,..- 9% . 992 0. Nh UUON-V) r. W NN~ " U Inn0 mmmw-w N 4-4 L 4" o m L0 I VI U .-0C x v) hXX *VI Wv) 00 2% U ~n .- @VI VI VI ne, .- 0n os n Lm ...... VI n.- .r -vL "XX U 2 m x mxx mw+In WX "03& V 0- c0 E .r 9 U 0h N r( mVI C -7 .r .r .- V NXX x mm x xx I x x m OID N 'g VI XI m 9 N.5 ID e,n 9 m0 my, 4 VI VVI Uv) m .r Inr( .r LD 0 U .- 'q U .C .- 0 NXX X NO x XI I uu m mu IL - '4 ?h. 0 .- U.r 0h mIn VIE 0 4 U m U x v) K VI v) '2 0 VI VI0 m U b. ...r J, e, .r m0 LO L I-0 h U e,L w 7 n U.r 0 3 ...... - ...... 6.. m ...... * WL ...... v...... e, C.. . tu.L ... -I.. L 0.. U U e, ... 4.. a .3 m .* .O ... I-.. 0 U.4.l * .U L.L .. 3 0.. u 0 u0 .. I-.. 3 .a erC - .. u 0.0 0U e, .r e, I-.. '-3 -:- U 4.. u -.VI .- I- L .r C L IJL U Y)UU .- 3-0 L Um LL v UL.? =a 8 1-2- I- 3 .C 0 *a00 I .roan U 0 nuu u uuw r I-IY) U ULU 0 U A 2.- " mC 4 d2.2 2 wwm x -LL Y)UL @ 0I wu mcw - YW warn I wmc a 03.- I- ZTW n m -I Y ow0 3 zvo I-m Y X ow 3 r mI- 106 .r -0 h N'L m uwm P-N U UIU 01c Wm m mVI a 5.: $ k92.E C0.m 9 m. 4 UL NN N m u U .- u o ao o u U W U Y-a oa) 0 m r. U VI W(1 m W a VI & U U U10 u0 U 0 M r.84 0C U v) m 01 L U rm U 13 .r m .r U m L c m e, c .- Uh 0 F: m U mU ln Z .C U u- u u .r .r u -5 9 '". u n m a .C c7 U or .u m w .C m m L u.r VI c WLU m N m U 0 L a c U- m SY mm mu W 0 .r w n U U c u wu - 03 - C .r cu a -a nL m .- .C WL - w 0 no uu- r( .r u ¶ - -0- - c .r W0 uumu c mum mrum p: 0 worn cU .C m-7 -r(w 2 VI mc E.- m .r .I. '4 W E 0 .r aI E-*?- um mMO VI0 0 CL m m P-r. U w 2s .s ~wmw .r - m NM~ uuuww u.r Emu W r( U ommm 3 L mu mu ooc m.mv) - W 0 wc 3u u ma3 U U0 e,T).ru -.r w 3 .m uw u mw.- VI m I Y m wuw - .C .r E:: wuum -om C3 I In 1 7 u a 2 U C mu- .- WFc ma u wu .C U U.r m.--c .r 0 '? u U .r m¶c uumm u-m 0C .r n m e,-.- m c u .C .C u L m U nemamu e, u.r 0 L me U .C .r ul- VI^ Y n m c :.-e,n rmI h -Lm- I mimu 1 u m .r .r umo 1 .rrnVIL U 0 r( 0 c tu -1lnl Le, IC) ~n m w 0 u -t IN U 1 L I wa Ch m cU 3- auIL N.N. 2 co. m onu 3 m a - h Y .v I LO3LZ e IW -4 .C uu m VI l¶VLL n ma LL ww w wu0 wwc .rnL 0 muLV L nu or VI m..- 3 0 U u e, 0 h..- ::E:. 5" mvuLasoLm cr a 0 zI zzSI IZ ea ea m9- 3 P .$ ss U m su 1-03I avy m~ccum uoouuC c .C a m .C 1 ~a oa m m L.rU 1 1 UUL? .- .r - w c.r 0 w w L L u.r YOum L U n L cuL U s .r e,o¶mm s 2 2 E.: .C - m 1% OLZ L Imvv u u ucLU W MZM xxzz ZMI"r. I om ,II, U u 7m ,-cow mm m .r c 4 UVI jI 9 0 .r ww m v vn Y NN L W u-0 - x m TI mmX zI .c0E our Uh m0 0.0. U n mm .r wm m m a+ .r 0 Or n a Lma .- m x .r NNX I T) z u U U - mmz J= U m c uw N.N. 4 a .r uo '0 EW -u '0 wc .r 00 s 3m m Y r.4 u ou mmu .U 0 L .c 0 L mu 7 u- m .r a m muuh U VI wo C wwmw mL -4% x x .-e,LS u .r .r 0 m 4 L CW EU .r7 .r c m L2SU kl U m-m u- 1 ov) os ws v) a uumu m mC wu m U m 0" a .r 0 m 3 00 E m .r . rcse 7 >u - U S .r n nwuzuw - muL UC e, uu 9 U u .r 7 cmocsm a e, cc .r m U -4% x X .r .r u .r u h I V0 mL .rm U 3 0 m W mo e,m z- nuhZ eU 0 7 m. mo~me, 3 u aa - F m cLO?mL mu cc .rY ma .r E " aan ux C U YU awm~o .C U- 0 wm~au W .C uc 0 LC co 0 m L -& 0 m .- )..r u w W Um w .r mu m x x u* SU .r u3 ox0) .r LW.r L m- m0 42-'32 n N. LUO c 4g n W mVIm 1 P- xcm .C ..- U m 0.- am Sm U .r w 03 umLwm n uuwm W -aum 3LU .r 3 - L I-0 mnu mv) U cm omm .r au u- U hX x x =Oh .r .- Uh e,: -w uun m L U W .r 0: ccw 0 a Y m .r I- c on W L ucm U 0 .r I a a ...... -wx- .- 0C U L vuua ...... w m ,223 ...... u f3OL - CL> cwoa m e, ...... mmm m 5.w mxvv) ... cc an u m L ... u.L. .u .LO uocu . .L w3 u ... . an L LU? 3. . -3.O +a a wwn U .. aaoo 2.. E: .V E32 z mL OLCU m u.. m3 mm- vr c l-.. u.L *w u. .Cmw VI u urnuw Lac0 .r W 0.. .r . a .U UC I-.. 3. o .m m3 * U ' .. u .w w un w w kfL .E,": .r W.. .0. a -L .row L.ruu U LU LUE W Lm U I- .r L hm -nm auu u3 e,.u .w U'C hm 1 0 Q03L U U I-LL .r e sLUm wv) 3wom ma3 IVIO LUU w u 0.- w OEWO, a muvaIL w 3 m m-m c0 VU00 2W c)Lm 3% m L w am cmm . loam U0 .r 0 0 U0Un.U w 1 (C m m 3.u LLY -mZU nu +om J. 1 0 a c w.r w 0 oou WL ow mu- LW 00cmm)Lvn U I- .r .r p:u .- m u .r wc.-m.- I Lm-Uu 1 4 m L3LL -m> .C J 3.2 TU 0) m z wu z C.' I-m z.r a- c I W -am 3, -3- auU0, -- UW - I ¶ .c xoa nn n v)mn z2 OUT U 11 nm W 0 xin m v)4.2 x> I- a3 3 2z LX I* .C 107 H m rU cU m m VW .r .r H L L a a c Uh UC W 3; LW .r I QIVI W c am a VI ou wo L -a onEL VI u- m VI OOh ,n U H .r cL E mm U - am m wu vw U c LH aL m U c a .- 0 SO ccUTI U m I c VI\ m -hIU .- m U0 .r 0 - . a .r a- > U ac .r u uumu 1 u aL I U 0 2 mw YL a U -2 W W u -10 TI L c .r a vuwe 2.0 a o* cu.- 0 - W u .- 0 I cU .- z0) m - VI. .r 0 VIU VI mL L 'D W 3 -0 0 VI .rC uu Um m =TIc h U UC U 4 .r IC Y 0U Irn V UL UL. - bl 3 t 3VI t lHW U U U0 u- E UVIow ~mo0 L 0 LUm U 3 av) U mW 0 oai .r vat W 4 .r c U L mu L .r hL 0 w> 3 Uv) u- a v)I VI a .r u0 .C CIO U 3u a ev I- L v) 4 e, . #-.- a 3 Iv) .r s 'E c LVIOUL3 U0 13 - wo > .rLQI c .r V m XI 0 .r , L U UW m U m L %-0 VI c0 .r .rU VI a0 .rVI 0 TI -.r > m .r VI U VIW VI mm m H EU E a .r .r mu -.r W 7L c m u3 -u VI 7 VI - 01 4.- .- TI m In 5 .9 c .,- m U E In cu W c - e I mo VI0 -mu! z a w- W m am TIC TI3 aa m - r.C man cU > wm .- V VI .r U 3- U c .r cm c.C u> - c.r .r .-w m .r L u U W mw h 0 uv UL TI m3 c TI- W .r U a0 c .r .r g .: m .r a VI0 m am u. -4.8 7 - om '0 umn U E ?: CI L 3 c, I uulm I U UL 03- .r 3: m IU U0a U mu C uu 0U h L .r U 3L c=. ou 42L 0 c0 0r( W -n I-ro 108 TABLE 15: Domestic relations caseload for state trial courts, 1984. TABLE 16: Estate caseload for state trial courts, 1984. TABLE 17: Mental health caseload for state trial courts, 1984. TABLE 18: Civil appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Variations in court organization and subject point. Those states that do not count cases at matter jurisdiction: the filing of the petition or complaint are indicated by an "*" in each table. Caseload in these tables are from both general jurisdiction and 1 imited jurisdiction Appropriate analyses: courts. The same case types may be handled in different courts, from state to state. Only All percentage calculations that were less state totals can be compared. To facilitate than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up comparisons, the states in these tables have been to 1%. All percentage calculations that were grouped into three categories: those states greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed where a court has exclusive jurisdiction over a as4lX. case type and where it submitted complete data; those states where more than one court handles a Disposed cases as percent of filed. This case type and each court submitted complete data; measure represents ttie percent of filed cases and those states that reported incomplete data disposed by the court. The percent is computed from any one of the state courts with that case by dividing the number of cases disposed by the type jurisdiction. number filed and then multiplying by one The court system charts in Part 111 should be hundred. A percent over one hundred indicates consulted for a brief sumary of the jurisdiction that the court disposed of more cases than were of each court. filed, thus reducing pending caseload. A percent significantly less than one hundred indicates Sources of data are found in Appendix B. that the court is not keeping up with the volume of cases being filed. Variations in case classification and definitions: Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population. The The COSCA CSIS Committee has chosen to unit ot state population used on all court classify cases according to subject-matter rather caseload charts is 100,000. Filed per 100,UOO than the remedy sought. Categories such as "law" population compensates for variations in state and "equity" have been reclassified by case types population and gives a more realistic basis for handled in each court as identified in the Trial comparison of caseloads among states of various Court Jurisdiction Guide. sizes. Even with use of the Model Statistical If the number of filings was unavailable or Dictionar case definitions, the classifications was incomplete but the number of dispositions was iF+rom state to state. Domestic relations, available, the number of cases disposed per unit for example, may include all family matters in of population was entered in this column in place some states while other states report only of the number of cases filed per population unit, divorce actions as domestic relations cases. The and the use of this alternative quantity was CSIM classification scheme includes marriage indicated by enclosing it in parentheses. dissolution, support/custody, adoption, If all other factors (court jurisdiction, paternity/bastardy , and miscel 1aneous as case definition, etc. 1 are similar, the subcategories under domestic relations cases. fi1 ed-per-unit-of -popul ation statistic wi11 Some states count support and custody matters permit direct comparisons among states of the in their juvenile caseload, whereas the number of filed cases. For civil cases in trial classification used here places these matters in courts, this measure will indicate, among other domestic relations caseload. In some states things, the propensity to litigate among the supportlcustody issues are counted as separate citizens in a given state. cases, while other states treat supportlcustody issues as part of marriage dissolution cases. Limitations on use: ihese situations are described partially in the data definition" column on Table 15. Care In these case type tables, only the STATE should be taken to compare only those courts with TOTALS can be compared in those states where more similar data definitions. than one court has jurisdiction over the case The CSIM classification scheme includes type. probate/wi 11 s/intestate and guardianship/ Comparisons can be made between ttie data conservatorship/trusteeship as subcategories reported for a state where an individual court under estate cases. has exclusive jurisdiction over the type of case Incidental appellate jurisdiction is and the STATE TOTALS for states where more than indicated on Table 18 and in Figure H. one court has jurisdiction. Comparisons cannot Only states reporting data that could be be made for states reporting incomplete data. displayed in the specific case type are included Comparisons should be made only between those in these tables, and then only if the data are courts that use the same unit of count for 90% complete. Many courts do not break data down counting civil cases. beyond the broad civil, criminal, traffic, and juvenile categories. Variations in counting cases: Caseload cannot be compared among courts that do not count cases at the same beginning and end 109 TABLE 15: Domestic relations caseload for state trial courts. 1984. Filed Idis- Disposed posed) per State and court title Data as percent 100. 000 Definition Fi1 ed Disposed of filed popu1 a ti on COMPLETE STATE DATA Exclusive court jurisdiction: Alabama.. Circuit Court ...... 4 46. 359 46. 836 101% 1.162 Alaska.. Superior Court ...... 3 9. 852 1. 970 *District of Columbia.. Superior Court ...... 11. 965 10. 377 a 7% 1.921 Idaho.. District Court ...... 15. 008 15. 248 102% 1. 499 I1 1 inois.. Circui t Court ...... 135. 796 136. 667 101% 1. 180 Kansas.. District Court ...... 3 25. 196 24. 848 99% 1. 033 Massachusetts.. Trial Court of the Commonwealth . 1 53. 819 928 Minnesota .. County Courts ...... 2 40. 124 49. 874J 124d 9645 Montana.. District Court ...... 4 8. 577 7. 409 86% 1. 041 New Mexico.. District Court ...... 4 21 .512 20. 036 93% 1. 511 North Dakota.. District Court ...... 1 6. 646 6. 518 98% 969 Ohio.. Court of Common Pleas ...... 1 111. 862 111. 049 99% 1. 040 Oklahoma.. District Court ...... 3 45. 841 45. 804 100% 1. 390 Pennsylvania.. Court of Common Pleas ...... 2 121 .739 113. 578 93% 1.023 . South Carolina.. Family Court ...... 4 51 .924J 53. 827; ioaj 1. 5733 Utah.. District Court ...... 4 16. 523 12. 4811 1. 000 Wisconsin.. Circuit Court ...... 5 39. 425 41. 380 105% 827 Not exclusive court jurisdiction: Arizona.. STATE TOTAL ...... 36. 703 1. 202 Superior Court ...... 4 31. 828 32. 982 104% 1. 043 Justices of the Peace ...... N/A 3. 703 121 Municipal Court ...... N/A 1. 172 38 Arkansas .-STATE TOTAL ...... 39. 977 35. 221 88% 1. 702 Chancery and Probate Court ...... 1 35. 325 34. 190 97% 1. 504 County Court ...... N/A 4. 652 1. 031 22% 198 Colorado.. STATE TOTAL ...... 37. 830 35. 454 94% 1. 190 District Court and Denver Juvenile Court ... 1 37. 830 35. 454 94% 1. 190 Connecticut.. STATE TOTAL ...... 26. 440 a39 Superior Court ...... 4 23. 836 24. 701 104% 756 Probate Court ...... N /A 2. 604 83 Delaware.. STATE TOTAL ...... 20. 929 20. 320 97% 3. 414 Family Court ...... 2 20. 929 20. 320 97% 3. 414 Nebraska.. STATE TOTAL ...... 25. 735 25. 429 99% 1. 602 Uistrict Court ...... 4 24. 602 24. 294 99% 1. 532 County Court ...... N/A 1. 133 1. 135 100% 71 New Hampshire.. STATE TOTAL ...... 11. 941 1. 222 Superior Court ...... 4 7. 657 8.208 107% 784 Probate Court ...... N /A 1. 969 202 District Court ...... N/A 2. 315 237 New York.. STATE TOTAL ...... 389. 904 352. 242 91 % 2. 174 *Supreme Court ...... N/A 67. 789 69. 320 102% 378 Family Court ...... 1 31 9. 014 279. 710 88% 1. 779 Surrogate's Court ...... N/A 3. 101 4. 212 136% 17 Puerto Rico.. STATE TOTAL ...... 34. 667 32. 908 9 5% 1. 061 Superior Court ...... 4 31. 852 30.150 9 5% 975 District Court ...... N/A 2. 815 2. 758 98% 86 110 TABLE 15: Domestic relations caseload for state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title Uata as percent 10u.000 Definition F i1 ed L)i sposed of filed population INCOMPLETE STATE DATA California--Superior Court ...... 5 164,3521: 143,4581 87’61 641: Georgia--Superior Court ...... 4 70,874: 68,281 1 96%’ 1,214: Guam--Superior Court ...... 4 1.166’ 1,076; 92%: 1,110: Hawaii --Circuit Court ...... 3 14,291 j 1 4,42Y1J m:J 1,375:J Indiana--Superior Court and C rcu t Court ...... 3 77,3171 81 ,5101 105%’ 1,4U61 Iowa--District Court ...... 3 24,6861 24,6611 8481 Kentucky--Ci rcuit Court ...... 4 38,61ai 39,8541 103%: 1 ,037i Maine--STATE TOTAL ...... 9,2161 8,9341 97’61 79 7: SuDerior Court ...... 3 1,7051 2, 0941 123%’ 147’ District Court ...... 4 7,511 6,840 91 % 650. Maryland--Circuit Court ...... 2 57.699! 54 * 9b9i 9 5%i 1,327: Michigan--Circuit Court ...... 3 91,854’ 103,092i 11 L%i 1,012’ Missouri --Ci rcuit Court ...... 5 51 ,850i (1,035) New Jersey--Superior Court ...... 2 131 ,9881’ 133,9441’ 1 01 %i 1 ,75bi North Carolina--District Court ...... 4 59,039 957 Oregon--STATE TOTAL ...... 25, 7Oai 961 Circuit Court ...... 4 25,703 24,116 94% 961 County Court ...... N /A 5 1 Rhode Island--Family Court ...... 4 5.588” 581 South Dakota--Ci rcuit Court ...... 5 3,653i 3,507i 51 7i Tennessee--Circui t Court and Chance y Cour .... 3 52,742 ,118 Texas--District Court ...... 1 249,7141J 242,397ij 97”bJ ,56Zi Vermont--STATE TOTAL ...... 6,0571 6,66b? ,2481 Superior Court ...... 4 3.165’ 3,350’ 106Xi 597’ District Court ...... 3 2,396 2.262 94% 452 Probate~ ~~~ Court ~ ...... N/A 49bi 1 .u54 19Yi Virginia--STATE TOTAL ...... 114,934:j io3,ia71J guA1J ,USY! Circuit Court ...... 5 32, YO51 31.198: 95%: 584: District Court ...... 5 82.029’ 71 ,989’ 88%’ 1,455: Washington--STATE TOTAL ...... 49,4571’ 1,137’ Superior Court ...... 5 47,821 41 .U14i 1,100 District Court ...... N/A 1 ,067i 24i Municipal Court ...... N/A 56Yi 13i Wyoming--County Court ...... N/A 31 9 299 94% 62 Note: States omitted from this table did not 5 = Unknown or figures included with unclassified specifically report domestic relations civil. cases. State courts with this jurisdiction can be identified in the N/A = Uata are not dvailable state court system charts located in Part 111 of this Re ort. All available data iuata are incomplete: that are at f-east 90% complete are entered Cal ifornia--Superior Court--Total domestic in the table. Blank spaces indicate that relations caseload does not include some either the data are unavailable or less supportlcustody, a1 1 adoption, and all than 90% complete, or that the paternity/bastardy cases. calculations are inappropriate. States Georgia--Superior Court--Total domestic included under “incomplete state data“ may relations caseload does not include present data from only one of several adoption data. courts with this jurisdiction Guam--Superior Court--Some domestic relations cases are included with * = These courts count civil cases “at issue“ miscellaneous civil and juvenile data. rather than at the filing of the petition or Hawaii --Ci rcuit Court--Total domestic complaint. relations caseload does not include some cases reported in reopened prior case Data definition codes: c a tego ry Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit 1 = Separate figures for marriage dissolution, Court--Total domestic relations case1 odd support/custody , and URESA. does not include original support/custody 2 = Separate figures for marriage dissolution and cases, paternity/bastardy cases and support custody. adoption cases. 3 = Separate figures for marriage dissolution and low a --D istrict Court - -To ta1 domes tic URESA. relations filings do not include 4 = No subcategories in domestic relations. adoption or paternitylbastardy cases. Total domestic relations dispositions do not include adoption, paternity/bastardy, or family in need of assistance cases. 111 TABLE 15: Uomestic relations caseload for state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Kentucky--Ci rcuit Court--Total domestic Vermont--Superior Court--1otal domestic relations cascload does not include all relations caseload does not include supportlcustody caws. paternl tylbastardy cascs. Maine--Superior Court--Total domestic --Probate Court-- lotal domestlc relatlons relations data do not include filings do not include miscellaneous paternitylbastardy cases. domestic relations cases. Mary1 and--Ci rcuit Court--Total domestic Vi rginia--Ci rcuit Court--Total domestic relations caseload does not include some relations caseload does not include cases reported in unclassified civil. adoption cases, paternitylbastardy Michigan--Circuit Court--No data were cases, and some supportlcustody cases. available for Hillsdale, Osceola, Kalkaska Washington--Superior Court--Total domestic and Delta counties. relations dispositions do not include Missouri --Ci rcui t Court--Total domestic domestic violence petitions. re1ations case1 oad does not incl ude --Uistrict Court--One court did not report adoption or termination of parental any data in 1984, and one other did not rights cases. submit all reports. Hew Jersey--Superior Court--Total domestic --Municipal Court--Two courts aid not relations caseload does not include report any data during 1984. adoptions, paternitylbastardy cases that do not involve monetary awards, and JExplanation of data included in the category: termination of parental rights cases. Hawaii --Ci rcuit Court--Total domestic Oregon--Circui t Court--Total domestic relations caseload includes mental relations dispositions do not include health cases. adoption data. Minneso ta- -Coun ty Courts- -Tot a 1 domes tic Rhode Is1and--Family Court--Total domestic relations caseload includes cases from the relations data do not include District Court. paternitylbastardy cases. South Carolina--Family Court--Total domestic South Dakota--Circui t Court--Total domestic relations caseload includes miscellaneous relations filings do not include all civil cases. supportlcustody cases or Texas --Di s t ric t Court - -To tal domes tic paternitylbastardy cases. Total relations data include child-victim domestic relations dispositions do not petitions. include a1 1 supportlcustody cases, Virginia--District Court--Total domestic paternitylbastardy cases and adoption relations data include adult offenses cases. against juvenile victims. Texas--District Court--Total domestic relations caseload does not include annulments or paternitylbastardy cases. Utah--Uistrict Court--Total domestic relations dispositions do not include spouse abuse cases. 112 TABLE 16: Estate caseload for state trial courts. 1984. - Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100. 000 Filed Oisposed of filed population COMPLETE STATE DATA Exclusive court jurisdiction: Alaska.. Superior Court ...... 1. 352 270 Arizona.. Superior Court ...... 8. 672 7. 849 91 % 284 Arkansas.. Chancery and Probate Court ...... 7. 167 4. 270 60% 305 California.. Superior Court ...... 65. 711 63. 097 96% 257 Connecticut.. Probate Court ...... 43. 192 1. 369 Del aware.. Court of Chancery ...... 2. 288 2. 090 91 % 373 *District of Columbia.. Superior Court ...... 3.014 2. 499 83% 484 Florida.. Circuit Court ...... 52. 490 478 Idaho.. District Court ...... 4. 486J 4.8383’ 108%j 4483’ Iowa.. District Court ...... 24. 1YO 831 Kansas.. District Court ...... 12. os9 11. 067 92% 495 Massachusetts.. Trial Court of the Commonwealth .... 58. 618 1. 011 Missouri.. Circuit Court ...... 11. 983 11. 099 93% 239 Montana.. District Court ...... 3. 487 2. 577 7 4% 423 Nebraska.. County Court ...... , ...... 9. 155 Y. 575 105% 570 New Hampshire.. Probate Court ...... 11. 988 1. 227 Ohio.. Court of Common Pleas ...... 86. 520 81. 953 94% 805 Oklahoma.. District Court ...... 16. 7osJ 14. 991J 9 uxj 507J Pennsylvania.. Court of Common Pleas ...... 14. 068 14. 188 101% 118 South Dakota.. Circuit Court ...... 4. 818 682 Utah.. District Court ...... 2. 313 3. 526 152% 140 Washington.. Superior Court ...... 15. 528 9. 631 62% 357 Wisconsin.. Circuit Court ...... 35. 820 35. 380 99% 752 I Not exclusive court jurisdiction: Colorado.. STATE TOTAL ...... 7. 980 7. 109 8 9% 251 District Court and Oenver Probate Court ...... 7. 980 7.10Y 89% 251 Kentucky.. STATE TOTAL ...... 26. 952 26. 871 100% 724 District Court ...... 26. 893 26. 800 100% 2 Circuit Court ...... 59 71 120% 722 New York.. STATE TOTAL ...... 81 .146 64. 184 79% 452 Family Court ...... 254 298 117% 1 Surrogates’ Court ...... 80. 892 63. 886 7 9% 451 North Dakota.. STATE TOTAL ...... 3. 687 3. 239 8 8% 538 District Court ...... 72 65 90% 11 County Court ...... 3. 615 3. 174 88% 527 Oregon.. STATE TOTAL ...... 7. 683 7. 013 91 % 287 Circuit Court ...... 7. 503 6. 866 92% 281 District Court ...... 67 49 7 3% 3 County Court ...... 113 98 87% 4 113 TABLE 16: Estate caseload for state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100,000 Fi1 ed Disposed of filed populatton INCOMPLETE STATE DATA Guam--Superior Court ...... 160i 145! 91 %i 1 521 Hawaii--Circuit Court ...... 2,094i 1,21311 58Xi 2021 Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court ...... 26,981 24,281 90%' 491 . Probate Court ...... 1,043j 902J 86x4 19J Minnesota--County Courts ...... 12,0593 15,9373 132%J 2903 North Carolina--Superior Court ...... 39,4771 39,8721' 101%: 640i South Carolina--Probate Court ...... 16,5061 10,0471 6081 5001 Tennessee--Ci rcuit Court Chancery Court ...... 8,603 182 Vermont--Probate Court ...... 2,873i 2,493 470' Note: Blank spaces indicate that either the data Indiana Superior Court and Circuit Court-- are unavailable or less than 90% complete, Estate caseload does not include cases or that the calculations are inappropriate. included in "redocketed civil" category. States included under "incomplete state North Carolina Superior Court--Some estate data" may present data from only one of cases are included in the unclassified several courts with this jurisdiction. civil category. States omitted from this table did not South Carolina Probate Court--Total estate specifically report estate cases. State data do not include some guardianshtp courts with this jurisdiction can be cases. identified in the state court system Vermont Probate Court--Total estate filed charts located in Part 111 of this caseload does not include gifts to minors. Report. jExplanation of data included in the category: Idaho District Court--Estate case1 oad * = These courts count civil cases "at issue" includes mental health cases. rather than at the filing of the petition or Indiana Probate Court--Total estate figures complaint. include adoption cases. Minnesota County Courts--Estate data ioata are incomplete: include cases from District Court. Guam Superior Court--Some estate data are Okl ahoma District Court --Estate data included in the miscellaneous civil and include mental health cases. juvenile data. Hawaii Circuit Court--Some estate cases are found in the reopened prior cases. 11 4 TABLE 17: Mental health caseload for state trial courts. 1984. tiled (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100. 000 Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population COMPLETE STATE DATA Excluslve court jurisdiction: Alaska.. Superior Court ...... 678 136 Arizona.. Superior Court ...... 797 (26) Arkansas.. Chancery and Probate Court ...... 1. 773 1. 435 81 % 75 California.. Superior Court ...... 4. 745 5. 239 110% 19 *District of Columbia.. Superior Court ...... 2. 745 2. 726 9 9% 441 Florida.. Circuit Court ...... 17. 880 163 Illinois.. Circuit Court ...... 10. 418 10. 620 102% 91 Iowa.. District Court ...... 4. 219 (145) Kansas.. District Court ...... 2. 879 2. 879 100% 118 Maine.. Dis trict Court ...... 1. 054 990 94% 91 Massachusetts.. Trial Court of the Comnonwealth .... 4. 128 3. 721 90% 71 Missouri .. Circuit Court ...... 1. 2Y3 1.384 107% 26 Montana.. District Court ...... 469 431 92% 57 New Hampshire.. Probate Court ...... 190 19 New York.. Family Court ...... 167 203 122% 1 North Dakota.. County Court ...... 1. 329 1. 329 100% 94 Ohio.. Court of Common Pleas ...... 8.319 . 8. 140 98% 77 South Carolina.. Probate Court ...... 2. 0893 1. 3535 6 5XJ 63J South Dakota.. Circuit Court ...... 494 70 Utah.. District Court ...... 785 1. 023 130% 48 Washington.. Superior Court ...... 7. 900 5. 617 71 % 82 West Virginia.. Circuit Court ...... 4. 287 4. 291 100% 20 Wisconsin.. Circuit Court ...... 4. 373 4. 254 97% 92 Not exclusive court jurfsdlctlon: Colorado.. STATE TOTAL ...... 2. 784 2. 701 97% 88 District Court and Denver Probate Court ...... 2. 784 2. 701 97% 88 Connecticut.. STATE TOTAL ...... 2. 733 87 Superior Court ...... 752 71 0 94% 24 Probate Court ...... 1. 981 63 Kentucky.. STATE TOTAL ...... 5. 092 4. 194 82% 137 Circuit Court ...... 0 27 District Court ...... 5. 092 4. 167 82% 137 INCOMPLETE STATE DATA Delaware.. Superior Court ...... 496 448 90% 81 Minnesota.. County Courts ...... 1 .97oJ 3.55Dj i8oxJ 4 7J Oregon.. Circui t Court ...... 3. 934 147 Tennessee.. Circuit Court and Chancery Court ...... 1. 537 33 Vermont--District Court ...... 444 46 7 105% 84 Note: Blank spaces indicate that either the data * = This court counts its civil cases "at issue" are unavailable or less than 90% complete. rather than at the filing of the petition or or that the calculations are inappropriate . complaint . States included under "incomplete state data" may present data from only one of JExplanation of data included in the category: several courts with this jurisdiction . Minnesota County Courts.. Mental health States omitted from this table did not caseload includes data from District Court . specifically report mental health South Carolina Probate Court.. Mental health cases . State courts with this caseload includes some estate cases . jurisdiction can be identified in the state court system charts located in Part 111 of this Report. 115 ...... I...... TABLE 18: Civil appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title Appeal as percent 100,000 ty Pe Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population COMPLETE STATE TOTALS Exclusive court jurisdiction: Arizona--Superior Court ...... T 41 3 352 8 5% 14 Connecticut--Superior Court ...... A 1,064 1,075 101% 34 *District of Columbia--Superior Court ... A 173 426 246% 28 Idaho--District Court ...... A-T 500 465 93% 50 Iowa--District Court ...... T 732 71 7 98% 25 Kansas--District Court ...... A-T 341 14 North Dakota--District Court ...... A-T 330 321 9 7% 48 Vermont--Superior Court ...... A-T 41 3 441 107% 78 Washington--Superior Court ...... A-T 1,614 1,301 81 % 37 West Virginia--Circuit Court ...... A-T 3.114 160 Not exclusive court jurisdiction Ohio--Court of Common Pleas ...... A 2,956 2,789 94% 28 Court of Claims ...... A 2,770 2,420 87% 26 INCOMPLETE STATE TOTALS Exclusive court jurisdiction: Cal ifornia--Superior Court ...... A~-T 17,681 18,155 103% 69 Delaware--Superior Court ...... A-T 320i 2331 73%i 521 Hawaii --Circuit Court ...... A 1 60i 112’ 70x1 1 5i Illinois--Circuit Court ...... A 22,951i 28,620i 125%’ 1Y9i Kentucky--Circuit Court ...... A;T 1 ,246i 1,186j 95x1 331 Maine--Superior Court ...... AI-T 262. 274. 105% 23 Maryland--Circuit Court ...... AyT 3,473’ 3,348’ 96Xi 801 Massachusetts--Trial Court ...... A’-T 891 1,353. 152% 15 Michigan--Circuit Court ...... A-T 7,693i 7,779’ 101%i 85i Minnesota--Di strict Court ...... A-T. i3iJ (30 )j Montana--District Court ...... A-T! 138 17 South Dakota--Circuit Court ...... A-T’ 244 35 Utah--District Court ...... A-T 2991’ 195i 65Zi 181 Wyoming--District Court ...... A-T 13Yij 27iJ Not exclusive court jurisdiction: Col orado--Di strict Court and Denver Superior Court ...... A-T 1.109 784 71 X 35 Nebraska--Workmen’s Compensation Court . A 305 295 97% 19 Oregon--Tax Court ...... A 249 269 108% 9 Puerto Rico--Superior Court ...... A-Ti 179 172 96% 6 District Court ...... A 14 13 93% 41 Tennessee--Ci rcuit Court and Chancery Court ...... A-T 11,817 251 Texas--District Court ...... A 7, 920i 8,3891 106%i 5ui Vi rginia--Circui t Court ...... A-T 5.443 3,983 7 3% 97 116 TABLE 18: Civil appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1 984. (conti nued ) Note: Blank spaces indicate that either the data Illinois Circuit Court--Some civil appeals are unavailable or less than 90% complete, are included in the miscellaneous remedy or that the calculations are inappropriate. category . States included under "inconiplete state Kentucky Circuit Court--Total civil appeals data" may present data from only one of figures do not include any administrative several courts with this jurisdiction. appeals, except for workmen's compensation States omitted from this table did not cases. The remainder of administrative specifically report civll appeal cases. appeals are included in the "other civi 1 " States with this jurisdiction can be category. identified in the state court system Maryland Circuit Court--Some civil appeals charts located in Part I11 of this Report. are included in the unreported categories. Michigan Circuit Court--No data were *This court counts cases "at issue" rather than available for Hillsdale, Osceola, Kalkaska, at the filing of the petition or complaint. and Delta counties. Texas Uistrict Court--Civil appeals do not Appeal type code : incl ude agency appeal s other than A = The reported data represent appeal of workmen's compensation cases. These are administrative agency cases. included in other civil. Ai =The court has jurisdiction over appeal of Utah District Court--Total civil appeals do administrative agency cases, but the data not include appeals de novo from the are unavailable. Justice of the Peace court. These cases T = The reported data represent appeal of trial are categorized by case type. court Cases. Wyoming District Court--No data were reported Ti = The court has jurisdiction over appeal of from Sublette County for the first half of trlal court cases, but the data are the year. unavailable. JExplanation of data included in the category: iData are incomplete: Minnesota District Court--Civil appeal data Delaware Superior Court--Some civil appeals includes criminal appeal cases. are included in the unclassified civil Wyoming District Court--Civil appeal data category. includes crlminal appeal cases. Hawaii Circuit Court--Some civil appeals are included in the miscellaneous civil category . 117 TABLE 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. Sources of data are found in Appendix B. Appropriate analyses : Variations in court organization and subject In some situations, the number of trials were matter jurisdiction: available but the number of total dispositions were unavailable. In these instances, the number The "+" symbol under the heading "case type" of filings were used as the denominator and were indicates what case types are reported for each put in parentheses to indicate they were filings piece of trial data. An "0" symbol indicates rather than dispositions. that the reported figures do not include that All percentage calculations that were less case type. Different kinds of cases take than 1% but greater than -5% have been rounded up differing lengths of time to hear depending on to 1%. All percentage calculations that are the complexity of the issue involved: an greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed uncontested divorce case will take very little as a (1%. time, while a tort or contract case might take days. Trial dispositions should only be compared Trials as a percent of dispositions. for the same case types. General jurisdiction Dividing the number of trials conducted by the and 1 imited jurisdiction courts reporting data total number of cases disposed of for the are included in this table. appropriate case type results in the trial rate for that case type for the court. Variations in case classifications and definitions: Jury trials as a percent of dispositions. Dividing the number of jury trials conducted by Case categories and the data classified in the total number of cases disposed of for the each case category vary from state to state. The appropriate case type results in the jury trial CSIM case types focus on subject-matter rather rate for that case type for the court. than on the remedy sought. The dollar amount sought in civil lawsuits Jury trials as a percent of trials. Ofvidlng also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as the number of jury trials by the total number of is indicated in Figure D. Tort, contract, real trials conducted for that case type results in property rights, and small claims cases should the proportion of trials that are trials by jury only be compared if the dollar amount for that case type for the court. jurisdiction is similar. Limitations on use: Variations in counting both cases and trials: Comparisons on these tables must be Caseload cannot be compared among courts that restricted to the court level, and must be do not count cases in the same way. Most of the controlled for case type, unit of count, and courts on this table count the petition or trial definitions. State totals have not been complaint as a case at the time that it is computed in order to avoid ally temptation to filed. An "*" indicates those courts that count compare "apples and oranges. civil cases "at issue" rather than at the filing of the petition or complaint. Care should also be taken to compare only The definitions used by each court to count those courts that share similar rules regarding trials are indicated in a separate column. the availability of jury trials. For example, in Comparisons can only be made between courts that some states both parties to civil litigation must count trials in the same way. agree to a jury trial, while in other states one It should also be pointed out that some of the parties can demand a jury trial. states may be reporting informal hearings as trials. In the 1985 Annual Report, an effort will be made to draw greater distl'nctions between hearings and trials. 118 TABLE 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. Case type for which trial data given Jury r- . e .C Trials trials Jury &Em .- > Number of as a as a trials eo..-- m .- 0) 0 r(lL.-Ix0)X.-ULrxlW Jury disposi- percent Number percent as a L u + 2 ; trial tions for Nuniber of of of percent State and court title $ 5 8*rxl 2 * E .; defini- case types of dispo- jury dispo- of I- u w o w IT r tion described trials sitions trials sitions trials Arizona: Superior Court ...... + + + o o o o + o A 27,3291 1,948! 7%i 646! oooo+oooo A 32,9821 1,4521 4%1 86’ ooooo+ooo A 7,849 0 0% 0 oooooo+oo A 747 0 OX 0 Justices of the Peace ...... + + + + o o o o o A 76,502 13.627 18% 14 California: Superior Court ...... + o o o o o o o o A 80,511 3.81 7 5% 1,561 oo+oooooo A 495 138 28% 43 oooo+oooo A 143,4581 96,4801 67%i 741 ooooo+ooo A 63,097 57,282 91 % 296 oooooo+oo A 5,239 4,839 92% N/A ooooooo+o A 18,155 17,070 94% N/A o+oo+oo++ A 162,488 57,976 36% 1,142 oooooooo+ A 14,062 4,486 32% N /A Justice Court ...... + + + o o o o o + A 10,828 2,610 24% 26 ooo+ooooo -- 23,265 15,984 6 9% -- Municipal Court ..... + + + o o o o o + A 380,073 91,285 6 9% 637 ooo+ooooo A 377,183 296,367 79% 19 Colorado: County Court ...... + + + o o o o + o A 62,868 3,106 5% 85 <1% 3% ooo+ooooo -- 15,793 5,320 34% ------ Connecticut: Superior Court ...... + + o o o o o o + A 49,319 1,334! 3fi 381 1% 2Y%i oooo+oooo -- 24,7Oli 1,132’ 5%i ------ooooooo+o -- 1,075 429 4Ui ------ Del aware: Superior Court ...... + + + o o o o + o A 1,749 138 8% 88 52 642 District of Col urnbia : Superior Court* ..... + + + o o o o o o C 6,038i 4421’ 7’61 169i 3Zi 38%i oooooo+oo c 2,726 31 1% 16 1% < 1% ooooooo+o c 426 15 4% 0 0% 0% F1 orida : Circuit Court ...... + o o o o o o o o A 21,7831: 11,5831 53%! 1,5651 7%! 14%i o+ooooooo A 32,767: 20,227 62%: 507 2x1 3% oo+oooooo A 26,7461 16,881 63%’ 116 Hawaii: Circuit Court ...... o o o o o o o + + A 7,4881’ 178! 2%! +oooooooo A 2.8041 145: 5%: o+ooooooo A 4,036i 91’ 2%: oo+oooooo A 3431: 61 2%’ o o o o + o + o o A 14,2911 48! 1x1 ooooo+ooo A 1,2134 01 0x1 District Court ...... + o o o o o o o o -- 6Y1 22 3% o+ooooooo -- 11,603 94 1% oo+oooooo -- 1,252 71 6% ooo+ooooo -- 5,113 518 10% oooooooo+ -- 261 15 6% 119 Table 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) trial data given Jury V). r-e e‘- Trials trials Jury &Ea r w Number of as a as a trials e 0.-- a .- VLewao--ewI- u Jury disposi- percent Number percent as a L.ue.wv trial tions for *e.- .a a Number of of of percent State and court title L = * E + 2 .: defini- case types of dispo- jury dispo- of c” ,” 2 g 6 r = tion described trials sitions trials sitions trials Idaho: District Court ...... + o o o o o o o o A 1,592i 42gi 27x1 ooo+ooooo -- 14,044 9.034 64% ------o o o o + o o o o A 15,248 9,774 64% ooooo+ooo A 4,838 2,593 54% ooooooo+o A 465 263 57% oooooooo+ A 2,8221 693 25%i + + + o o o o o + A 20.242 3,797 19% I1 1 inoi s : Circuit Court ...... + + + o o o o o o C 185,16Ei 1,993 1% Indiana: Superior Court and Circuit Court ..... o o o + o o o o o -- 36,1421 6.2175 oooo+oooo -- 81 ,51 01 50,3663 ++to++()++ c 54,567f 14,047j City Court and Town Court ...... + + o o o o o o o C 9,766i 4851 Municipal Court of Marion County ..... + + + o o o o o o C 11,128 3,271 County Court ...... + + + o o o o o o C 3.5841 545f ooo+ooooo -- 63,3391 12,6861 Probate Court ...... o o o o + + o o + C 1,4851 431 Small Claims Court of Marion County . + + + + o o o o o -- 55,510 12,841 Iowa : District Court ...... o o o + o o o o o -- 71,300 12,796 18% -- -- o o o o o + o o o A 16,5371 2121 1%i 51 <;if 2x1 + + t o + o + + o A 54,73Ei 5,328 loxi 430 1%i 8% Kansas : District Court ...... + + + o o o o + + A 69,668. 4,440 6% 487 1% 11% o o o o + o o o o A 22,804’ 3,7984 17%i 41 Cl%i e 1x1 Louisiana: District Court ...... + + + o + + + + + B (164,207) 755 P1%) Maine: Superior Court ...... + + + o + o o + + A 5, 764i 381 7%f 192i 3Xi 50Xi Maryland: Circuit Court ...... + + + o + + t + + A 89,218 7,981 9% 1,228 1% 15% New Jersey: Superior Court* ..... + o o o o o o o o C 43.916i 1,6954 4gi 9801 2%’ 58%i o + o o o o o o o C 183,563i 2,5051 1%f 11 01 1%i 4x1 o o + o o o o o o C 123,48gi 33,O0Oi 2781 01 O%f O%i o o o + o o o o o C 52,088 11,794 23Xi 51 New~~ York: Supreme Court and County Court* ..... + + + o + o o + + C 133,52gi 13,7521 10%1 5,481i 4Xi 40%i District Court and City Court ...... + + + + o o o o o C 112,590 3,807i 3Si North Carolina: Superior Court ...... + + o o + o o + + A 82.160 5,5351 7x4 9101 1%f 16Xi District Court ...... + + + o o o o + o A 104,789 15,289 15% 41 7 1% 3% ooo+ooooo -- 194,379 ------o o o o + o o o o A (59,039) 50,452 (85%) 75 ( 1%) 1% North Dakota: District Court ...... + + + o + + o + + C 13.378 2.950 22% 71 1% 2% 120 Table 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) - Cas e type for which trial data given Jury am. r.-42 .r Trials trials Jury F > Number of as a as a trials e, 253 m v m a m n -0IW)I-a u Jury disposi- percent Number percent as a L *U .m4J .avm trial tions for Number of of of percent State and court title 2 2 2 E e, = 2 .: defini- case types of dispo- jury dispo- of - ? u” &! 5 2 u = tion described trials sitions trials sitions trials Ohio: Court of Common Pleas ...... + o o o o o o o o A 20,610i 1 ,955i 9%i 94Zi 5%i 48Xi o++oooooo A 57.009 11,597 2 0% 543 1% 5% oooo+oooo -- 79,647i 12,701 16%i ------ooooooo+o A 2.789 456 16% 170 6% 37% County Court ...... + o o o o o o o o A 593. 111 19% 2 1% 2%: o,+ooooooo A 5,5691 261 i 5%i 4i A l%i 2x1 oo+oooooo A 3,340 107 3% 2 41% 1% o+oooooo+ A 3,042 280 9% 2 <1% 1% Court of Claims ..... o o o o o o o o o A 2,420 17 1% 1 (1% 6% Municipal Court ..... + o o o o o o o o A 15,212 1,102 7% 95 1% 9% o+ooooooo A 153,2051 3,8711 3%i 88i < 1%i 2%i oo+oooooo A 54,019 1,248 2% 11 41% 1% o+oooooo+ A 15,403i 1,108i 7%i 2oi <1%i 2%i Oregon: Circuit Court ...... + + + o + o o + + A 30,320i 2,1471 7Xi 1 ,03ai 3Xi 48ii o o o o + o o o o A 24,116i 1,438’ 6Xi ------ Pennsylvania: Court of Common Pleas ...... + + + o o o o + + C 29,139 5.008 17% 1,305 4% 26% District Justice Court ...... + + + o o o o o o -- 177,927 43,545 24% ------Puerto Rico: Superior Court ...... + o o o o o o o o .. 3,7945 3955 1 u%J o+ooooooo -- 4,3834 4284 1 O%J oo+oooooo -- 9,8064 896J 9XJ oooo+oooo -- 30,150; 2,019; 9%; ooooooo+o -- 1721 351 20x1 oooooooo+ -- 13,041 990J 8% District Court ...... + o o o o o o o o .. 1,529 241 16% oo+oooooo -- 131 33 2 5% oooo+oooo -- 2,758 105 4% ooooooo+o -- 13 5 3 9% o+oooooo+ -- 48,789 6,253 1 3% Rhode Island: District Court ...... + + + o o o o o o .. 13,688 3,031 22% ------ooo+ooooo -- 7,791 1,277 16% ------ South Dakota: Circuit Court ...... + + + o + o o + + A 9,770i 565ij 129 1 xi 23%j ooo+ooooo -- 18,440. 2,288J 12%J ------oooo+oooo A 3,5071 297iJ 0 o%i oxj Texas : District Court ...... + o o o o o o o o A 30,455 3,855 13% 1,296 4% 34% o + o o o o o o o A 45,032 4,623 10% 463 1% 10% oo+oooooo A 585 188.. 32% 17.. 3% 9% o o o o + o o o o A 242,397!j i65),210:~ 70xiJ 3151.3 121 Table 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) Case type tor which trial data given Jury .*. .I=,-c, .r Trials trials Jury 7 +I %.E2 m .C> Number of as a as a trials mn-txwx,-L w * u Jury disposi- percent Number percent as a LUCI 2 ; trial tions for Number of of of percent uu- ern * State and court title L = E = 9. * defini- case types of dispo- jury dlspo- of 5 2 2 2 2 z tion described trials sitions trials sitions trials Utah: District Court ...... + + + o + + + + + A 24,0761 1,034i 4%i Circuit Court ...... + + + o o o o o o A 23,364 560 2% o o o + o o o o o A 21,659 6,132 28% Justice of the Peace Court ...... + + o o o o o o o A 96 31 32% 1 1% 3% oo+oooooo A 3,740 613 16% 3 4 1% < 1% Vermont : Superior Court ...... o o o o o o o + o C 441 133 30% 4 1% 3% +++o+oooo c 5,085 703 14% 92 2% 13% District Court ...... + + o o o o o o o C 3,686 254 7% 13 41% 5% ooo+ooooo c 9,463 1,041 11% 1 <1% <1% Virginia : Circuit Court ...... o o o o + o o o o A 31,1981’ 1,707i 5%i 101 4 l%i 1%i ooooooo+o A 3,983 1,734 44% 1 so 4% 9% + + + o + + + o + A 38,2344 8,017i 21Xi 1,5521 481 19%f Washington: Superior Court ...... + o o o o o o o o A 7,280 752i lo%! o + o o o o o o o A 13,311 714i 5%’ oo+oooooo A 8,443 348! 4%1 o o o o + o o o o A 41.014i 1,9781 5x1 ------o o o o o + + o o A 15,248 134i 1x1 ooooooo+o A 1,301 42gi 33%’ oooooooo+ A 4,968 2951’ 6%f District Court ...... + + o + + o o o o A (91,724Ii 25.3391 (28X)i 1,94gi (2%Ii 8Xi West Virginia : Circuit Court ...... + + o o + + o o o A 33,224iJ 4543’ 13 Wisconsin: Circuit Court ...... o o o + o o o o o A 167,005 5,073 3% 37 41% 1% o o o o + o o o o A 41,380 6,903. 17% 72 Wyoming : District Court ...... + + + o + + + + o A 11,163iJ 3,508iJ 3i%iJ 71iJ lxij 2xiJ County Court ...... + + + + + o o o + A 18,823 3,658 19% Note: All available data are entered in the ibata are not complete: table and all appropriate calculations are Arizona--Superior Court--Tort, contract, included. Blank spaces indicate that the and real property rights statistics do data are unavailable, less than 90% not include transfers in/out. Domestic complete, or calculations are relations cases in Arizona do not include inappropriate. support/custody cases, which are considered part of marrfage dissolutlon *A civil case is counted when it has reached cases. issue. Cal iforni a--Superi or Court--Domes tic relations does not include some -- - Not applicable. supportlcustody. all adoption, and all + = Data are given for these case types. paternity/bastardy cases. o = Data do not include these case types. Connecticut--Superior Court--Trials for tort, contract, and domestic relations Trial definition: cases do not include trjals conducted by A = A jury trial is counted at jury selection, geographic area courts. Domestic empaneling or swearing in. relations cases in Connecticut do not 6 = A jury trial is counted at introduction of include support/custody cases, which are evidence or swearing of first witness. considered part of marriage dlssolutfon C = A jury trial is counted at verdict or cases. deci sion. 122 Table 19: Civil jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) Dis t ric t of Col umb ia --Superi or Court --Real Oregon--Circuit Court--The combined case property rights cases do not include types include civil and criminal 1 and1 ord and tenant matters. appeals and supportlcustody. The Florida--Circui t Court and County Court-- domestic relations figure along does not Dispositions in Florida do not include include adoptions or the support/custody reopened cases dispositions. Tort cases cases included in the combiried figure. do not include professional tort, which South Dakota--Ci rcuit Court--The combined case is combined with other case types in types include only support/custody and another line in this table. paternitylbastardy in the domestic Hawaii --Circui t Court--A1 1 case types do not relations category, and trial court include some cases reported as reopened appeals in the appeals category. The prior cases. separate domestic relations figures Idaho--District Court--Some tort cases and includes contested marriage dissolution miscellaneous civil are combined with and some support/custody cases. other case types in another line in this Texas--District Court--Domestic relations table. cases do not include annulments or Illinois--Circuit Court--All tort, but only paternity/bastardy cases. sane contract and real property rights Virginia--Ci rcuit Court--Domestic relations cases are included. includes only marriage dissolution. The Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court-- combined case types include tort, contract All civil case disposition figures do some real property rights. adoptions, Cot include some cases reported as paternity/bastardy , some support/custody , redocketed civil" in Indiana. and some miscellaneous civil cases. Domestic relations figure does not Wash ing ton - -Supe rior Court--Domestic include some support/custody cases, relations does not include domestic which are combined with other case violence petitions. Two counties did not types in another line in this table. report trial data by case type. Probate Court--Adoptions are the only District Court--One court submitted no domestic relations cases handled. data, another incomplete data. City Court and Town Court--Some cases Wyoming--District Court--Sublette County reported were not identified by case reported data for only the first half of type. the year. County Court--Some cases reported were not identified by case type. JExplanation of data included in the category: Iowa--District Court--Estate cases do not Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court-- include guardianship/conservatorship/ Trial fisures include redocketed figures as trusteeship. Domestic relations do well as 'hearings". not include adoption, South Dakota--Circuit Court--Total trial paternity/bastarQ, or family in need of figures include hearings. assistance cases. Texas --Di strict Court --Domes tic re1a tions Kansas--District Court--Domestic relations figures include chi1d-victim petitions. does not include adoption cases. County-Level Courts--Civi 1 case data for Mai ne--Superi or Court--Domestic re1ations Harris County (Houston) is not included does not include support/custody (which in separate case categories, but is is not counted separately from marriage included in the combined case types on a dissolution) or paternitylbastardy later line in this chart. The combined cases. Civil appeals do not include case types also include juvenile administrative agency appeals. child-victim petitions from all county New Jersey--Superior Court and County Court-- courts. All disposed civil case type Some tort, contract, real property rights, data elements include appeals that mental health, estate, and miscellaneous could not be broken down by case type. civil cases are found in a combined Utah--U istrict Court- -Domes tic re1ati ons statistic on another line in this table. does not include spouse abuse case New York--Supreme Court and County Court-- dispositions. Total does not include uncontested Vermont--Superior Court--Domestic relations marriage dissolution cases or appeals includes only paternity/bastardy cases. of trial court cases. West Virginia--Ci rcuit Court--Includes tort, North Carolina--Superior Court--Adoption contract, real property rights, marriage cases are not included in domestic dissolution, support/custody. relations. paternitylbastardy, and contested estate Ohio--Court of Common Pleas--Tort figures cases. include only personal injury cases. Wisconsin--Circui t Court--The combined case Domestic relations figures include types inc 1ude traff ic/other viol ati ons only marriage dissolution cases. appeal s. County Court--Some contract cases are Wyoming--District Court--Juvenile cases and combined with other cases on another criminal appeals are included in the line in this table. civil data. Municipal Court--Some contract cases are combined with other cases on another line in this table. 123 FIGURE E: Criminal case unit of count used by the state trial courts, 1984. FIGURE F: Minimum statutory definitions of a felony, 1984. Criminal case unit of count. The CSIM Project typology. The contents of the cases (i.e.. the has always been concerned about the fact that number of possible defendants/charges) are states prosecute cases in substantially different represented by the numbers one through eleven. ways, and that this ultimately has an impact on The point in the process at which a case is the way such cases are counted by the courts. counted is represented by the letters A through E. Since the publication of the 1975 volume of this series, some effort has been made to identify the Criminal case unft of count codes: various methods of counting criminal cases for Contents of case: each state court. The two predominant methods 1. Single defendant/single charge were either a defendant count, or a charging 2. Single defendant/singl e 1 ncident document count. Since charging documents could 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum have one or more defendants, it was assumed that number of charges) courts using charging documents would have fewer 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents per capita criminal cases than those states who 5. Sing1e defendant/varies with prosecutor reported cases using the actual number of 6. One or more defendants/single charge defendants. Therefore, states were grouped 7. One or more defendantdsingle incident according to their units of count. 8. One or more defendants/single incident The 1984 Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for (maximum number of charges) Statistical Reportin revealed several problems 9. One or more defendantdone or more with that method of :ounting criminal cases. incidents First, counting the number of charging documents 10. One or more defendants/varies witlt is insufficient as a measure of counting cases prosecutor unless one knows the possible contents of such 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with documents. For example, when mu1 tiple defendants prosecutor are involved in the same crime, is it common practice to have one, or more than one defendant Point at which a case is counted: per document? In addition, when there are A. At the filing of the information or multiple offenses per incident, does common indictment practice call for a single charging document for B. At the filing of the information or all offenses or a separate document for each complaint offense? C. At the filing of the complaint (warrant Of equal importance to the contents of a or accusation) charging document in counting criminal cases is 0. At the assigning of a docket number the point in the process when a criminal case is E. At the arraignment (first appearance) counted. The two predominant points are at the filing of the complaint, and the filing of the The combination of these two dimensions of the information or indictment. Since the filing of criminal unit of count is provided for each court the complaint occurs much earlier in the process when criminal data are presented. than the filing of the information or indictment, courts that count cases at the filing of the Defining felonies. Figure F illustrates the complaint should have a much higher caseload than variation that exists among the states regarding courts which uait until the information or the statutory definition of a felony. Although- indictment before counting criminal cases. the overwhelming majority of stater define Figure E presents information on all felonies by possible sentences exceeding dimensions of the criminal unit of count: the approximately one year in the state prison, point in the process at which criminal cases are almost one-third of the states define a felony as counted; the number of defendants per case; and crimes with possible sentences of: substantially the contents of charging documents. This less than a year; two or more years; or with no information has been organized into the following minimum sentence length. 7 i’ 124 FIGURE E: Criminal case unit of count used by the state trial courts, 1984. Contents of charging document Number of Single Single General / defendants incident incident One or 1 imited One (set # of (uti1 iin- more juris- Point of counting or Single charges ited # of inci- STATE: diction a criminal case -One __more charge per case) charges) dents ALABAMA: Circuit Court G Indictment X X District Court L Complaint X X Flunicipal Court L Complaint X (No data reported) ALASKA: Superior Court G Indictment X X District Court L Complaint X X ARIZONA : Superior Court G Information/i ndictment X X Justice of the Peace Court L Complaint X X Municipal Court L Complaint X X ARKANSAS : Circuit Court G Informa tion/l ndictment X X Municipal Court L Compl aint X X City Court, Police Ct. L Complaint X X CAL I FORN I A : Superior Court G Information/i ndictment X X Justice Court L Compl aint X X Municipal Court L Complaint X X COLORADO: District Court G First appearance for X X some counties/informa- tion for cases coming up from County Court. County Court L Compl aint/sumnons X X CONNECTICUT: Superior Court G I nformation/i ndic tment X X bELAWARE: Superior Court G Information/indictment X X Family Court L Complaint X X Justice of the Peace Ct. L Complaint X X Court of Comon Pleas L Complaint X X Municipal Court of Wilmi nqton L Complaint X X Alderman s Court L Complaint X X RICT Ob COLUMBIA: Superior Court G Compl aint/information/ X X indictment IDA: Information/indictment Circuit Court G or sworn complaint X (Prosecutor decides) County Court L Complaint X X GEORGIA: SuDerior Court G I ndic tmen t/accusa tion X X State Court L Accusation X X Magistrate Court L Complaint X X Probate Court L Accusation X X Municipal Court L No data reported Civil Court L No data reported County Recorder's Court L No data reported Municipal Courts and the City Court of Atlanta L No data reported HAWA I I : Circuit Court G Compl aint/indi ctment X X (I4ost serious charge) District Court L Information/compl aint X X (Most serious charge 1 125 Figure E: Criminal case unit of count used by the state trial courts, 1984. (continued) # Contents of charging document Number of Single Single General / defendants incident incident One or 1 imited One (set X of (unlim- more juris- Point of counting or Single charges ited # of inci- -STATE : diction a criminal case -One __more charge per case) charges) dents IDAHO: District Court G Information X X Magistrates Division G Complaint X X P LLINO1 S : Circuit Court G Informa tion/i ndictment X X INDIANA: Superior Court and G Information/indi ctment X X (may not be Circuit Court consistent 1 County Court L Information/complaint X X (may not be cons is tent 1 Municipal Court of L Informa tion/compl aint X X (may not be Marion County consistent) City Court and Town L Information/complai nt X X Court (may not be con- sistent ) IOWA: District Court G Informati on/i ndictment X X KANSAS : District Court G First appearance/ X X informati on/i ndictment Y: Circuit Court G I nformati on/i ndictment X X District Court L Compl aint/c ita ti on X X LOUISIANA: District Court G Information/indictment Varies Varies City Court and Parish Court L Information/complaint X X WINE: Superior Court G Informat ion/i ndictmen t X X District Court L Informati on/compl aint X X MARYLAND : Circuit Court G Information/i ndictment X X District Court L Citation/information X X Trial Court of the Commonwealth: Superior Court Dept. G Information/indictment X Housing Court Dept. G Complaint X District Court Dept. G Complaint X Boston Municipal Ct. G Complaint X MICHI GAN : Circuit Court G Information X X District Court L Complaint X X Municipal Court L Compl aint X X MINNESOTA: District Court G Compl aint X X County Court L Comp 1ai n t X X County Municipal Court L Complaint X X MISSISSIPPI: Data are unavailable mSSOURI : Circuit Court G I nforma tion/i ndictment Not cons is tent statewide (depends on prosecutor Associate Division G Complaint Not consistent statewide (depends on prosecutor) MONTANA: District Court G Information/i ndic tment X X Justice of Peace Court and Municipal Court L Complaint X X City Court L Complaint X X 126 Figure E: Criminal case unit of count used by the state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Contents of c ha rgi ng - doc uinen t Number of Single Single General / defendants incident incident One or 1 imited One (set # of (unlim- more juris- Point of counting or Single charges ited # of inci- STATE : diction a criminal case -One more charge per case) charges) dents ~ NEBRASKA: (not con- District Court G Information/i ndic tment X X sistently observed statewide 1 County Court L Informat i on/compl ain t X X Municipal Court L Complaint X X REVADA: District Court G Information/indictment Varies Varies, depending on prosecutor Justice Court L Complaint Varies Varies, depending on prosecutor Municipal Court L Complaint Varies Varies, depending on prosecutor NEW HAMPSHIRE: Superior Court G Information/i ndictment X X District Court L Complaint X X Municipal Court L Compl ai nt X X NEWJERSEY: Superior Court (Law Division and Chancery Division) G Acc usati on/i ndi ctmen t X X 14unicipal Court L Complaint X X NEW MEXICO: District Court G Complaint X X Magistrate Court L Complaint X X Bernal i11 o County Metropolitan Court L Compl aint X X NEW YORK: Supreme Court G Inf ormati on/i ndictment X X (may vary \ri th prosecutor) County Court G Information/indictment X X (may vary wi tti prosecutor) Criminal Court of the City of New York L Docket number X X District Court and City Court L Complaint X X Town Court and Vi11 age Justice Court L Compl aint X X NORTH CAROLINA: Superior Court G Informati on/indictment X X District Court L Complaint/summons X X (2 max) NORTH DAKOTA: District Court G Informati on/i ndic tment X X (may vary) County Court L Compl a int/i nforma tion X Varles Municipal Court L Complaint X X OHIO: Court of Common Pleas G Arraignment X X County Court L Warrant/summons X X Municipal Court L Warrant/summons X X Mayor's Court L No data reported OKLAHOMA : District Court G Information/i ndictment X X 127 Figure E: Criminal case unit of count used by the state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Contents of charging document Number of Single Single General / defendants incident incident Uiie or 1 imited One (set # of (unlim- more juris- Point of counting or Single charges ited # of inci- -STATE: diction a criminal case -One -more charge per case) charges) dents OUEGON: Circuit Court G Compl aint/i ndictment X (Number of charges not consistent statewide 1 District Court L Compl aint/indictment X (Number of charges not consistent statewide) Justice Court L Compl aint X (Number of charges not consistent statewide) Municipal Court L Compl aint X X PENNSYLVANIA: Information/docket Court of Common Pleas G transcript X X District Justice Court L Comp 1 a in t X X Philadelphia Municipal Court L Complaint X X Pittsburgh City Magistrates Court L Complaint X X PUERTO RICO: Superior Court G Accusation X X District Court L Lompl airit X X RHODE ISLAND: Superior Court G Information/indictment X X District Court L Complaint X X SOUTH CAUOLINA: Circuit Court G 1ndi c tmen t X X Magistrate Court L Warran t/sumnons X X Municipal Court L Warrant/sunmons X X OTA: Circuit Court G Complaint X X I tNNtbbtt: Circuit Court, Chancery Court, and Criminal Court G Information/indictment Not consistent statewide General Sessions Court L No data reported Municipal Court L No data reported EXAS: Uistrict Court and Criminal District Court G Inf ornia t ion/ indi c tmen t X X County Level Courts L Compl aint/i nformation X Varies Municipal Court L Compl aint X X Justice of the Peace Ct. L Compl aint X X UTAH: District Court G Informa tion X X Circuit Court L Inf orma t ion/ci tati on X X Justice of the Peace Court L Citation X X VtHMUN I : Superior Court G Information/indictment X X District Court G Arraignment X X VIRGINIA: Circuit Court G Information/indictment X X District Court L Warrant/sumons X X WASHINtiIUN: Superior Court G Informati on X X District Court L Compl aint/ci tati on X X (2 max) Municipal Court L Complaint/ci tation X X (2 max) WEST VIRGINIA: Circuit Court G Warrant/indictment X X Magistrate Court L Warrant X X Municipal Court L Compl aint X X 128 Figure E: Criminal case unit of count used by the state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Contents of charging document Number of , Single Single General / defendants incident incident One or 1 imited One (set # of (unlim- more juris- Point of counting or Single charges ited # of inci- STATE : diction a criminal case -One more charge per case) charges) dents WISCONSIN: Circuit Court G Initi a1 appearance X X Muni cipa 1 Court L Compl ain t /c ita ti on X X WYOMING: District Court G Informat f on/i ndictment X County Court and Justice of the Peace Court L Cornpl aint/information X Municipal Court L Citation/compl aint X X Source: 1984 State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. 129 FIGURE F: Minimum statutory definitions of a felony, 1984. No Less than One year 2 years State minimum* 1 year 1 year plus a day or more Alabama X A1 aska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado .6 months Connecticut X Del aware X District of C olumbi a X F1ori da X Georgia X Hawa ii X Idaho X I11 inois X Indiana X Iowa Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana I-laine X Mary1arid X t.lassachusetts X 14i c hi gan X Minnesota X Mississippi -- data are unavailable Missouri Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New llampshi re New Jersey New Etexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 6 months Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania S years Puerto Rico 6 months Rhode Island X South Carolina 3 months South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Virgi ni a X Mash ing ton X !.lest Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X *In many jurisdictions, felonies are defined by statutes, not by length of sentence. Source: 1984 State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. TABLE 20: Triable felony, limited felony, misdemeanor, and DWI/DUI filings and dispositions for state trial courts, 1984. Variations in court organization and subject Appropri ate a rialy s is : matter jurisdiction: All percentaye calculations tlidt were less States reported in this table include all tliari 1% but yreater than .54 hve bccn ruuiidcd up courts with jurisdiction over these criniirial cdse to 1%. All percentdge calculations that were types--both general jurisdiction and 1 imited greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed jurisdiction courts. The same case types may be as a < 1%. handled in different courts from state to state. The court system charts in Part 111 should be Uisposed cases as percent of filed. ltiis consulted for a brief summary of the jurisdiction measure represents the percent of filed cases of each court. Only state totals should be which ttie court disposed. The percent is compared among states with courts using the same computed by dividing the number of cases disposed unit of count. of by the number filed, and then multiplying by one hundred. A percent over one hundred Sources of data are found in Appendix E. indicates that the court disposed of more cases than were filed, thus reducing pending caseload. Variations in case classification and definitions: A percent significantly less than one hundred indicates that the court is not keeping up with The case categories and the data classified the volume of cases being filed. This figure was in the case categories vary from state to state. not computed when the filed and disposed figures Therefore, the case types used in this Report are were not comparable. those chosen for inclusion in the State Court Model Annual Report and State Court Model Filed (dis osed) er 100,000 o ulation. The Statistical Dictionay. unit of state pPopulatPon use& Even with use of the model case types, caseload charts is 100,000. Filed per 100,000 however, caseloads are not comparable if state population compensates for variations in state statutes vary as to the types of criminal cases population arid gives a more realistic basis for classified as felonies or misdemeanors. Certain comparison of caseloads among states of various drug offenses, for example, may be serious sizes. If the riutiiber ot tilings was not felonies in one state but only misdemeanors in available but the nuiiiber of dispositions was another, see Figure F for felony variations. available, ttie number of cases disposed per unit Only states reporting data that could be of population was entered in this column in place displayed in the specific case types are included of the number of cases filed per population unit, in this table, and then only if the data are at and the use of this a1 ternative quantity was least 90% complete. Many courts do not break iridicated by enclosing it iri parentheses. data down beyond the broad criminal category. Population figures represent the 18-year-ol d-pl us In past volumes of this series, separate state popul a ti on. tables were presented for the various case types If all other factors (court jurisdiction, consolidated into this table. However, since case definition, unit of count, etc.) are DWI/DUI cases can be either felonies or similar, the f iled-per-uni t-of-popul ation misdemeanors, and with the introduction of the statistic will permit direct comparisons ainony new 1 imited felony category, the presentation of states of the number of filed cases. separate tables would not present a complete Felony cases are easier to compare in this picture of either felonies or misdemeanors. table than the other case types because almost Therefore, this table was developed to provide a all felony cases are handled in general inore comprehensive look at the total state jurisdiction courts. offense caseload. Unless otherwise indicated, these figures do not include criminal appeals. Limitations on use: Variations in counting cases: Only STATE TOTALS can be compared in those stdtes where more than one court has jurisdiction The various units of count in criminal cases over the case type. Comparisons can be made are idytified in the column labeled "unit of between the data reported for a state with an count. A quick glance at this column indicates individual court that has exclusive jurisdiction that few states use the same unit of count in over the type of case, and the STATE TUTALS for their general jurisdiction and limited states where more than one court tias jurisdiction jurisdiction courts,. It is, therefore, if the units of count are the same. Coniparisons impossible to arrange this table so that courts should be avoided for states not reporting data having the same unit of count are together for one or more courts that have jurisdiction because the courts handling criminal cases in a over the case type. state would be separated. This means, It should also be noted that any change(s1 in unfortunately, that total state caseloads are not the caseload of a court may not indicate a change comparable unless parallel courts in two or more In the actual "offense-rate'' within a state, but states handle the same kinds of cases and count may merely reflect changes in the criminal code, them in the same way, e.g., Alabama and law enforcement policies, and/or citizen California. reporting rates--among other things. A more complete description of these units of Consequently. these data can be used for little count can be found in Figure E. more than court management measures. 131 '3 3 '3o 1'3'N NZ -0 M m h m In W0 N mmm p ,i3 g i,! '4 "0. N. -? 9 a. 4 N m m-h r v 0 a0 0 e m ~-noam 4- '3as vv as 'Z 2.2.2 I w m'c w N WIn 2 VI* 0- 0+ m m mmm .- 0 VI .C n amas'c 3h '2'2.Z Nh 2 0 !! '5 how m. m '9 m 9 494 M 0 Ohh m Nh NWm M om '? '3 --I W m h N '2'5% m N '2 m N. h N '9 T.7.99 m W W mCD0 0M m m h NWW N om '3 '-I V .a N IN Ill101 ,I ,I e 0I w IW VVI m wo 40: n hh .-'cLn m Inm .- .- om ma mVI '3 .-I '3I. c m im uv IIIIt1 I ,I m I0 m im cw '2 a- c". c". 99 .r e W 00 LL N m WW N 00 - e KX X V zI -'? Nh m IXz 0VI N. '4 a m W -.* 4 a '- nn .3 . .r - - xx X 3 OIWU '? WU N0 h z8% nv hZNU - 04 N. N. 4 -.r In coM Y zm 2 '3 '3N x '3 ex xx V zX 'Z WM In U 0h h M LO In on In mU CVI e N m .- wo w '3 x xx 2 m x x Nh .z I. I. (0 h A 0: v: In Od M(D N x xx= zI Iz Iz zz11 5% z- SIX x x XXX zzz zI zX zI zzXI zIX zz '3 NNXI m x WN oox mmx xsx hhZL m W mmz mmz zz m.? '4 9 50: '4'4 mm 4 WW e.+ N.-4 N e- ob h x X 001 m4 m 'Z %XILZ N M e 22= 1. e NU ouNN V\ U U W\ .4 4 4 er( 4 5 YY 4Y ?YY z N N m .C N N NO NNN Y u 0. .C e.. e.. c L. 6...... I- . 0 ... -I.. ... -I... u. 0: 8A ... 4.. ... u... u. .C ... I-.. ... u.L. e... .r . L ... 0.. ... o... 0. a I-.. e... u. 2: '-I -I...... UL ...... r . U 4.. W.. U... L *: 3 e.. I-.. I-... 4.. au -. 0 4... 7L u I-*. I-.. a .2 c .. VI.. v)u z? LU U uw. .- U I-o uu U e- w 4Lm L L 5s im10) U3 .. ..a30 OL.r a w c3u 4aa woou voL mz .rVI .WOL zoo CLuu .- I-= r u -uu ULU VI eo u30 -- u 3LU-I ~~om.r ..uv BW U - Uew mou3. .r n 0 :E I .. u I.! 40 CTOU 0. .r .r .r In3 I .-. 4ZL .r .. I- .r h 4 .C .r mI- ELLU amv) I xuao w U OLU VLL W 4 -0 u LnUC wu wu'r 3 04.8 w-4I nmc UIU 4w 3 IVI c, wma I nm U 3.- a XXv) v)s m d .r 0 L.r0 C 3.- z v)Y 20 z zau emno I 23W "% UY UZE 0Y .-. 3 v)v z 3 I: z 132 i --I .r "I -0 N hN N cn 1310 OIC h4 Wh m a WUWL030 m - .- VI w an.- '4* 9 rVOlxOOU N &-n ~lxm 4- 'c) c c ms wmE:: m '-I 'r) c .C m NW m m hN 0r. -0 m -. N. U om W r. 4 N W In4 .-I .r N m0 Wln m- r( 2 '4 y". U 4 COW 0 m mr( N h *h '? .-I.-I .r hh I I IO1 I1 I I 01 I0 V mm I I 1111 I1 '2 NIh 0: 4- 0 3 alc .rC .r c 4 u-Y :: m4 r( U .- .r C mc 0U U .-I ") m I IIIIIII Y 7 1111 II,I m I NI01 1I ux ,It1 m I I11111I CP -- 9 Q. 3%- ma m a r( L. 4 2 I. mcn r. r( 4 U X x U zX z 3 U 7 m .r x XIX L IL U zzz al U 9 UU L -7N .C x m XW zI L0 2 52 m 0 h m. m. 9 U L 1". am mm m r.h 0c 0 NN am c. -r. .r mc N U .C E U 0 x m xm I Vm ': 0 z a 3 d -U z 99a '4 0. V 00 m m m 00 + N0 V m m XI VI XI XI Nh m zI ZLXI m zz zz mh W0 zz C 2 9 .r - U N 0 -.r u- W L ... v 3 n U XI XI r( m XI r.N LX LZXI LZ \ .r zz ZZ hI. em I E = 9 .C - z 2 .r m om U N e (L 2 -m 0 B/ 4 m m --X x IL XIz zX L WWZ m0, 0C N. N. m mm m al r.4 r.@ vmal .r c .r ooxr mmx X X2 m XIz Xz E IDWLZ E2= ?? .I 9 hh Ub ta -2 -4 -- al c 5 v m mvvuvuu wvI1 mu I, 1.4.. 4 4YY ?YY 4 Y NI m4I1 z U 4-4 NNN OU N r. hhNZNZZ . .r E ...... -.r ...... 4.8 ...... ::: ...... al I .UT* h ...... a ...... LOU ... V0 ...... 0 ... . -0): ...... 3 c 2.. L...... ovm - I. u. .UCC 2 2.. al W .. ::. u.. 0L .. L c 2.. u .w. I-.. a- 4 ....u. *" 4.. I- 0.. .c e....L.U < u -a . 2: v.0. =.-,A .r C.. L a... al e.. c0. wu 111. c uo W9. x I- . .UO.LUr- UC L wu. 30 +I. e,. LV .alLO n U CL 2L .r WL .v3 .Cm +e:: WLU3 3 03 .u3 L w33 I-> 0 Uau m au uou5v-I-3 LOU UOUL LOU COL I L a coo < OLV voV UL I- 0 uuv zvo mu a La I-VLO alLU 3 .. - I- vu.r 0 Ln 3v-u3al.-o UI- 3 U3L m LL LU~ LO mmormv ou oaln I ov al CZLU .C I-: .r r u.r Y N z .- .. .. .- c ... 3 m ..LL c u L al muVI- L " Y 23oc -ale,~.~.-..-c.-~ al 01 9%:: -3 '3 3.- 0 c m> 3 cv c e, m 3.- xo x3UL3m.ro3 n rg umn OU-I 0LnmlxxrUvr I-rg U W0 133 .- .-I .r .r .r .? .C m m +Wul m N OD W In0 h U NU c9 %E m W " om m - .r .r .C c m oe** U N* .E! mhm I: 0r. m 2m 0 a 2zm r( U .r .r - '?N - .r 3 0 -me r. I. 0 r. v) OmN ? 0 0 U 0) "I '9 97'0. 3 c9 4 . N 0 -610 m N N U 0 ON N e ne, .r c c .C '3r( .- 0 h-w U co Uh W mmo '5 m h 0: 90:: 4 N. 09. m m ONh " N fu r( ON m U .-J .r .? - NI 1 I1 III I I I -1 I I1 I V I .a ~.m In1 I I1 Ill I I (01 01I I1 00 I a '9 e. m. ?'4 N N .r m * N 0 NmW U 0C U 'C) c - I -1 I I 'Z I UI I I I 1 I1 Ill111 I I,I1 m'Z I WI I I 01 mi I I.- I o: o: ". ?? 0 m 4 r( m " m U NOU + .r c .r .- .C m m z-1 .? -mw In x XK UL m 0-N N4 XL mm 03 9 .. \o mm U + 4 7 m .r L .C - .r .- .r m '1 hNv) x xx U h z-I v)4U mU LI W -? m.? 4 U W nmN m .-I 4 Um L '? 'C) .C .C .r .C V - .?N '-l c0 h6 X'Z m 'L'X', mmh x-h r( xx NwW ma- m I. VI 0 ON m m LO '9 Ym.? 0: '4 C v) f" 9 0 on 0 Ln %NU ONN h CVI NNNN W .r + 0 m N4 m .C 2 0 u WO r '-I m '3.C .3.r .C .C .C .r .r 0 5 m x-'? VInn hmw uuo 0 K'? n 4 0U XK m h0 n++ m+m '2 m .r 0 m me h .r E- 0: O. YC0.S - 0: 0: V .- .-Iv) m 0 ONh ON m LL 0 ON NNm W h.-( ln N4 V 4 0 a VI V -x- .C m hW zI zI z1 21 mzm zX zzXI I- zz11 zX C CVI om T-v) .r 00 7 .-n c.r am hr( L .r - n V > W L3 .rU v "S" . XT zI zX xL 1T LZ1X SI corm zz z1 I Eal mm .r 7 z -I .r Y UC m .r .- '3 001 ma L 2 XIz zI SZ5 ooz ~m xxz LZ11 XI1zz 0(1 Q? m 99 Eo? 0.0: W m mm om om 0 W UVI .C .- .? mmx roms E 3 XIz LI 22= v)mz xsT XIzz %XIzz '4 .^ '9'9 =' h mm NN 7 01 L V 4 uv m 4vv vu U NNI, hI 47 TT Y? 47 -411 NNI, 497 N NO, -+ OhNN dNN NNN E- I. .- e. - I .Y...... e.. :'g : :g :e ...... v ... h 3 ...... u . .._ . ... .E.. .L ... .L .O ... L- .. 0 ...... m e. a*. ..? . .m .U ac e .U - v. .5. a-L...... L.. W OVI. ... z: a*. 01 -I .C a. Y3 ... L .. ur.L. .. a- :E : : U .. -I.. LO ... .m 9: am. -I.. av ... . 6:: N .- .I- u.. s; .ala. .. 3 uo. u.. I-.. .. .a.L . - u c ..a. .r b- V0 U . ua 3. u.u .u n .L 0.I-U Y .u e. .- Y 3au .r UL .C m WL. .r3L u UIO. . L uL 3:z 3L 5: : UL a3 UL~LCV. - 1-3 .UO em I-LL33 ~a u3 w~auu ua L3O I-L UO.LV. U au a-0 3 LO .y : woo I-30 .-L a ov 0- VILV ou cv .a .U .- U.r u nu +VU L .r LO - aov V.C v ov VL mu a VI .o- L L IL. .- I-V uv nL 0- L vmh3 CLUU VI0 VI1 o 0 e,m la u .C 3 0 Ou nao >IU .r 4:: -0 IVO c v)ou uu .Cuouo u .C v a 0N .. .r L h.? c v r .- .r .r m 134 '30 m N '34 m m m W U 4 m 0h WN + 0: s m 4 .-. 4 '3 .? 84m W84 E mH '2 s: 00m* m 0 m h m m 4 '3 '3 '30 m 0 m0 N m0 WU mh 0 NU m ". '4 u!! 9 LDco. U .4 m 0W 0In 4 4 m :* N r( '3 '3N '3 '34 4 m 0 0 0N m .-. 0 mN m m 0m 4 4 4 0: .r 9 m 3 m 4 m r( m mN pi .-I n LL U m 0N N '3 '3 I II .? '3I. U I4Ob I IO11 v hhl I I Ill I It - hhl I W W 0 w 4 V VI hh z! 0 4 co. '4 a -- 0 m h C .r n -I- 04 W .r c- VI .-. m .r .- 0 N .-. ..IC n VI mVI U '3'3 .3 '3 ") I IN I ,I I1I1 4.4 I I m I4 m IW I - - 4 0 N m V v mmi .-. U =C 2 m.? N. 9 m .- m m 0 4 m 0 Y m NIn co m e 0N 4 c - - '3 .3 '3 x X X oxIn xLv '3 xxz Y z e,VI W Y - WL VI O 1 02 n W V I VI 3 .r 7 n n m .r . - - - --l .3 L hIr( -7 x x sx XL 3 mW z I - U n v mrm - 2 9 co. N. 11al .r 0 m m m LI-4 UVI L '3 n '34 x x x zXX W "2.2 W L0 'Z zI h boo Yo'.? =? L -. 03h.4 VIc 4 UN mN 0 00 .r0 mc N e, .r '3 '3'3 VI E '3 x x 4 N4- 0 V xm hm I xxz wmh n 0 z 0N 'a, '2.-. VI .r 0: *.9? .r I: e. 9 0 0 73 WN m nm mN 44 4 a%*z V m '3 '3 x x SI uxu 4x4 VI XL zI zX mzm hLh m zz NN c ..N.N. c? mmmm c-.C- 3 x or0 '2 $'Z n LX IL x LI mzz N 44 -. .e .. n3 mm mm VC m 'Z.3I mmX xxz rL zI zI zX LI our L 'a, 'a, 22= 0 m m .. N.N. 00 UQ m m0 m0 4.4 E VVI '3'3 '34 uuxx mnrxx X -4x NNI .C XI X '2 LX zI IL L -4z mmz E z z m m WmLz r.hZLZ .4 4 N.N. ?9 'D. m. N.N. 44 hh uu uu h m m r(4 U 0 no 0 c W c V U n umu wuuu u u UU Y 00, I I I. YY 77 NNI1 4 NNNL N N 44 0- 4.8 4.8 N h m N NmN .C E ...... C7 ...... :3: ...... -I...... 2.. 4.. h .. I-.. -I...... u.. .VI. e I-.. 0.. 0 .m... 0.. +.. c . 2:: C.. .. al W 2:: :2...... W.. c- - .. W.. I-.. U a... W .r +.. 2.. c U I-UO4 VlUULL n VlLL .-m e, aa aa a 00 .* 0 0 cL .. u u 0-u U 3VLU ZLU -0v -IOU 0 v c .- c PI .rLL .C N0 m -LL oou WU W ~-nm w 3.- UW PI a .c CI a .- - m wmn 0-0 nm W a 5: b mU a X 135 '? .C .C .r d UUNmwmho h4 m 0 '3 U h 9 hUd+... U r( d d In WIN N -VI m % U m YL a '3 N 0 U 2 W . N Nd 4 Y 0 w rnY '?4 N h N '2 NIn *- h WU 0w In h U - t-'? - Ill IllIII U to I, I II W Ill .-c2 0. N m w Nh 4-3 c0 V - '2 I I II '2 IllIII 11,IIt 1I 'a,m h IO II III1 p1 p1 U 0 h OJ m 0U m 01d N '3+ - Ln x UL Iz U xmZN zXY zI mh- '3 rI a N. h h V w In.4 -.-m L '7 - h xwx (00 Xh z8% In-In '3 zX N ., Wm mz ZNh w w 0 0. '4 e, Lo m h h Um N 04 Ln L 0 x xx x L LX -8OZ zX zX VIC '4 m .- N .-U Ln 0 x '? xm YX In NI n 10 wx ox NI m h .- OZh OL mOZ .- p1 D m In- m 0 U U N e m Ln - xss IXXI XI m z8% zX X UT'3 X X C zzz zzzz ZL 2z X z z .r 7 .-L a- xxx 0 LI XIXX X XI UI us -. zzz zzzz rxz z zz zI Crz'3I mz mz x Ln In n UC m om L XIzz XIXzz W wxxx xxx wws UUIS x NN ww w wzzz zz hhz mmzz 3'3hhz om zzXI 0 mm mC g4 m. m. .^ 4 4 a~ N 4: 44 N +4 uu mm Ad VI m m .-A dd E .r uu W 0 3Ln .r E XISzz xxxZT 0m mxxx xxxzz NNX wuxx z7 X uzzz our NNZZ ooz wwNN LZXX N. N. hh h '4'4 .. '4'4 9 h h NN s m m 69 nm d+ -0 UW 4- W r 0 .-U c U ?.xu 4vv NI +\\ 4YY uyu wu mu U 44Y 4': IO, I1 w-I, 4 .? 3co .-zz NNN mm~+A hmn cnm- m meI1 B -.C ... .-...... u...... m.. .c) ...... E...... u ...... L : : :c ... -.I...... L ...... ::r:: m... e...... a ...... u...... a. 1. a ...... E.. -0 .. .O ...... I-...... 0 U.Y. ... .U -I... 0 v L.L. ..- .. o... .. ::E:: .L.. : : :- I-... 7 ...... e... -I.. 3 .3. .... a ... .U . .w -I.. I-...... 4.. 0 e, 0.0. .VI .U L ... . o... W... I-.. - .- v U...... u .+Iam I-... I-... 0.. 4.8 4.8 a JC 2:: W .- u. L.a 0.. ... I-.. u ULVI urn03 n I-.. w.. u. . - U L .r3cu I- .u D I- LOU I-Y v) .L" w 300L L .u m +I .- 0-8 av 0 wuUUUL I-L v vv.r3 +LO I-UL I-LLT) .- L I L VI0 3.c UU3 au-ou ULa v)aao +LO t-L a I .--.nu wo mu I-a0 oov v) au ;r vow +vu> L v) ov vu V I cv)- 4 vm-0 V V-0 3 1.- 9 U.r .. - I- 2 m U Y WE-a U LLU m *. m 3 V)VL am .. e, v oova zua N 2 ;'E .s .-+I ?.r v 4 .r .r I- .- .- e .r .C m L VI v.r -nu w.- u -a~WLLUz mu.- m3u W .. e, .r c .- u ZUY tvr c) x w cc ~vl0a)cm -Lm - 0 I- m3 OVI c OLC z 033 .C - u- e7 .- D m 3 2 WE x a,.- a v.- 3 m ow xo ux-a LLVD mmnz v)VT c v)c) v)c I-W I 4x - w 3 136 C VI L U w .C 7 VIm h w L w U W Se, V m*WU w - 0 c- uu .e 3 uu0 m ..I u uo - aa -0 5 - me 3 9 VI^ m ua a,- .- a mC cn 4E La 3u n ODC cm z 2 - aane - \ .r w LV -3 \ .- .rL .Cc ou 0 I U 3- .- .r c 7- c \m w f IC - umV m 0) .- -ual L- u EU a m .SV mal mc uu VI oc n 42 VI ::z EOWL reWU .rCL m a- co .r m -u .r OW Wm CL u c s V OWE VW Ew aam mc s .- .C .r U .r u m wu .-u m aJ .u e) .r * 0 ..- -3. +E 0) -3 z 2% 2 .E L3 v LC mo m- v1-a mv U7 s 'E 0 3u - r 0- U3 cume- uc mm m mm CL0 co 0 vu v CLO v +m vu- .r c u.r u .- wvW 0.- .r aJm vc 4 c+ UC E .- EC c3 .r I.r .- .r >u ua * c- - mem LVI 0 0 .r w 3a -.n 0 2L .- a-num -w 3- - 5- cu n .- v- mo m Urn WUL3 m cu 3 - ou .r U u\ I um L vu m 4Lu mo ucc L3e, -3 -am nc wv n 7 c- cv 0 U m .- 0- rn mm U VVI .- cU k Eu V u .r z wv WC c .- m '-zWL nm WC OL VL v .- wm v ummu .- 0 .r c U 3 3-2 a30 vc3 .- c W VI 3 m uc e -m V'OV U cc C 3um uuem .-E m UL um.C cco u .- c c 3 00 ccE u.7 1 .r u c L .r Lm m cn c .; .- .r .- C .- u E oc .r .r L m WE c *. E E .r VIL a mwu 0 mu 0v.r UL m ..- U a0 .z 5 z u .- 2.5 'L 3 m L m L .C VIE uwuum.r c W .r mu3 L OL u mwu V u 311 mmUW v c- m 0 vuVI0 mu urn mm VL 0'0 ouo 0E: c 9 6 uuc 01 u mu .- v .C L.r m -= LC L L. uv a, 3ou 2: ..E kUW.- .- 2b .-r 'rw o n.- VI ..r- c 2*2 ou I a .I- L U C UWV VImEOm oca - .- m w .r .r r or LWE u wVI -VIL>? a- VI .I- cwu umu LLWC E 0C L cu 00 os c U 3 vu- IOlU3 ICWC0 F,UL m - u- u I 0.- m+ U L- U.CL c 3mo L u .- .r - 0 Wm 03 3 mmv'0 vu+ 0- VI L Y .r 4 0: OE 1 "22 uno - > uu I .- 3 L m CCI * LVI3 4L uo muv 3 0U .-.D 0c- ~m iun .--m c .- .- ov u L u .- U -mu c mcL3 aJ e.- 3x e, mso I m VVIU I --, uVI 3m Vm L L0 CVI .-.0 .-1) VI 0a .-VI V U c m w U wn ce, VI VIW m mVI L "Uh. C e0 - .-c C 0 m .r - .r .r U L .r - L wu-mu- VI m .r7 V c e, mmm 0) n m L mL m c L> WUL V C ou '03 .r Sm 0) c e E 2 VIE =I - .r W n m U UC . wm a L C - L .r 0 U .r U x 0 E n '0 w L W .r W .. s L - - U3 W -u m 0C m 6 U 0 7 mC VIaJL n f .- 0 a UC 7 no s U u W m .r Um UC V3 W L mL z3m V3 0 sw .- 7 e, U un J uuu L cU - c0 ccu m E LL e, Uc L5 .-moo w?- m c c0 .C V oc xuuu m .- 0 u-.¶ . me33 "7Em L U V W EUUU U UVI LUh L uno T)0 3CL nW 5 -v w W E t c 9 .c 0.- 0 EL .r VI VI .-u oe, V C E um '-VI0 uuuoo cue U um U0 mm s You CCCLL .- m - .r 0 wnu m c 3 w w w.- nn LL w E m V h .- m . ~wunuv LOLLU V sou .m -v w L.-.- WSS 0 mame V 0 uu u .- m m u u L u u cznm C - - h C uu v os c c 0.r.r c OWE L m 0 w ccn m c c c L u.r.r E z 3 0.- 3m L '- I Vc mal W.r =L .ruucw ow muu aIWWLVIVI umc n L.-..- w w VW v e- W at,--- 0 wYn UL.. m u u L u mnm .-.- .. .E.; z .-u -m vuWWs c c 0.- c c c w L L u 0.-Y u w- u .- .r E I .r .r .r c m m WOL~UU E c L .- mVIVIo>> e,LcEOm .r mmm ULWWWLVI,,.... c e.- ov L - 0wmVIVI VIVIL 3 .-: u .r s> 0 --- am U znnn .ruuuuu~0 mu- u ac ELeeewLeeeCcu UWWW - onaw.-.-.- c mm m m m m 3 SCSL cu0 -3 ~m~o>vuvvvu 2 ,....ccccc0 .-VIuuuoL) C - VIaJL usuu.-luuaJwwwwm LLL ma c c c c C'CLICLL 0 mOOOCE LW VIm. m cc .- 0- .mm m mmaww w WL .- c wuuw vvuuuuuvuv 3. mmmmc m 0, a 3- uwccccc u c c c m.- - hmn n .C m mal www W ww w ws .- .- .- .- m n c1 .- m cmCLLLLLLLLLU s--- VI L .rm s -u auw aJ w w a00 0 0 0-r u .- .r .r VI L w u ?..- VVVVUEEEEE3 .-.CLC m m VI L- WL I-L m~onuo wwwwwLLLLLVI 8ZwwmWW vo zn3. -----00000aJ csILcc mmmmzn uuue,cIu Lwm "VI .-. me, U ceccewwwwa3L 3 -rmmu -cma .-.- r.r c c c c c m e uuuuu N re,uo m~~mmoo333>e,u 137 m U al 0 C mVI v0) C .- U W u mal 7 C cu .C .r VI oc UC W 0m >w *r m .r Ye m em 0 v3 om m .r m u .U .-u Um 01 - UVI OL .- 0 v¶ U Qh 0 c 0 VIC c 0) .C a mo W - UC v U- alv m U4 m mal CY .- c u3 .rC Um v nu- eU m 33 mu E m V U nv cc .r .r -u .r Um \al .- L 7 c -u U D m m .- a .- Pm U C V 111 .- - m .- Oe, m v E 073 e .- L .r L .r E U m- .r m mVI mc.r L .r v - m U E - alu .- alSE .- L CU V U Cmm aL I e,u .r au .r m m.r c L u VI ? e, alvv mVI V v , .r U ral m m 3 .r L .: 7 4CC .r I C3 mVI U0 E 0.3 .C c u .- .r .- r l n. - e, U Em U L3 VIw c .r m 3C U 0 La 0 .G t U- vmmCL e,, - U ale I roe, v3 UL 0 -I31 3 ccm L u0 + uu .rCL ¶ O. 0 VI mu UL Ume, 03 vu U -m .r L U Um m UVI l- I-3wu > > 3w L L0 CVI .c0 .-u m 0 a VI .r V U c m 0. al aJVI VI VI .ruw VI - C 31 VI c 4 a C .VIw Ln C .- .CEm u w .r al a a .C -.- -lo VI .m U r U wVIu 0- W C 4 L -3 m mC E .o3.- u VIwm m- .r um 4 .C .r I E cc ral m\c umm > m c - .- m muV E 3 m .r Val CE .C E CC .r w - .C v3 c mamJa -n U .- mal .C .- m 0 L . 2- U VL n m E U I -umm - uuna m LU .C .E .E 0) um UC 30 -\a-0 L LV w a U3 .c -val Ez U UL v 2:v man 7 0- VI3 W v zgz w uww UC - 4 111C -ma 0- v3 v v UC e,m alcc U mu m .r .C 3 xu.r C 0.- -3 wwc - mcmy ? -3 .C v .r e VI .r v UK u .- .Ccu c u- L 0 U .r hg EE cU m ac cw 00 cuclm L 4L -am .r -m OF .r .r 111 0 .CE .r c u9 0 c VI- u UbU De, .- v wm mo CLm m le U m mv-v .- 0 u U e,m um- ->w m m mum V mv - Vw c v v vmC '0 aE ULO t .r C V .CVI w .r m u .- .- - - E .r UCVI .- I- .E mC '0C E E 3mm 5 L .- r -cm .- U L u .r - E " cv u ._ v l 2 L W v .- 03c .- e,L c me L .r uwI 3 Lw .r L 0 muh VI .- u v3u U mVI VI .-e mVI C .re, - m 2: 2 U 0 .r u UC - B U -.r .r a 3c - 03. 4 I UL I L)L Vh h UL CU 3 .nrvm e 0 u0 3 rW V0 e,c -w LUO 7 c.r L 'L, 3 m e, omu w Ir U c um .r .- 3 - U 0 n L u .-m &1VI I- L .N9 w -n I-m 138 TABLE 21: Criminal appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. TABLE 22: Preliminary hearing proceedings for state trial courts, 1984. Variations in court organization and subject Appropriate analysis : matter jurisdi c t ion : All percentage calculations that are less Caseload in these tables is from both general that1 1% but greater than .5% are rouritlcd up to jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction courts. 1%. All perceritage calculations that dre greater The same case types may be handled in different than U%, but less than .5% are displayed ascl’b. courts from state to state. The court system charts in Part 111 should be consulted for a Disposed cases as percent of filed. This brief summary of the jurisdiction of each court. measure represents the percent of filed cases Only state totals can be compared among disposed by the court. The percent is computed states using the same unit of count. To by dividing the number of cases disposed of by facilitate comparisons, the states in these the number filed and then multiplying by one tables have been grouped into three categories: hundred. A percent over one hundred indicates those states where a court has exclusive that the court disposed of more cases than were jurisdiction over a case type and where it filed, thus reducing pending caseload. A percent reported complete data; those states where more significantly less than one hundred indicates than one court handles a case type and each court that the court is not keeping up with the volume submitted complete data; and those states where of cases being filed. This measure was not data from any one of the courts with that case computed if the filing and disposition data Here type jurisdiction are incomplete. not comparabl e. Sources of data are found in Appendix 6. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population. The unit of state population used on a11 court Variations in case classification and definitions: caseload charts is 100,000. Filirigs per 100,001; population compensates for variations in state Incidental appellate jurisdiction in the population and gives a more realistic basis for trial courts is explained in more detail in comparison of caseloads among states of various Figure H. Table 21 provides criminal appeal data sizes. If the number of filings was not for a1 1 those courts that reported criminal available bdt the number of dispositions was appeals separately. Some states combine civil available, the number of cases disposed per unit and criminal appeals in one figure. Others do of population was entered in this column in place not count appeals separately from criminal of the number of cases filed per population unit, caseload.~~ and the use of this alternative quantity was In the 1981 Annual Re ort CSIM began indicated by enclosing it in pareritheses. counting 1 imiteddi., those felonies Population figures used in the criminal tables ‘ that are finally disposed in limited jurisdiction represent the 18-year-old-plus state population. courts) with the regular felony count, and not If all other factors (court jurisdiction, case with the preliminary hearing data. The definition, unit of count, etc.) are similar, the preliminary hearing count in Table 22 represents filed-per-uni t-of-popul ation statistic will only those felonies that are likely to also be permit direct comparisons among states of the counted in general jurisdiction felony counts number of filed cases. (e.g., in this table preliminary hearings include such things as cases bound over, etc.). Limitations on use: Preliminary hearings are not required in all states, and their use varies from state to In Table 22 only STATE TOTALS can be compared state. in those states where more than one court handles The case types used in this report are those preliminary hearings. Comparisons can be made chosen for inclusion in the State Court Model between the data reported for a state with an Annual Re ort and State Court Model Statistical individual court that has exclusive jurisdiction and the STATE TOTALS for states where more than *n y states reporting data that could be one court has jurisdiction. Comparisons should displayed in the specific case types are included be avoided for states not reporting data for one in the tables, and then only if the data are at or more courts that have jurisdiction over the least 90% complete. Many courts do not break case type. data down beyond the broad civil, criminal, Coniparisons should be made only between those traffic, and juvenile categories. cases that use the same unit of count for counting criminal cases. Variations in counting cases: It should also be noted that any change(s) in the caseload of a court may not indicate a change Each of these tables has a column indicating in the actual “offense-rate’’ within a state, but the unit of count used by the court. The may merely reflect changes in the criminal code, distinctions among ways of counting criminal law enforcement policies and/or citizen reporting cases are spelled out in detail in Figure E of rates--among other things. These data should this Report. only be used for court management measures. 139 TABLE 21: Criminal appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. tiled (dis- Unit Disposed posed) per State and court title of as percent 1 00,000 count Filed Disposed of filed population COMPLETE STATE DATA Exclusive court jurisdiction: Arizona--Superior Court ...... 4-A. 1,841 1,754 95% 84 Arkansas--Circuit Court ...... 1 -A 484 124 26% 29 Cal ifornia--Superior Court ...... 2-A 3.632 3,169 87% 19 Delaware--Superior Court ...... 2 -A 150 33 Florida--Circuit Court ...... 5'- 8 773 544 70% 9 Idaho--District Court ...... 4-c 3363 356J 106xJ 4 9j Iowa--District Court 2-A 639 879 ...... 138% .! Kansas--Uistrict Court ...... 2-E/A 780 ;; Kentucky--Circui t Court ...... 2-A 374 41 1 110% 14 Massachusetts--Trial Court of the Commonwealth ...... 2-A/C 8.508 192 Missouri--Circuit Court ...... 11-A/C 3,189 (861 Nebraska--District Court ...... 2 -A 3,2583 3,432J io5xJ 2805 New Hampshire--Superior Court ...... 1 -A 3,039 2,966 98% 41 9 New Jersey--Superior Court ...... 2-8 4,006 4,031 101% 71 Rhode Island--Superior Court ...... 4-A 1,034J 845J 82xj Virginia--Circuit Court ...... 1 -A 21,087 22,71 31J Washington--Superior Court ...... 7 -A 963 West Virginia--Circuit Court ...... 9-c 1,077 Not exclusive court jurisdiction: Texas--County-Level Courts ...... 1-6 97,062 861 INCOMPLETE STATE DATA Colorado--District Court ...... 4-E/A 392 369 94% 17 Maryland--Ci rcuit Court ...... 2-A 4,550i 4,808i 106x1 1391 Michigan--Circuit Court ...... 11-A 706i 808i 114%i 11' North Dakota--Uistrict Court ...... 2-A 2 3 150% 1 Note: All available data that are at least 90% 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents complete are in this table. Blank spaces 5. Single defendant/varies with prosecutor indicate that either the data were 6. One or more defendants/single charge unavailable or less than 90% complete, or 7. One or more defendants/single incident that the calculations are inappropriate. 8. One or more defendants/sin le incident States included under "incomplete state (maximum number of charges! data" may present data from only one of 9. One or more defendants/one or more several courts with this jurisdiction. incidents States omitted from this table did not 10. One or more defendantsharies with specifically report criminal appeals in prosecutor the trial courts. State courts with the 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with jurisdiction can be identified in the prosecutor state court system charts located in Part 111 of this Report. Point at which case is counted: A. At the filing of the information or Criminal case unit of count codes: indictment Contents of case (number of defendants/number 6. At the filing of the information or of charges): complaint 1. Single defendant/single charge C. At the filing of the complaint (warrant 2. Single defendant/single incident or accusation) 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum D. At the assigning of a docket number number of charges) E. At the arraignment (first appearance) 140 TABLE 21: Criminal appeals caseload for state trial courts, 1984. (continued) iData are incomplete: Nebraska District Court--Criminal appeals Maryland Circuit Court--Total criminal data include civil appeals. Statements appeals does not include some cases in the Annual Report indicate that more included in the unreported category. than half were criminal appeals. Michigan Circuit Court--No data were Rtiode Is1and Superior Court--Criminal available for Hillsdale, Osceola, appeals figures include misdemeanor and Kalkaska, or Delta counties. DWI/DUI cases. Virginia Circuit Court--Criminal appeals Viginia Circuit Court--Criminal appeals disposition figure does not include disposition figures include misdemeanor felony appeals from the Juvenile and cases and appeals of misdemeanor cases. Domestic Relations Court. These are included in felony dispositions. JExplan4ition of data included in the category: Idalio District Court--Criminal appeals include sentence review only and postconviction remedy proceedings. 141 TABLE 22: Preliminary hearing proceedings for state trial courts. 1984. Filed (dis- Unit Disposed posed) per State and court title of as percent 100. 000 Count Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population COMPLETE STATE DATA 4 Exclusive court jurisdiction: Alaska.. District Court ...... 7-c 2. 109 1.799 8 5% 624 Arizona.. Justices of the Peace ...... 1-c 1 7. 703J IC. 86d 9 !id eubJ Connecticut.. Superior Court ...... 2 -A 278 278 100% 12 Delaware.. Court of Common Pleas ...... 1 -c 6. 9143 (1. 5iu)J District of Columbia.. Superior Court ... 2-8 4. 289 4. 289 100% 879 Florida.. County Court ...... 1-c 5. 710 5. 710 100% 67 Hawaii.. District Court ...... 1 -B 1. 267 1. 267 100% 169 Idaho.. District Court ...... 4-c 5. 2163’ 5. 40d 1o4%J 7681 Iowa.. Di strict Court ...... 2 -A 1. 250 (59) Kentucky.. District Court ...... 2-c 32. 446j 33. 745j io4xJ 1. 2105 Maine.. Di strict Court ...... 9-B 3. 556 3. 113 88% 418 Missouri.. Circuit Court ...... 11-A/C 11. 230 11. 230 100% 304 New Jersey.. Municipal Court ...... 2-c 70. 678 70. 678 100% 1. 249 North Carolina.. District Court ...... 3-c 22. 6814 22. 6815 1oorj 4973 North Dakota.. County Court ...... 5-8 1. 499: 1. 673J 1 12%J 307j South Dakota.. Circui t Court ...... 2-c 3. 257. 3. 257. 100%: 651J Virginia.. District Court ...... 1 -c 45. 395J 45. 395J 1OOXJ 1. 079? West Virgi ni a ..Magi s trate Court ...... 9-c 11. 6615 10. 8673 93%J 8213 Not exclusive court jurisdiction: Nebraska.. STATE TOTAL ...... 5. 1655 4445 County Court ...... 2-8 3. 406: 3. 432J 101 xj 293J Municipal Court ...... 2-c 1. 7595 151J New Hampshire.. STATE TOTAL ...... 3.947 544 District Court ...... 1 -c 2. 836 529 Municipal Court ...... 1 -c 111 15 New Mexico.. STATE TOTAL ...... 16. 7975 1. 7004 Magistrate Court ...... 2-c 15. 402: 1. 559: Bernal i11 o County Metropol itan Court . 2-c 1. 3955 I.396J 1 ooxj 1415 Ohio.. STATE TOTAL ...... 25. 821 25.821 100% 330 County Court ...... 2-c 2. 302 2. 302 100% 29 Municipal Court ...... 2-c 23. 519 23. 519 100% 300 Pennsylvania.. STATE TOTAL ...... 94. 2225 1 .0484 Philadelphia Municipal Court ...... 2-c 14. 8865 15. 22iJ 102%j 1665 District Justice Court ...... 2-C 67. 269 67. 269 100% 748 Pittsburgh City Magistrates ...... 2-c 12. 067J 1343 Puerto Rico.. STATE TOTAL ...... 13. 336 12. 826 96% 408 Superior Court ...... 1 -c 1. 112 1. 146 103% 34 District Court ...... 1 -c 12. 224 11. 680 96% 374 142 TABLE 22: Preliminary hearing proceedings for state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Fi Icd(diF Unit Disposed posed) per State and court title of as percent 100.000 Count Filed Disposed of filed population INCOMPLETE STATE DATA: Ark an s a s - -Mu n ic ipa 1 Court ...... 1-c 1,9471' 1,947i 1OO%i 115i Colorado--County Court ...... 4-c 5.167 5,167 100% 223 Michigan--Di strict Court ...... 2-c 36,939i 36,9391' 1 OO%i 561i New York--Criminal Court o the City of New York ...... 9-0 28,516 28,516 100% 21 4 District Court ...... 2-c 2,650 2,650 100% 20 Oregon--District Court ...... 5-8 12,517J 12,285J 98xj 63 7j Utah--Circui t Court ...... 9-A 5.699 5,6Y9 100% 555 Washington--District Court ...... 3-C 4,386ij i38iJ Wyoming--County Court ...... 9-B 574 574 100% 164 Note: All available data that are at least 90% Farmington, Huinnoke, Mountainburg, Ash complete are included in the table. Blank Flat, Bryant, Clinton, Crossett, Uermott, spaces indicate that either the data are UeValls Bluff, Endora, Fordyce, Lake unavailable or less than 90% complete, or Village, Lake City, Mammoth Spring, the calculations are inappropriate. Marshall, Osceola, Siloam Springs, States included under "incomplete state Magnolia. Russellville, and Star City. data" may present data from only one of Michigan Uistrict Court--District Courts in several courts with this jurisdiction. the cities of Uearborn, Lincoln Park, States omitted from this table either do Romulus, and East Lansing did not report not have preliminary hearings, or did data . not specifically report preliminary Washington District Court--One court did not hearings. State courts with this submit any data during 1984, and one other jurisdiction can be identified in the did not submit all reports. state court system charts located in Part 111 of this Report. jExplanation of data included in the category: Arizona Justices of the Peace--Preliminary Criminal case unit of count codes: hearings include limited felony cases. Contents of case (number of defendantshumber Del aware Court of Common Pleas--Prel iminary of charges) - Point at which case is counted hearings include some limited felony Contents of case: cases. 1. Single defendant/single charge Idaho Uistrict Court--Preliminary hearings 2. Single defendant/single incident include some limited felony cases. 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum Kentucky Uistrict Court--Prel iminary number of charges) hearings include limited felony cases. 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents Nebraska County Court and Municipal 5. Single defendantharies with prosecutor Court--Prel iminary hearings include 6. One or more defendants/single charge 1 imited felony cases. 7. One or more defendantdsingle incident New lilexico Magistrate Court and Bernalillo 8. One or more defendants/single incident County Metropolitan Court--Preliminary (maximum number of charges) hearings include limited felony cases. 9. One or more defendantdone or more North Carolina District Court--Preliminary incidents hearings include limited felony cases. 10. One or more defendantsharies with North Dakota County Court--Preliminary prosecutor hearings include limited felony cases. 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with Oregon District Court--Prel iminary hearings prosecutor include limited felony cases. Philadelphia Municipal Court, Pennsylvania-- Point at which case is counted: Prel iminary hearings include 1 imited A. At the filing of the information or felony cases. indictment Pittsburgh City Magi strates Court, 6. At the filing of the information or Penrisyl van ia- -Prel iminary hearings compl aint include limited felonylmisdemeanor and C. At the filing of the complaint (warrant limited DWI/DUI cases. or accusation) South Dakota Circuit Court--Preliminary 0. At the assigning of a docket number hearings include limited felony cases. E. At the arrp'gnment (first appearance) Virginia District Court--Preliminary hearings incl ude 1imi ted felony cases. iData are incoc,:iete: Washington District Court--Preliminary Arkansas Municipal Court--The following hearings include limited felony cases. courts did not report or reported West Virginia Magistrate Court--Preliminary partial ly: Alma, Crawfordsvil 1e, hearings include limited felony cases. 143 TABLE 23: Criminal jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. Sources of data are found in Appendix B. Limitations on use: Variations in court organization and subject Comparisons on these tables must be matter jurisdi ction : restricted to the court level, and must be controlled for case type, unlt of count, and The "+" symbol under the heading "case type" trial definitions. State totals have not been indicates what case types were reported for each computed in order to avoid ally temptatlon to piece of trial data. An "0" symbol indicates compare "apples and oranges. that the reported figures do not include that case type. Jury trial dispositions can only be An example of the problems of comparing these compared for the same kinds of cases. Both data is given below. Each court that reports general jurisdiction and 1 imited jurisdiction trial data for felony cases as a separate courts are included. category is listed, followed by the symbols for the unit of count used, the point of countlng Variations in counting both cases and trials: cases, and the trial definition. Among those courts reporting felony trlal data, only the five The criminal unit of count and jury trial courts numbered 1, in the last column report data definition are indicated for each court. that can be compared strictly. Those flve courts Caseload cannot be compared among courts that do use the same unlt of count and the same jury not count cases in the same way or at the same trial definition when reportlng their data. time. Jury Appropriate analyses : Unit trlal Caseloads of defi - that can be All percentage calculations that were less Felony count nltion compared than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up to 1%. All percentage calculations that are CT - Superior Court 2 -A A 1 greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed DC - Superior Court 2 -B A as a 41%. ID - Uistrict Court 4-c A IL - Circuit Court 7 -A C Trials as a percent of dispositlons. KS - Uistrict Court 2-E/A A Oividing the number of trials conducted by the NJ - Superior Court 2-8 C total number of cases disposed of for the NC - Superior Court 2 -A A appropriate case type results in the trial rate OH - Ct. of Com. P1. 2-E A for that case type for the court. OK - Uistrict Court 9-B A OR - Circuit Court 5-8 A Jury trials as a percent of dispositions. SO - Circuit Court 2 -A A 1 Oividing the number of jury trials conducted by TX - Uistrict Court 2 -A A 1 the total number of cases disposed of for the . WV - Clrcuit Court 9 -A A appropriate case type results in the jury trial WI - Circuit Court 4-E A rate for that case type for the court. VT - District Court 4-E C Jury trials as a percent of trials. Dividing Care should also be taken to compare only the number of jury trials by the total number of those courts that share similar rules regardlng trials conducted for that case type results in the availability of jury trials. For example, the proportion of trials that are trials by jury some states make it more difficult for a criminal for that case type for the court. defendant to waive a jury trial than other states. 144 /’ TABLE 23: Criminal jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. Case type Jury L Trials trials Jury 0 m as a as a trials a- Jury Number of percent percent as a ,“ 2 Unit trial disposi- Number om\as 2 of Number of percent .- YI - a d of defi- tions per of dispo- of jury dispo- of State and court title 2 2 2 count nition case type -----trials sitions trials sitions trials Arizona : Superior Court ...... + + o + + 4-A A 16,010 7b4 5% 661 4% 8 7% Justice of the Peace o + o o o 1-C A 25,014 2,057 8% 36 41% 2% Municipal Court ..... o + o o o 1-C A 95,666 3.733 4% 108 41% 3% California: Superior Court ...... + o + o o 2-A A 66,535 6,710 10% 4,404 7% 6 b% OOO+O 2-A A 3,169 2,159 68% ------Justice Court ...... o + o o o 2-C A 52,5294 5,5613 ll%J 347J. 4 l%J 6%J Municipal Court ..... o + o o o 2-C A 626.8063 59,9095 lO%J 3,4155 < 1%J 6%J Colorado : County Court ...... o + o + o 4-C A 29,308 1,075 4% 207 < 1% 19% Connecticut : Superior Court ..... t o o o o 2-A A 5,1791’ 21 6i 4%i ++OOO 2-A A 115,034 6YO <1% 231 4 1% 3 3% Delaware: Superior Court ..... + + o + o 2-A A 3,671 323 9% 281 8% 87% Court of Common Pleas ...... o + o o o 1-C A 14,829 90 1% District of Columbia: Superior Court ..... + o o o o 2-8 A 5,599 683 12% 630 11% 92% O+OOO 2-8 A 19,805 1,135 6% 645 3% 5 7% F1 orida : Circuit Court ...... + t + o + 5-8 A 151.7231 3,822 3%1: 3,120 2%: 82% County Court ...... o + o o o 1-C A 217,0761 7,133 3x1 985 121 14% Hawaii : Circuit Court ...... + + o o o 1-B A 4,3681: 565i 13x1 4551: lox! 8l%f o o + o o 1-B A 15: 2f 13%! 2’ 13%’ 100%’ 0 0 0 0 + 1-6 A 233’ 22’ 9%’ 0 0% 0% Idaho: District Court ..... + o o o o 4-C A 4,429. 2,422. 55% o+ooo 4-c A 32.6925 4.282~ i3xJ oo+oo 4-c A 11,125 1,086 10% ooo+o 4-c A 356 68 19% I11 inoi s : Circuit Court ...... + o o o o 7-A c 45,9863’ 6.5izJ iaj 1,282j 3%J zo%i Indiana: County Court ...... + + + o o 7-8 c 5,9375 3633 65 725 l@ 20x5 o++oo 7-8 C 40,7563 3,1563 8%J 8OJ <1%J 3%J Municipal Court of Marion County .... + + + o o 7-B c 46,873J 12,7535 27%J 93J cixj 1 %j Iowa: District Court ..... + + + + o 2-A A 41,4561 1.9661’ 5%i 660i Z%i 34%i Kansas: District Court ..... + o o o o 2-E/A A 12,668 732 6% 562 4% 7 7% o + o + o 2-E/A A 15,742 923 6% 179 1% 19% o o + o o 2-E/A A 5,227 594 11% 105 2% 18% Louisiana: District Court ..... + + + + + 11-A B 331,816 (filings) 1,328 <1% (filings) 145 Table 23: Criminal jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) Case type Jury L Trials trials Jurv 0 c as a as a triais RI Jury Number of percent percent as a ,h 2 2 . Unit trial disposi- Number of Number of percent 2 2 E of defi- tions per of dispo- of jury dispo- of State and court title 2 Z Z count nition case type trials sitions trials sitions trials Mary1 and: Circuit Court ...... + + o + + 2-A A 34,271 7,295 21% 1,430 4% 20% Missouri : Circuit Court ...... + + o + + ii-A/c B 88,5131 9,5725 11x5 1,0235 1x1 lid Montana : District Court ..... + + o + + 7-A C 2,628 131 5% 105 4% 80% New Jersey: Superior Court ..... + o o o o 2-8 C 38,640 2,480 6% 2,201 6% 8 9% New York: Supreme Court and County Court ..... + 0' + o o 7-A B 50,354 5,296 11% 4,456 9% 84% Criminal Court of the City of New York ...... o + + o o 9-U c 2is8864J 1,142 41x1 478 < l%j 42% North Carolina: Superior Court ..... + o o o o 2-A A 41,698 2,379 6% O+O+O 2-A A 25,311 1,126 4% District Court ..... o + + o o 3-C A 357,9621 40,3905 11x5 ------North Dakota: District Court ..... + + o + + 2-A c 1,271 268 21x5 46 4%J 17% Ohio: Court of Common Pleas ...... + o o o o 2-E A 36,399 3,312 9% 1,834 5% 55% Municipal Court .... o + o + o 2-C A 251,507J 10,954J 4x1 73iJ 41x1 7%J oo+oo 2-c A 85,712 5,042. 6% 688 41%. 14% County Court ...... o + o + o 2-C A 23,0501 1,8555 8%j 929 4 1x5 5xJ OO+OO 2-c A 14,072 1,997 14% 90 < 1% 5% Oklahoma: District Court ..... + o o o o 9-B A 21,0263: 1,6385 8x4 8144 4%J 50%J o+o+o 9-6 A 34,7363 1,2093 S%J 1845 4 1x5 1S%J oo+oo 9-8 A 16,691 1,063 6% 118 <1% 11% Oregon : Circuit Court ...... + o o o o 5-8 A 19,593 1,536 8% 1,049 5% 68% Pennsylvania : Court of Common Pleas ...... + + + + o 2-A/U C 88,355 9,608 11% 3,178 4% 3 3% District Justice Court ...... o + o o o 2-C c 82,933J 14,258J 17Xj ------Philadelphia Munici- pal Court ...... o + + o o 2-C C 20,889 5,670 27% ------ Puerto Rico: Superior Court ..... + o o o o 1-C C 14,1065 3,1205 22%: 3815 3%J 12%J o+ooo 1-c C 7,9443 1,6785 2185 595 1%J 4%J South Dakota : Circuit Court ...... + o o o o 2-A A 2,463 109 4% 87%J 146 Table 23: Criminal jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) Case type Jury 0L Trials trials Jury mE as a as a trials a- Jury Number of percent perccrit as a =‘ 2 % Unit trial disposi- Number of Idunlber of percetit ‘5: 2 of 2a ..- n ..-4 defi- tions per of dispo- of jury dispo- of State and court title r c3 =c = --count nition case type trials sitions trials sitiotls trials Texas : District Court and Criminal District Court ...... + o o o o 2-A A 82,866 4,672’ b’bi 3,201 42 69% O+OOO 2-A A 8,647 1301 Z%i 95 1% 73xi OO+OO 2-A A 6,311 1601 3%’ 97 2% 61Xi County-Level Courts o + o + o 1-6 C 233,289 3,939 2% 1,077 1% 27% 0 0 + + 0 1-B C 149,930 1,71Y 1% 1,171 1% 6 && Utah: District Court ..... + + o + o 9-A A 2.811 328. 12% 201 9% 8Uf Circuit Court ...... o + + o + 9-A A 41,0933’ 7,9613 19xj 9063 zxj 11.~3’ Vermont: Superior Court ..... + + o o o 2-A C 5 0 0 0 0 0 District Court ..... + o o o o 4-E C 1,817 32 21 28 2x3 88% O++OO 4-E c 17,629J 29oj zaj 2023’ id 7~x3’ Virginia: Circuit Court ...... + o o + o 1-A A 41,3765 11,9934 29%5 3,1545 825 ZG%j o + o + o 1-A A 22,7133 7.0853 31%J 6783 3’23 l0aJ Was hington: Superior Court ..... + o o + o ?-A A 14,594 1,980 13% 1,196 8% 6 0% West Virginia: Circuit Court ...... + o o o o 9-A A 4,268 268 6% O+OOO 9-A A 1,664 46 3% OO+OO 9-A A 1 73 13 8% Wisconsin: Circuit Court ...... + o o o o 4-E A 13,478 1,024 8% 652 5% 642 O+OOO 4-E A 28,609. 794 3% 326 1% 41 X OO+OO 4-E A 14,195’ 719i 5%i 273i 2%i 38Xi Wyoming: District Court ..... + o o + o 9-A A 1,4321’ 296i 21Xi 6ai 5%i 23Xi Note: All available data that are 90% or more Criminal case unit of count codes: complete are entered in the table. Blank Contents of case (number of defendants/number spaces indicate that the data are of charges): unavailable or less than 90% complete, or 1. Single defendant/single charge that the calculations are inappropriate. 2. Single defendant/single incident States omitted from this table did not 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum specifically report criminal trial data in number of charges) sufficient detail. State courts with the 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents possibility of jury trials can be 5. Single defendant/varies with prosecutor identified in the state court system 6. One or more defendants/single charge charts located in Part 111 of this Report. 7. One or more defendants/single incident 8. Une or more defendants/single incident __ - Not applicable. (maximum number of charges) + = Data are given for these case types. 9. One or more defendants/one or more o = Data do not include these case types. incidents 10. One or more defendants/varies with , Trial definitions: prosecutor A = A jury trial is counted at jury selection, 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with empaneling or swearing in. prosecutor 6 = A jury trial is counted at introduction of evidence or swearing of first witness. Point Bt which case is counted: C = A jury trial is counted at verdict or A. At the filing of the information or decision. indictment 147 Table 23: Criminal jury and non-jury trial dispositions by case type, 1984. (continued) E. At the filing of the information or Municipal Court of Marion County--Combined compl aint case types include ordinance violations. C. At tlie filing of the complaint (warrant or Missouri --Ci rcui t Court--Total iricl udes accusation) ordinance violations for which jury trials U. At the assigning of a docket riuiiibcr wcre dctnmdcd in tlie Municipal Division. E. At the arraignment (first appearance) New York--Criminal Court of the City of New York--Data include limited felony cases. iuata are incomplete: North Carol ina--Di strict Court--Total Connecticut--Superior Court--Felony cases do criminal includes ordinance violations and not include some Part D felonies reported in limited felony cases. the following line of this table. North Dakota--District Court--Total criminal Florida--Circuit Court and County data include sentence review only and Court--Disposi tions of reopened cases are not postconviction remedy proceedings. included. Ohi o--Munici pal Court--Mi sdemeanor data Hawaii --Circuit Court--Reopened cases are not include ordinance violations. incl uded. County Court--Mi sdemeanor data include Iowa--District Court--Some misdemeanors are ordinance vf olations. included in the traffic caseload. Okl ahoma--Di strict Court--Fel ony cases Texas - - D is t r ic t Court- -Non -j u ry c r imi n a 1 t r ia 1 include some miscel1aneous criminal cases. data do not include guilty pleas accepted Misdemeanor cases include ordinance during a bench trial. violations. Wisconsin--Circuit Court--DWI/DUI caseload Pennsyl vania--District Justice Court-- does not include DWI/DUI cases from Misdemeanor data include some ordinance Milwaukee County. violation cases. Wyomi ng--Di strict Court-- Sub1 ette County Puerto Rico Superior Court--Criminal appeals reported data for only 6 months. are included in case type data. South Dakota--Circui t Court--Total trial figure jExplanation of data included in the category: includes some hearings. California--Justice Court and Municipal Utah--Circuit Court--Criminal data include Court--Misdemeanor includes felonies 1 imited felony cases, and postconviction reduced to a misdemeanor preliminary remedy proceedings. hearings and some ordinance violations. Vermont--Ui strict Court--Mi sdemeanor data Idaho--District Court--Misdemeanor cases include ordinance violations . include ordinance violations. Virginia--Circuit Court--Felony data include I11inois--Circuit Court--Felony cases include criminal appeals from the Juvenile and preliminary hearings for courts downstate. Domestic Relations Court. Misdemeanor data Indiana--County Court--Felony and include some ordinance violations. misdemeanor figures incl ude ordinance violations. 148 TABLE 24: Criminal disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. Sources of data are found in Appendix B. These do not appear at all on this table, so that the total manners of disposition may not add up Variations in court organization and subject to total dispositions, nor do the perccntdges add matter jurisdictlon: up to 1oLyx. This table displays data for the general Appropriate analyses: jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction courts that report manner-of-disposition data that are at All percentage calculations that were less least 90% complete. Some jurisdictions may also than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up show a disproportionately 1 arger criminal to 1%. All percentage calculations that are caseload than others because ordinance viol ations greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed cannot he separated from the criminal caseload as4l%. (indicated by a "j"footnote). In the CSIM classification scheme, ordinance violations Number and percent of total dispositions for should be reported with the traffic/other each manner of disposition. Uividing the number violations case1oad. of cases for each manner of disposition by the The "+" symbol under the heading "case types" total number of cases disposed results iri the indicates what case types are reported for each proportions of cases disposed by each manner of data element. An "0" symbol indicates that the disposition. These figures can be compared reported figures do not include that case type. between courts that count cases in the same way Types of dispositions can only be compared for (i.e., the same unit of count). the same types of cases. Limitations or1 use: Variations in definitions: The distribution of the proportions of cases This table indicates the various units used by different manners of disposition is affected in counting cases from state to state. Total by the method used for counting cases in the criminal dispositions can be compared only among court. Dismissals will make up a higher those states using the same unit of count. percentage of dispositions in those courts basing Only a few states report sufficiently case count on charges than those counting complete data to make inter-state comparisons of defendants. Before making comparisons between the proportion of total caseload disposed by each states and courts, be sure that they both use a manner of disposition possible. similar unit of count. Even in those jurisdictions that report The distribution is also affected by the manners of disposition, the distinctions between order with which procedures are carried out by manners of disposition are not as detailed as one the court and the prosecutor. The proportion of would prefer. For example, bail/bond forfeitures dismissals will be lower in courts that screen have been lumped with guilty pleas in this table cases before filing them than in courts that because few jurisdictions separate them--the same screen cases after they are filed. is true of nolle prosequi and dismissed. In addition, a dismissal in one state may not There are also a number of manner of mean the same as a dismissal in another state. disposition categories reported by the states For example, some states may distinguish,between (some of them fairly substantial) that fit only dismissals by prosecutors and by judges, while into an unclassified category in the CSIM others may treat them as the same. classification scheme, for example, transfers. 143 TABLE 24: Criminal disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. Case types E Total pleahail 02 2: .rL forfeiture, etc. C? Y.Y.E3.-@@a- u As Unit . .-.,:giwo Total percent of ‘pe, .r criminal of dis- State and court title count ‘f g 2 dispositions Number posed Cal ifornia--Superior Court ...... 2-A o+o++o 69,704 54,217 78% Justice Court ...... 2-c +ooooo 7,7175 2,8015 36XJ ...... 2-c oo+ooo 44,812; 35,826J 8O%J Municipal Court ...... 2-C +ooooo 110,971J 40.513.1 37%j ...... 2-c oo+ooo 525,8353 415,8013 79% Delaware--Superior Court ...... , . 2-A +o+o+o 3,671 2,478 68% District of Columbia--Superior Court . . . .. 2-8 +ooooo 4,465 -- -- ..... 2-8 o+oooo 5,599 3,409 61% ..... 2 -B oo+ooo 19,805 6,573 33% ‘Florida--Circuit Court ...... 5-8 o+++o+ 152,267 37,203 2 4% County Court ...... 1 -c oo+ooo 21 7,076 98.197 45% Hawaii--Circuit Court ...... 2 -8 o++ooo 4,3681 ...... e...... 2 -B ooo+oo 15: ...... 2 -B ooooo+ 233: District Court ...... 2 -B oo+ooo 22.917’ ...... 2-6 ooo+oo 3,326 I11 inois--Ci rcuit Court ...... 9-A o+oooo 45,986J Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court 7-A o+++oo 31 ,756 18,089 5 7% City Court and Town Court ...... 7 -B oo++oo 23,2331 1 2,040! 52gi. County Court ...... 7-c ++o+oo 5 ,973J 4,020: 67%? 7-c oo++oo 40,756J 24,5195 60%J Kansas--District Court ...... 2-A o+oooo 12,668 6,747 53% ...... 2-A~ oo+o+o 15,742j 9,150J 58x1 ...... ,...... 2 -A ooo+oo 5,227 1,911 3 7% Missouri--Circui t Court ...... 11-B + 0 + + o o 18,571 11 370J 64%J ...... 11-6 0 + + + + 0 13,842J 3 ,942 28% ...... 11-B 0 0 + + 0 0 56,100 35,449 63% Montana--District Court ...... 7 -A o++o+o 2,628 1,629 62% New Jersey--Superior Court ...... 2 -B o+oooo 38,640. 23,258 6 0% Municipal Court ...... 2-C +o++oo 356,6823 New York--Supreme Court and County Court . 7 -A o+o+oo 50,354 39,395 78% Criminal Court of the City of New York . 9-D +o++oo 215,864 127,327 59% Uistrict Court and City Court ...... 2-c +o++oo 194,603J 114,858J 59%J North Carol ina--Superior Court ...... 2-A o+oooo 41,698 24,990 60% ...... 2 -A oo+o+o 25,311 11.944 47% District Court ...... 3-c +o++oo 357,962 143,355 40% Ohio--Court of Common Pleas ...... 2-E o+oooo 36,339 25,246 69% County Court ...... 2-c +ooooo 942 -- ...... 2-c oo+o+o 23,05d 9.36d 42 ...... 2-c ooo+oo 14,072 9.633 68% Municipal Court ...... 2-c +ooooo 17,063 -- ...... e... 2-c oo+o+o 251 ,5073’ 124.07d 42 ...... 2-c ooo+oo 85,712 61 ,246 71 % Oklahoma--District Court ...... 9-B o+ooo+ 21.026 11,934 57% ...... 9-B oo+o+o 34,736 22.862 66% ...... 9 -B ooo+oo 16,691 13,561 81 % 150 Table 24: Criminal disposition types for trial courts, 1984. (continued) Trial Total Nolle prosequi/ conviction conviction Ac qui t t a 1 dismissal As As As As percent percent percent percent of dis- of dis- of dis- of dis- State and court title Number posed Number posed Number posed Number posed California--Superior Court ...... 5,453 8% 59,670 86% 1,257 2% 5,608 8% Justice Court ...... 2,801 36% 567 7% 1,261 16% ...... 1,3503' 3%1 34,174 83xJ 7i3j 2%; 6,618J i5xJ Municipal Court ...... 40,512J 37% 4,5915 4x5 20,167J 18@ ...... 6,092j 1Xj 421,893 8O%j 4,3023 Id 97,7053 19%J Delaware--Superior Court ...... 230 6% 2,708 74% 63 2% 807 22% District of Columbia--Superior Court .... -- -- 171 4% 2,248 50% .e.. 442 8% 3,851 6Y% 183 3% 674 12% .... 716 4% 7,289 37% 364 2% 8,781 44% Florida--Circuit Court ...... 1,927 1% 39,130 26% 1,245 1% 62,036 41% County Court ...... 1,788 1% 99,985 46% 2,605 1% 98,294 45% Hawaii --Circuit Court ...... 2,9894 68%i 1201 3%! 1,042i 24%i ...... 41 27%i 11 7x1 21 13d ...... 112! 48Xi District Court ...... 12,6751 55%i 9,8691 43Xi ...... 2,822 85% 494 15% Illinois--Circuit Court ...... 3,65d 8x5 8,570.1 19% Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court City Court and Town Court ...... County Court ...... Kansas--District Court ...... 522 4% 7,269 57% 228 2% 3,348 26% ...... 5425 3d 9,6925 625j 202J 1x5 4,2165 275j ...... 558 11% Missouri --Circui t Court ...... 3,846: 21%: ...... 3,942 28% 9,6485 70x5 ...... 14,434 26% Montana--District Court ...... 105 4% 1,734 66% 26 1% 659 25% New Jersey--Superior Court ...... 1,616 4% 24,874 64% 864 2% 8,484. 22% Municipal Court ...... 198,141J 56xj ioo,mJ 28x5 9,0725 3xJ New York--Supreme Court and County Court 6,172 12% Criminal Court of the City of New York 527 (1% 127.854 59% 666 <1% 71,355 33% District Court and City Court ...... 1,5633 1x5 116,4215 6W' 93oj Ohio--Court of Common Pleas ...... 3,971 11% County Court ...... ------__ -_ -- 754 80% ...... 4,879 21% ...... 1,278 9% Municipal Court ...... -- __ -- -- 13,823 81% ...... 153,953ij 6;gij 42.172J i7d ...... 7,854 9% Oklahoma--District Court ...... 11,9341 57x1 7,454 35% ...... 25,2811 73Xi 8,246 24% ...... 13,821 1 82x4 1,757 11% 151 Table 24: Criminal disposition types for trial courts, 1984. Case types Total plea/bail 2*k E .r forfeiture, etc. -706: VL 22EZ- As Unit ann). Total percent . .TJ>av of 0 .- v) criminal of dis- State and court title count -Ic, ,? 'E $ dispositions Number posed Pennsylvania--Court of Comnon Pleas ...... 2-8 o++++o 88,3551 38.684i 44%! District Justice Court ...... 2-C o+oooo 82,933J 46,53d 5683 ...... 2-c +o++oo 36,910 3,051 8% Municipal Court ...... 2-C oo++oo 24,776j 2,414J 1oJ Puerto Rico--Superior Court ...... 1-C District Court ...... 1-C South Carolina--Circuit Court ...... 2-A o+++o+ 42,188 26,099 62% South Dakota--Circuit Court ...... 2-c o+oooo 2,463 1,053 4 3% ...... 2-c oo++oo 14,57ai 11 ,46gi 79%i Tennessee--Ci rcuit Court and Criminal Court ...... 11-A o + + o + o 38,282 25,684 67% Texas--Di strict Court and Criminal District Court ...... 2 -A o+oooo 82,866 47,694 58% ...... 2 -A oo+ooo 8,647 3,613 42% ...... 2 -A ooo+oo 6.311 5,099 81% County-Level Courts ...... 1 -c oo+o+o 223,289 93,282 42% ...... 1-c ooo++o 149,930 99,853 6 7% Utah --Di s tric t Court ...... 9-6 o++o+o 4,584 2,16d 4785 Vermont--Superior Court ...... 2 -A o+o+oo 5 2 40% District Court ...... 4-E ++oooo 1,817 1,233 68% ...... 4-E oo++oo 17,6293' i3,mJ 75xj Virginia--Circui t Court ...... 1 -A o+oo+o 41,376 19,976. 48%...... 1 -A oo+o+o 22,7133 9,19@ 4D%J Washington--Superior Court ...... 7-6 o+oo+o 14,594 9,508 64% Wyoming--District Court ...... 9-6 o+oooo 1,432 762 53% Note: All available data that are 90% complete 7. One or more defendants/single incident are entered in this table. Blank spaces 8. One or more defendants/single incident indicate that the data are unavailable, (maximum number of charges) or less than 90% complete, or the 9. One or more defendants/one or more calculations are inappropriate. incidents Percentages of the various disposition 10. One or more defendantshades with types do not sum to 100% due to missing prosecutor tispositio! types like "other" and 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with transfer. Reported data may include prosecutor non-criminal cases when they could not be separated from the criminal data (e.g., Point at which case is counted: ordinance violation cases). A. At the filing of the information or indictment -- - Not applicable 6. At the filing of the information or + = Data are given for these case types. complaint o = Data do not include these case types. C. At the filing of the complaint (warrant or accusation) Criminal case unit of count codes: D. At the assigning of a docket number Contents of case (number of defendants/number E. At the arraignment (first appearance) of charges) - Point at which case is counted iData are incomplete: Contents of case: Hawaii--Circui t Court--Criminal caseload 1. Single defendant/single charge does not include reopened prior cases. 2. Single defendant/single incident District Court--Criminal caseload 3. Single defendant/single incident (maximum does not include some mlsdemeanors number of charges) which are included with traffic. 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents Indiana--City Court and Town Court-- 5. Single defendant/varies with prosecutor Criminal caseload does not include some 6. One or more defendants/single charge unidentified cases. 15 2 Table 24: Criminal disposition types for trial courts, 1984. (continued) Tria1 Total No1 le prosequi/ conviction conviction Acquittal dismissal As As As As percent percent percent percent of dis- of dis- of dis- of dis- State and court title Number posed Number posed Number posed Number posed Pennsylvania--Court of Common Pleas ..... 8,486. 10% District Justice Court ...... 8,9123 ii%j 55,442.)’ 67d 5,3465 6xJ 7,7225 gxj ...... 3,051 8% -- -- 23,459 64% Municipal Court ...... 4,729 19% Puerto Rico--Superior Court ...... District Court ...... South Carolina--Circuit Court ...... 1,193 3% 27,292 65% 327 1% 11,840 28% South Dakota--Circuit Court ...... 900 37% ...... 1 ,936i lXi Tennessee--Circuit Court and Criminal Court ...... 1,588 4% 27,272 71% 851 2% 6,380 1,6% Texas--District Court and Criminal District Court ...... 3,239 4% 50,933 61% 999 1% 30,535 37% ...... 44 1% 3,657 42% 13 1% 4,092 47% ...... 112 2% 5.211 83% 31 1% 1,013 16% County-Level Courts ...... 1,146 1% 94,428 42% 2,793 1% 112,254 50% ...... 951 1% 100,804 67% 768 1% 43,891 29% Utah--District Court ...... 440 10% 2,600 57% 110 2% 1,672 36% Vermont--Superior Court ...... 2 40% 0 3 60% District Court ...... 20 1% 1,253. 69% 12 1% 502. 28% ...... 151 1% 13,4305 76’6.)’ 106 1% 3,8135 22Xj Virginia--Circui t Court ...... 6,830. 17% ...... 5,5153 24%J Washington--Superior Court ...... 986 7% 10,494 72% 283 2% 2,700 19% Wyoming--District Court ...... 255 18% North Carol ina--District Court--Total does not Missouri--Circui t Court--Criminal caseload include trial convictions. include those ordinance violations that Ohio--Municipal Court--Total does not include demanded jury trials from the municipal trial convictions. judges. Oklahoma--District Court--Total does not New Jersey--Municipal Court--Figures include include trial convictions. trdinance violations. Acquittals inclufe Pennsyl vania--Court of Common Pleas-- dismissals and finding of not guilty. Miscellaneous appeals are not included. New York--District Court and City Court-- South Dakota--Ci rcuit Court--Misdemeanor Criminal data include ordinance data does not include Class 2 misdemeanors violations cases. (disorderly conduct, prostitution, Ohio--Municipal Court and County Court-- gambling, some appeals, some ordinance Misdemeanor data include ordinance violations, and contested parking). violations. Pennsylvania--District Justice Court-- JExplanation of data included in the category: Felony data include some ordinance Cal ifornia--Justice Court and Municipal violations cases. Court--Limited felony includes Utah--Uistrict Court--Total number of preliminary hearings. Misdemeanor dispositions is the number of charges not includes some ordinance violations cases. cases. Trial convictions include cases Vermont--District Court--Misdemeanor data bound over. include ordinance violations cases. I11 inois--Ci rcuit Court--Misdemeanor data Virginia--Ci rcuit Court--Misdemeanor data include preliminary hearings. may include a few ordinance violations. Indiana--County Court--Criminal caseload includes ordinance Violations cases. Kansas--District Court--Misdemeanor data include ordinance violations cases. 15 3 \ TABLE 25: Ordinance violation caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Variations in court organization and subject by dividing the number of cases disposed of by matter jurisdi c tion : the number filed, and then multiplying by one hundred. A percent over one hundred indicates Caseload in this table is from both general that the court disposed of more cases than were jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction courts, filed, thus reducing pending caseload. A percent The same case types may be handled in different significantly less than one hundred Indicates courts from state to state. The court system that the court is not keeping up with the volume charts in Part 111 should be consulted for a of cases being filed. Thls measure was not brief sumnary of the jurisdiction of each court. computed ifthe filing and disposition data were To facilitate comparisons, the states in not comparable. these tables have been grouped into three categories: those states where a court has Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population. The exclusive jurisdiction over a case type and where unit of state population used on all court it reported complete data; those states where caseload charts is 100,000. Filings per 100,000 more than one court handles a case type and each population compensates for variations in state court submitted complete data; and those states population and gives a more realistic basis for where data from any one of the courts with that comparison of caseloads among states of various case type jurisdiction are incomplete. sizes. If the number of filings was not available but the number of dispositions was Sources of data are found in Appendix B. available, the number of cases disposed per unit of population was entered in this column in place Variations in case classification and definitions: of the number of cases filed per population unit. and the use of this alternative quantity was This is the second year that ordinance indicated by enclosing it in parentheses. violations have been extracted from the criminal Population figures used in the criminal tables caseload. They are now counted with represent the 18-year-old-plus state population. traffic/other violation cases in order to leave If all other factors (court jurisdiction, case only the more important criminal cases in the definition, etc.) are similar, the criminal caseload. The case categories and the filed-per-uni t-of-popul ation statistic will data classified in the case categories, however, permit direct comparisons among states of the vary from state to state. number of filed cases. Because such problems exist for these and all other case categories, the case types used in Limitations on use: this Re ort are those chosen for inclusion in the State* Model Annual Report and State Court Only STATE TOTALS can be compared in those Rodel Statistical Dictionary. states where more than one court has jurisdiction Even with use of the model case types, over the case type. Comparisons can be made however, caseloads are not comparable if state between the data reported for a state with an statutes vary as to the types of criminal cases individual court that has exclusive jurisdiction classified as local ordinance violation or state over the type of case, and the STATE TOTALS for misdemeanors. Certain fish and game offenses, states where more than one court has for example, may be ordinance violations in one jurisdiction. Comparisons should be avoided for state but misdemeanors in another. states not reporting data for one or more courts Only states reporting data that could be that have jurisdiction over the case type. The displayed in the specific case types are included data that could be included in this table, in the tables, and then only if the data are at however, are so limited that few comparisons are least 90% complete. Many courts do not break possible. Many states do not count their data down beyond the broad civil, criminal, ordinance violations separately from their traffic, and juvenile categories. criminal caseload. Others do not report ordinance violations at all. Appropriate analysis: It should also be noted that any change(s) in the caseload of a court may not indicate a change All percentage calculations that were less in the actual “offense-rate’’ within a state. but than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up may merely reflect changes in the criminal code, to 1%. law enforcement policies and/or citizen reporting rates--among other things. Consequently, these Disposed cases as percent of filed. This data are useful for little more than court measure represents the percent of filedcases management measures. disposed by the court. The percent is computed 154 TABLE 25: Ordinance violation caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Filetl (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100,000 Filed Disposed of filed population COMPLETE STATE DATA Exclusive court jurisdiction: District of Columbia--Superior Court ...... 5,048 4,852 96% 81 0 Florida--County Court ...... 104,648 93,032! 953 Hawaii--District Court ...... 24,153j 20,8033 8681 2,325J Iowa--District Court ...... 64,944 61,9953 ’ 95x3’ Not exclusive court jurisdiction: New Hampshire--STATE TOTAL ...... 17,536 1,795 District Court ...... 16,427 1,681 Municipal Court ...... 1,109 114 ~______~ ~~~~~ INCOMPLETE STATE DATA California--STATE TOTAL ...... 113,9181 75 824i 67%i 4451 Municipal Court ...... 107,801f 70,7561 66x1 421 i Justice Court ...... 6,1171 5,0681 83%’ 241 Indiana--City Court and Town Court ...... 14,541i 11,684! 80%i 265j Pennsylvania--District Justice Court ...... 241 ,9OZi 21 1 ,529’ 87x1 2,0331. South Carol ina--Municipal Court ...... 67,335j 2,040J Utah--Circuit Court ...... 8,9173 7,0215 7 9%j 5405 Washington--STATE TOTAL ...... 3,460ij Municipal Court ...... 2,67813’ District Court ...... 7821 Wisconsin--Circuit Court ...... 48,945 48,585 9 9% 1,027 Wyoming--County Court ...... 1,582 31 0 Note: All available data that are at least 90% Indiana City Court and Town Court--All data complete are entered in the table. Blank are incomplete, due to cases reported in spaces indicate that either the data are the grand total but not identified by case unavailable or less than 90% complete, or category. that the calculations are inappropriate. Pennsylvania District Justice Court--Some States included under “incomplete state ordinance violations are included in the data” may present data from only one of misdemeanor caseload. several courts with this jurisdiction. Washington District Court--One court did not States omitted from this table did not report any data during 1984, and one other specifically report ordinance did not submit all reports. violations. State courts with thls Washington Municipal Court--Two courts did jurisdiction can be identified in the not report any data during 1984. state court system charts Identified in jExplanation of data included in the category: the state court system charts located in Hawaii District Court--Ordinance violations Part 111 of this Report. include some misdemeanor cases. f Iowa District Court--Ordinance violations illata are incomplete: include some miscellaneous traffic cases. California Municipal Court--Some ordinance South Carolina Municipal Court--Ordinance violations are included in the violations include parking meter misdemeanor caseload. violations. California Justice Court--Some ordinance Utah Circuit Court--Ordinance violations violations are included in the include some miscellaneous criminal cases. misdemeanor caseload. Washington Municipal Court--0rdi nance F1orl da County Court--0rdi nance violations violations include some misdemeanor dispositlon data include only new cases cases. not reopened cases. 155 FIGURE G: Juvenile unit of count used in state trial courts, 1984. The National Juvenile Information Systems wishes of the juvenile. Future editions of this Task Force of the National Council of Juvenile Figure may provide further understanding of this and Family Court Judges recommended to the COSCA age dimension to juvenile case processing by CSIS Committee and the CSIM Project that identifying the minimum age when petitions may caseload data of courts counting juvenile be filed to transfer a case to adult courts. referrals be separated from the caseload data of This information has been obtained by CSIM courts counting juvenile petitions. This table Project staff from the administrative office of indicates what each court counts as a case, and the courts in each state and is part of the 1984 when a disposition is counted for sJatistica1 State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for purposes. Statistical Reportin . The CSIM Porject case Additionally, Figure G provides information categories on Tables'27, 28, and 29 are arranged on the age at which juvenile jurisdiction according to the dif ferences in reporting transfers to adult courts regardless of the juvenile cases as outlined in Figure G. 156 FIGURE G: Juvenile unit of count used in state trial courts, 1984. Age at which General/ Filings are counted Disposition counted juveni 1e limited At in- At filing At adjudi- At dispo- jurisdiction juris- take or of cation of sition of transfers to State and court title diction referral petition petition juvenile adult courts ALABAJIA: 19 Circuit Court G X X District Court L X X ALASKA: 18 Superior Court G X X AH1 LUNA : 18 Superior Court G X X ARKANSAS: 18 County Court L X X CALIFORNIA: 18 Superior Court G X X CULUKAUU: 18 District Court G X X (incl udes Denver Juvenile Court) CONNECTICUT: 1b Superior Court G X X DELAWARE : 18 Family Court L X X DI STR 1CT Ot COLU14B I A : 18 Superior Court G X X FLOR I DA : 18 Circuit Court G X X GEORGIA : 17 Superior Court and Juveni 1e Court G X X HAWAI I : 18 Circuit Court G X X IDAHO : Itl District Court G X X ILLIN01S: 17 Circuit Court G X X mIANA: 18 Circuit Court and Superior Court G X X Probate Court L X X IOWA: At maturity 18 District Court G X of juvenile 18 ""D:%ct Court G X X KENTUCKY: District Court L X X 157 Figure G: Juvenile unit of count used in state trial courts, 1984 (continued) Age at which General/ Filings are counted Disposition counted juveni 1e limited At in- At filing At adjudi- At dispo- jurisdiction juris- take or of cation of sition of transfers to State and court title diction referral petition petition juvenile adult courts LOUISIANA: 15 (In District Court G X capital Family Court and cases 1 Juvenile Court L X City Court L X MINE: 18 District Court L X X MARY LAND : 18 Circuit Court G X X District Court L X X MASSACHUSETTS: 17 Trial Court of the Commonweal th: G District Court Dept. X X Juvenile Court Dept. X X Probate Court L Unknown Unknown mNf.IESOTA: 18 District Court and County Court G/ L X X MISSISSIPPI (Data are available) MISSOURI : II Circuit Court G X X PlONTANA: 18 District Court G X X NEBRASKA: 18 Separate Juvenile Court L X X County Court L X X NEVADA: I6 District Court G X X NEW HAMPSHIRE: 18 District Court L X X NEW JERSEY: 18 Superior Court G X X NEW MEXICO: 18 District Court G X X RK : 16 Family Court L X X NORTH CAROLINA: At maturity 16 District Court L X of j uveni 1e KORTH DAK OTA: 18 District Court G X X OHIO: 18 Court of Common P1 eas G X (warrant) X 158 Figure G: Juvenile unit of count used in state trial courts, 1984 (continued) Aoe.I- at which General/ Filings are counted Disposition counted juvenile limited At in- At filing At adjudi- At dispo- jurisdiction juris- take or of cation of sition of transfers to State and court title diction referral petition petition juvenile adult courts OKLAHOMA: 18 District Court G X (case number) X OREGON: 18 Circuit Court G X At maturity County Court L X of juvenile PENNSYLVANIA: 18 Court of Common Pleas G X X PUERTO RICO: 18 Superior Court G x X PHODE ISLAN0: 18 Family Court L X X 1S 1 Family Court L X X SOUTH DAKOTA: 18 Circuit Court G X X ~JESSEE: 18 General Sessions Court L X X Juveni 1e Court L X X TEXAS: I/ District Court G X X County Court at Law, Constitutional County Court, Probate Court L X X UTAH: 18 Juvenile Court L X X VERMONT: 16 District Court G X X VIRGIN 1A: 18 District Court L X X WASHINGTON: 18 Superior Court G X X (depen- X (delin- dency quency 1 KST VIRGINIA: 18 Circuit Court G X X WISCONSIN: 18 Circuit Court G X X WYOMING: 19 District Court G X X X = This court has jurisdictfon in this case type. Source: 1984 State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. 159 \ TABLE 26: Criminal-type juvenile petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. TABLE 27: Child-victim petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. TABLE 28: Status petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Variations in court jurisdiction and subject filing of a juvenile petition becomes necessary. matter jurisdiction: In fact, the objective of the intake process Is to find an alternative to adjudication. Caseload in these tables is from both general Consequently, the data In the two segments of jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction courts, arid this table are not comparable. represents the total caseload reported for each case type from each state. The same case type Appropriate analyses: may be handled in different courts from state to state. The court system charts in Part 111 of Disposed cases as percent of filed. This this Re ort should be consulted for a brief measure represents the percent of filed cases summa$$f-the jurisdiction of each court. disposed by tlie court. The percent is computed by dividing the number of cases disposed of by Sources of data are found in Appendix B. the number filed and then multiplying by one hundred. A percent over one hundred indicates Variations in case classification and definitions: that the court disposed of more cases than were filed, thus reducing pending caseload. A percent Case categories and the data classification significantly less than one hundred indicates in the case categories vary from state to state. that the court is not keeping up with the volume Since such problems exist for these and all other of cases being filed. This measure was not case categories, ttie case types used in this computed when the filing and disposition data Re ort are those chosen for inclusion in the were not comparable. ?--tate Court Model Annual Report and State Court Model S tati s tical Oic t ionary. Filed (disposed) per 100,000 population. The Only states reporting data that could be unit of state population used on all court displayed in the specific case type are included caseflow charts is 100,000. Filings per 100,000 in the tables, and then only if the data are at population compensates for variations in state least 90% complete. Many courts do not break population arid gives a more realistic basis for data down beyond the broad juvenile category. comparison of caseloads among states of various The volume of juvenile cases cannot be sizes. If ttie number of filings was unavailable compared across all state courts because the but the number of dispositions was available, the statutory age when a juvenile becomes an adult number of cases disposed per unit of population varies from state to state. This variation was entered in this column in place of tlie number affects the volume of both juvenile filitigs and of cases filed per population unit, and the use adult criminal filings. (See Figure G for of this alternative quantity was indicated by variations in age, and in point of counting enclosing it in parentheses. filings and dispositions.) Population figures used in the juvenile States do not count juvenile cases in the tables represent the state population under 18 same way. This table separates those states that years of age. If all other factors (court count juvenile petitions from those states that jurisdiction, case definition, age at which a count juvenile referrals, a distinction that juvenile transfers to an adult court, etc.) are causes a very substantial difference in similar. the filed-per-uni t-of-popul ation caseload. A large proportion of juvenile statistic will permit direct comparisons among referrals are resolved and disposed before the states of the tiumber of filed cases. 160 TABLE 26: Criminal-type juvenile petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100,000 Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population Juvenlle cases are counted at the flllng of the petltlon in the following states: ...... Arizona--Superior Court ...... 9,217 5,912 64% 1,075 California--Superior Court ...... 45,560 43,714 96% 684 Colorado--District Court and Denver Juvenile Court ...... 5,971 6 ,584 110% 6 98 Delaware--Family Court ...... 6,090 5,501 90% 3,929 Florlda--Circui t Court ...... 50,4235 2, 008J Idaho--District Court ...... 5,0633 5,1353 io1x3 1,5723 Illinois--Circuit Court ...... 20,400 19,607 96% 660 Iowa--District Court ...... 3.538 451 Kansas--District Court ...... 4,5025 691J Maryland--STATE TOTAL ...... 23,6631 20,9711 89%i 2.1811 C1 rcuit Court ...... 20,8071 18,374i 88%i 1,9181 District Court ...... 2,8561 2,597j 91 %! 263: Minnesota--County Courts ...... 17,241.1 24,024j 139%J 1,5343 New Hampshire--District Court ...... 4,911 1,949 New York--Family Court ...... 13,648j 13,4695 99x5 3115 North Carolina--District Court ...... 11,765 12,440 106% 735 Texas--STATE TOTAL ...... 12,170 12.002 99% 258 District Court ...... 10,314 10,216 99% 21 9 County Level Courts ...... 1,856 1,786 96% 39 Utah--Juvenile Court ...... 27,575 4,412 Washington--Superior Court ...... 15,845 13,577 86% 1,367 Wisconsin--Circuit Court ...... 23,569 23,256 99% 1,844 Juvenlle cases are counted at intake or referral In the following states: ...... Arkansas--County Court ...... 4,002 3,718 93% 61 4 Connecticut--Superior Court ...... 10,928j 1~1,9753 1oo%j 1,4635 District of Columbia--Superior Court ...... 3,991 2,956 Georgia--Superior Court and Juvenile Court ...... 20,282 19,614 97% 1,243 Hawaii--Circult Court ...... 5.165 5,846 11 3% 1,800 Massachusetts--Trial Court of the Commormeal th ..... 27,240 1.996 New Jersey--Superlor Court ...... 88,068 90,135 102% 4,750 Rhode Island--Family Court ...... 4,731j 2,093J Juvenlle cases are counted at dlfferent points in the process, or the polnt Is unknown In the following court: ___-______-___---~------~------~----~~---- Guam--Superior Court ...... 1865 475 25%j (continued on next page) 161 TABLE 26: Criminal -type juvenile pett tton caseload for state trlal courts, 1984. (contlnuedl Note: Data reported in this table are state Florfda Ctrcuit Court--Crfmtnal-type totals, unless otherwise indicated. All juvenile petittons include some available data that are 90% or more miscellaneous juvenile cases. complete are entered in the table. Blank Guam Superior Court--Juventle dellnquency spaces tndtcate that the data are cases tnclude juventle traffic data. unavailable or less than 90% complete, or Idaho Dtstrtct Court--Crlmtnal -type juvent le that the calculattons are tnapproprlate. petitions tncl ude status petitions. States omitted from this table did not Kansas Distrtct Court--Crtmtnal-type specifically report criminal -type juvenile pettttons include some juvenile petitlons. State courts with traffic/other vtolatlon cases. this jurisdiction can be identified in the Minnesota County Courts--Juvenile data state court system charts located in Part includes cases from the Distrtct Court. 111 of this Report. New York Family Court--Crimfnal-type juvenile petitions include juvenile lData are incomplete: traffic cases. Maryland Ct rcuit Court and District Court-- Rhode Is1and Family Court--Crtmlnal -type some delinquency cases are included in the juvenile petttions lnclude status unreported category" of unclassified petitions. juveni 1e. jExplanation of data included in the category: Connecticut Superior Court--Criminal -type juventle petittons include status petitt ons. , 162 TABLE 27: Child-victim petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100,000 Fi1 ed Disposed of filed population Juvenile cases are counted at the fil ng of the petition in the following states: ...... Arizona--Superior Court ...... 1,638 2,568 96% 191 California--Superior Court ...... 27,258 16,208 5 9% 409 Colorado--District Court and Denver Juvenf le Court ...... 3,072J 3,0833 1 OD%j 3593 Florida--Circuit Court ...... 25,7773 1,027J Idaho--District Court ...... 604 622 103% 1 ea I11inofs--Circuit Court ...... 329 320 97% 11 Kansas--District Court ...... 5,3743 8243 Maryland--STATE TOTAL ...... 6,3521 5,7321 9U%i 5851' Circuit Court ...... 5,223i 4,7124 9U%i 481 District Court ...... 1,129i 1,0201 9oxf 1041 Minnesota--County Courts ...... 2,4673 6,6853 271Xj 2205 Montana--Di strict Court ...... 570 242 New Hampshire--Dfstrict Court ...... 91 6 364 New York--Family Court ...... 13,018 12,068 93% 297 North Carolina--District Court ...... 4,496 6,260 139% 281 Utah--Juvenile Court ...... 1,656 265 Washington--Superior Court ...... 5.0863 4,641J 91 %j 439J Juvenlle cases are counted at intake or referral In the followlng states: Arkansas--County Court ...... 1,669 1,534 92% 256 Connecttcut--Superfor Court ...... 929 907 98% 124 District of Columbia--Superior Court ...... 7,2203 7,158J 9rxJ 5,348j Georgia--Superior Court and Juvenile Court ...... 5,292 4,971 94% 324 Hawaf I--Ci rcuf t Court ...... 621 6 74 109% 21 6 Massachusetts--Trial Court of the Commonwealth ..... 1,517 111 Rhode Island--Family Court ...... 636 281 Note: Data reported in this table are state JExplanatfon of data fncluded fn the category: totals, unless otherwise indicated. All Colorado District Court and Denver Juvenile available data that are 90% or more Court--Child-victim petltion caseload complete are entered in the table. Blank data includes status petition cases. spaces indicate that either the data are Distrfct of Columbia Superior Court--Child- unavailable or less than 90% complete, or victim data includes domestic relations that the calculations are inappropriate. cases. States omitted from this table did not Florida Circuit Court--Child-victim specifically report chlld-vlctim cases. petitions include some status petitions State courts with this jurisdiction can be and miscellaneous juvenlle cases. identified in the state court system charts Kansas District Court--Child-victim located in Part I11 of this Report. petitlons also include status petitions cases. fData are incomplete: Minnesota County Courts--Fi gure includes data Maryland Circuf t Court and Dfstrict Court--A from District Court. ;mall number of cases are included in the Washington Superior Court--Chi 1d-victim Unreported category" of unclassified petitions include status petitions cases. juveni 1 e. 163 TABLE 28: Status petition caseload for state trial courts, 1984. Filed (dis- Disposed posed) per State and court title as percent 100,000 Fi1 ed Oisposed of filed popul a tion Juvenile cases are counted at the filing of the petition In the following states: ...... Arizona--Superior Court ...... 360 (42) California--Superior Court ...... 873 628 72% 13 Illinois--Circuit Court ...... 7.368 7,381 100% 238 Iowa--District Court ...... 2,501j 31 gj Kansas--District Court ...... ~~ Mary1 and--STATE TOTAL ...... 3771 25Zi 6781 351 Circuit Court ...... 341 21 8; 6481 31 f District Court ...... 36! 34 94x1 3! Micnesota --County Courts ...... 8,351J 9,6753 1 16%j 743? Montana--District Court ...... 5695 2413 New Hampshire--District Court ...... 923 366 New York--Family Court ...... 10,937 10,267 94% 249 North Carolina--District Court ...... 2,421 2,377 98% 151 Texas--STATE TOTAL ...... 1,551 1,495 96% 33 District Court ...... 1,071 1,073 100% 23 County Level Courts ...... 480 422 88% 10 Utah--Juvenile Court ...... 4,734 757 Wisconsin--Circuit Court ...... 4,634 4,5553' 98%j 3633 Juvenile cases are counted at intake or referral in the following states: Arkansas--County Court ...... 1,132 1,040 92% 174 District of Columbia--Superior Court ...... 273 202 Georgia--Superior Court and Juvenile Court ...... 5,855 5,689 97% 359 Hawait--Circuit Court ...... 2,109 2,125 101% 735 Massachusetts--Tri a1 Court of the Commonwealth ..... 3,553 260 Note: Data reported in this table are state iuata are incomplete: totals, unless otherwise indicated. All Maryland Circuit and District Court--Some available data that are 90% or more cases are found in the "unreported complete are entered in the table. Blank category" under unclassified juvenile. spaces indicate that either the data are unavailable or less than 90% complete, or jExplanation of data included in the category: that the calculations are inappropriate. Iowa District Court--Status petition States omitted from this table did not filings include child-victim petitions. specifically report status petition Minnesota County Court--Figure includes data cases. State courts with this from District Court. jurisdiction can be identified in the Montana District Court--Status petltions state court system charts located in Part include criminal -type petitions. I11 of this Report. Wisconsin Circuit Court--Status petitions include child-victim petitions. 1 164 TABLE 29: Traffidother violation disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. Sources of data are found in Appendix B. (some of them fairly substantial) that are not displayed on this table, e.g., transfers. These Variations in court organization and subject do not appear at all on this table, so that the matter jurisdiction: total manners of disposition do not add up to total dispositions, nor do the percentages add up ' This table displays data for the general to 10ux. jurisdiction and 1 imited jurisdiction courts that report manner-of-disposition data for Appropriate analyses: traf fic/o ther viola tion cases. The length of the table is an indication of All percentage calculations that were less the difficulty of aggregating traffic and than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded to ordinance violations into uniform case 1%. All percentage calculations that were categories. In many states, ordinance violations greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed cannot be separated from the criminal caseload. as 41%. A few jurisdictions fail to count or report ordinance violations in their caseloads. Number and percent of total dispositions for The traffic violation caseload varies each manner of disposition. Dividing the number according to whether a jurisdiction handles of cases for each manner of disposition by the parking violations. Even when the court has total number of cases disposed results in the jurisdiction, many of them do not count or report proportions of cases disposed by each manner of uncontested parking cases as part of their disposition. traffic caseload. The courts listed in this Traffidordinance violation cases are table are coded to show caseloads that include generally counted at approximately the saine point parking and those that do not. in case processing. The unit of count varies and only those courts that count cases in the same Variations in definitions: way have comparable caseloads. Only a few states report sufficiently Limitations on use: complete data to make between-state comparisons of the proportion of total caseload disposed by The distribution of the proportions of cases each manner of disposition. is affected by the order with which procedures Even in those jurisdictions that report are carried out by the court and the prosecutor. manners of disposition, the distinctions between The proportion of dismissals dill be loder in manners of disposition are not clear. For courts that screen cases before filing them, than example, some courts lump all their bail/bond in courts that screen cases after they are filed. forfeitures and fine payments with their guilty In addition, a dismissal in one state may not pleas, rather than reporting the categories mean the same as a dismissal in another state. separately. For exdniple, some states may distinguish betvieen There are also a number of manner of dismissals by prosecutors and by judges, while disposition categories reported by the states others may treat them as the same. 165 TABLE 29: Traffidother violation disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. Bail or bond forfeiture/ or Violations . Trlal P1 ea Bureau* conviction As As As Total percent percent percent Park- traffic of dis- of dis- of dis- State and court title ig- disposltions Number posed Number posed Number posed Cal ifornia-Justice Court .... P 488,575ij 71,196!j 1.5815 290,707iJ 6OXid 13,800ij 3%1j Municipal Court ...... P 13,668,354i3 1,444,491’j ll%iJ8,805,223iJ 64Xij 131,26813 l%fj District of Col umbia-- Superior Court ...... NPJ 19,8583 3,215j 16d 2,9843 15Xj - Hawaii--Circuit Court ...... NPJ 141i 51 4xi District Court** ...... P 832,619j 516,075j 62gj Indiana--Superior and Clrcuit Court** ...... P 85,848 18,632 22% City Court and Town Court**. P 1 12,lOOi 62,963i 5681 County Court** ...... P 193,436i 62,471i 32x1 Kansas--District Court ...... NPJ 242, 706i 208,681i 86x1 21,74gi 9Xf - North Dakota--County Court** . P 6O,89gi 6O,89gij ioodj Puerto Rico--District Court**. NPJ 51 ,863i 34,174i 66x1 1 ,5241 3%1 South Dakota--Circuit Court .. CP 127,8825 1 14,158j 89%j Texas--County-Level Courts ... NPJ 71,8033 11,4143 16Xj 142j 1%j Utah--Circuit Court ...... P 568,6765 449,2385 79Xj 9,8615 2%j Note: Blank spaces indicate that either the data CP = Reported data include contested, but not are unavailable or less than 90% complete, contested parking cases. or that the calculations are inappropriate. NPJ = No parking jurlsdiction. State courts with traffic/other violation jurisdiction can be identified in the *Violations Bureau dispositions: These cases state court system charts located in Part were disposed by a Violations Bureau, usually I11 of this Report. with just the payment of a fine. In the Texas Justice of the Peace Court and Munlcipal Court Unit of count: these are called payment of fine Unless otherwise indicated, the unit of count dispositions. The figures for the Vermont is single defendant/single incident, and is District Court are cases referred to the counted at the filing of the complaint. Department of Motor Vehicles. **Haw ai i D is tr ic t Court- -S ing 1e de f en da n thos t serious charge. iData are incomplete: **Indiana--One or more defendants/single Cal ifornia--Justice Court--Some trafflc and incident. ordinance violations cases are reported **North Dakota--Sing1 e defendanthumber of as misdemeanors in the criminal caseload. charges vary. Municipal Court--Figures do not lnclude all **Puerto Rico--Single defendant/slngle charge. ordinance violations. P = Reported data include contested and uncontested parking cases. 166 Table 29: Traffic/other violation disposition types for state trial courts, 1984. (continued) Total conviction Acquittal Uismissal/Nol le prosequi As As As percent percent percent of dis- of dis- of dis- State and court title Number posed Number posed Number posed Cal ifornia--Justice Court ...... 375,703!4 77%i? 3, 8531:j l%iJ 1 02,6001: J 21%!J Municipal Court ...... 10,380,9821J 76XiJ 60,2891j l%fJ3,198,461 1J 2351J District of Columbia-- Superior Court ...... 8,121j 41 xj Hawaii--Circuit Court ...... 6! 4%! District Court ...... 636,1455 76%j 196,4013 24%J Indiana--Superior and Circuit Court ...... City Court and Town Court ...... County Court ...... Kansas--District Court ...... 8, 75ai 4%i North Dakota--County Court ...... 60,899!j iooxij Puerto Rico--District Court ...... 35,6981 69%1 1 ,9251 4%i 13,835! 27%i, South Dakota--Circui t Court ...... 11,967J 9%? Texas--County-Level Courts ...... 11,556j 16%j i46j 1%j 53 ,755? 75%3 Utah--Circuit Court ...... 459,0993 81 %j 3,9123 1 %j 104,4475 18%J Hawaii--Circuit Court--Figures do not include Municipal Court--Figures include UWI/DUI reopened prior cases. cases. Indiana--Ci ty Court and Town Court--Figures do District of Columbia--Superior Court--Figures not include a small number of cases not include DWI/DUI cases. identified by case category. Hawaii --District Court--Figures include some County Court--Figures do not include a small mlsdemeanor cases. number of cases not identified by case North Dakota--County Court--Convictions and category. guilty pleas figures cannot be separated. Kansas--District Court--Figures do not include South Dakota--Circui t Court--Figures include juvenile traffic cases. some misdemeanors in total. North Dakota--County Court--Figures do not Texas--County-Level Courts-- Figures include include parking cases. traffic appeals. Puerto Rico--Di strict Court--Data do not Utah--Circui t Court--Figures include some include ordinance vlolations. miscellaneous criminal cases. Guilty plea/bail forfeiture/no contest data are dExplanation of data included in the category: combined. Cal ifornia-Justice Court--Figures include OWI/DUI. 167 TABLE 30: Traffidother violation total trials and jury dispositions, 1984. Sources of data are found in Appendix 8. greater than 0% but less than .5% are displayed as a 41%. Vadations in court organization and subject matter jurisdiction: Trials as a percent of dispositions. Dividing the number of trials by the total number Table 31 includes all available traffidother of cases disposed for the appropriate case type, violation data for both general and limited results in the trial rate for that case type. jurisdiction courts. Jury trials as a percent of dispositions. Variations in case classifications and DivIding the number of jury trials by the total de f ini ti ons : number of cases disposed, for the appropriate case type, results in the jury trial rate for The case types In this table include moving that case type. traffic violations, miscell aneous traffic violations, and ordinance violations. Jury trials as a percent of trials. Dividing Addi tionally, those courts which have parking the number ot jury trials by the total number of cases included are indicated with a "P" or "CP" trials for that case type results in the in the parking column. The caseload of these proportion of trials that are trials by jury for courts cannot be compared with those which do not that case type. report parking or have parking jurisdiction. DWI/DUI cases are not included unless they are Limitations on use: indicated by a "j" footnote, and courts with DWI/DUI cases reported with their data cannot be Comparisons of these tables must be compared with those that do not. restrlcted to the court level, and must control for case type, case count, and trial definition. Variations in counting both cases and trials: For example, the caseload in the Arizona and Florida court(s.1 can be compared, and Colorado, The definitions used by each court to count the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Kansas can cases and trials are indicated in this table. a1 so be compared. Comparisons can only be made between courts that Care should also be taken to compare only count cases and trials in the same way. those courts that share similar rules regarding the availability of jury trials. For example, hropriate analyses: some states make it more difficult for a criminal defendant to waive a jury trial than other states All percentage calculations that were less (this qualification has not yet been incorporated than 1% but greater than .5% have been rounded up in the database). to 1%. All percentage calculations that are 168 TABLE 30: Traffidothe; violation total trials and jury dispositions, 1984. Jury Trials trials Jury as a as a trials Jury percent Number percent as a Unit trial Number of Number of of of percent Park- of defini- dlsposi- of dispo- jury dispo- of State and court title ing count tion tions trials sitions trials sitions trials Arizona: Justice of the Peace ...... NPA 1 A 33s,507iJ 18,078iJ 5xiJ i76iJ c~%iJ Hawai 1 : Ctrcuit Court ...... NPJ 2 A 141i 31 Z%i li 1%i 33x1 Indt ana: Superior Court and Circuit Court ...... NPJ 7 C 85,8485 1,351j z%j 2J 4 1% ixj Iowa : District Court ...... CP 1 A 650,3353 13,9413’ 2x5 2873 < id EXJ Kansas : District Court ...... NPJ 2 A 242, 706i 3,39ai lXi 4gi < lXi lXi South Dakota: Circuit Court ...... CP 2 A 127,8825 1,4395 l%j 0 -- -- Texas: County-Level Courts ...... NPJ 1 C 71,8035 288J iJ 9oj c ixj 3i%j Utah: Circuit Court ...... P 2 A Wisconsin: Circuit Court ...... P 1 A 1 32,7915 i4%J Note: All available data that are 90% or more 3. Single defendant/single charge (maximum complete are entered in the table. Blank number of charges) spaces indicate that the data are 4. Single defendant/one or more incidents unavailable, or calculations are 5. Single defendantharies with prosecutor inappropriate, or that the data are less 6. One or more defendants/single charge than 90% complete. States omitted from 7. One or more defendants/single incident this table did not specifically report 8. One or more defendants/sin le incident traffidother violation data in sufficient (maximum number of charges7 detail. State courts with the possibility 9. One or more defendantdone or more of jury trials can be identified in the incidents state court system charts located in Part 10. One or more defendants/varies with 111 of this Report. prosecutor 11. Varies with prosecutor/varies with P = Reported data include contested and prosecutor uncontested parking cases. CP = Reported data include contested, but not Point of counting: All of these courts count uncontested parking cases. cases at approximately the same point in case NPA = No parking data are available. processing. NPJ = No parking jurisdiction. -- - Not applicable. Trial definitions: A = A trial is counted at jury selection, Traffic case unit of count: empaneling or swearing in. Contents of case (number of defendantshumber B = A jury trial is counted at the introduction of charges) : of evidence or swearing of first witness. 1. Single defendanthingle charge C = A jury trial is counted at verdict or 2. Single defendant/single incident decision. ’\ 169 Table 30: Traffic/other violation total trials and jury dispositions, 1984. (continued) iData are incomplete: Colorado--County Court--Data include DWI/DUI Arizona--Justice of the Peace and Municipal cases. Court--Figures do not include miscellaneous District of Col umbia--Superior Court--Data traffic cases. include DWI/DUI cases and Capitol Police Cal ifornia--Justice Court and Municipal parking. Court--Figures do not include all ordinance F1 orida--County Court--Data include DMI/DUI violation or all moving traffic cases. cases. Hawaii--Circuit Court--Data do not include Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court-- reopened prior cases. Uata include state parkin cases. Kansas--District Court--Uata do not include Iowa--Di strict Court--Data Qnclude some juveni 1e traffic cases. misdemeanors. - South Dakota--Circuit Court--Data include some JExplanation of data included in the category: misdemeanor and crtminal appeal cases. Arizona--Justice of the Peace and Municipal Texas--County-Level Courts--Data incl ude Court--Figures include DWI/DUI cases. trafflc appeals cases. Cal ifornia-Justice Court and Municipal Utah--Circuit Court--Data include some Court--Most DWI/DUI cases are included in mlscellaneous crimlnal cases. these figures. Wisconsi n--Ci rcuit Court--Data include some DWI/DUI cases. 170 Part II Trend charts Part II Trend charts questions about tlie "litigation explosion" in civil filings in state courts is the total state the state trial courts are among those most population. Total population explained over 90% frequently received by CSIM Project staff. These of the variance in civil filings among the state questions originate from court administrators, courts. Therefore, the percentage increase in judges, attorneys, the research community, the state population has been included in these business community, arid tlie media. Part I1 of tables for a1 1 three time periods--1 978-1 981 , this 1984 Annual Report is a preliminary effort 1981-1984, and 1978-1984 in order to explain, at to shed some light on,the question, "Is there a the outset, what kind of case filing increases litigation explosion (defined as fhe number of might be anticipated as a result of changes in filings) in the state trial courts? the state populations. Dates chosen for trend data. At this point, it is not possible to accurately predict what percentage increase in The years 1981 and 1984 were chosen as two of filings one would expect for every percent the data points for these tables because the increase in the population. Therefore, for State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for purposes of this Report, a rough one to one Statistical Reporting was first applied to the relationship has been assumed, i .e., for every 1981 trial court data, and the 1984 data is the percent increase in population, at least a one most recent available (Uata for 1982 and 1983 percent increase in filings would be expected. have not yet been translated into comparable terms due to limited resources). Since 1981 and Courts iricluded in the tables 1984 represent a three-year interval, an earlier three-year interval was needed to bring balance Some state courts do not appear in these to the trend line. Therefore, the first point tables for a variety of reasons: they do not chosen was 1978. report statewide data at all, they do not provide sufficient detail to identify the case types Case types selected for analysis. reported in these tables, they have changed reporting categories over time, and finally, the When talking of a "litigation explosion," jurisdiction and organization of some courts have most people reference an increased propensity, in changed so dramatically between 1978-84 that the mindset of individuals, to sue for damages their data were not comparable. Therefore, the and punitive awards. Some of the CSIM case types courts displayed on the following tables do not that address this issue are tort, contract, and include complete nationwide data; however, they real property rights cases. are representative of general jurisdiction courts in this country, and are adequate for addressing In addition, small claims procedures are the issue of whether there is a litigation easily accessible, relatively inexpensive to file explosion. For example, Table 32, on small and work within, provide a comparatively speedier claims, has statewide data from 33 states from disposition of justice, and are therefore a more across all geographical regions, and from large interesting measure of the public's propensity to and small states. Although Tables 31 and 33-35 litigate. Additionally, small claims consist of do not have as much complete state data as does tort, contract, and real property rights cases Table 32. the data are more often than not from handled, in limited jurisdiction courts. general jurisidiction courts. Since these are Studying small claims also facilitates a the courts most likely to hear the serious cases, comparison of 1 imited and general jurisdiction these courts complement the small claims data courts regarding the frequency of formal found in Table 32. litigation. Summary statistics presented on the facesheets. These case categories were chosen because they have, over the years, been reported Three summary measures. Each of Tables 31-35 separately, by many courts, without having ally display the number of filings for the years 1978, other minor case types included in their totals. 1981 and 1984, and the percent changes in total The same is not true of other case categories, state populations and filings for each of the such as domestic relations, where subcategories three time periods 1978-81 , 1981-84 and 1978-84. are often reported with juvenile cases, The accompanying facesheet for each table miscellaneous, or special civil proceedings. sumnarizes the data presented in each table using the following three measures: (1) the aggregate Criminal cases do,,not reflect on the data contained in the table for those courts that "litigation explosion as it is defined above; reported complete data for each of the three however. felonies are included in these trend years; (2) a summary description of how many data to provide a more complete picture of the courts experienced increased or decreased filings courts' workloads over time. for the two periods 1978-1981 and 1981-1984; and (3) a chart which identifies patterns of change, The first table presents the general picture and specifically lists the courts within each by displaying data for the combined category of pattern. tort, contract, and real property rights cases. This table is followed by a table for small Patterns across time, the "up-up" and claims. The final two civil tables break down "up-down'' patterns. There are two basic patterns the general table into one for tort, and one for that can be used to test crudely whether,,there contract cases. There were insufficient data, continues to be a "litigation explosion. The over tlie seven year period to justify compilation first group represents those courts whose filings of a table for real property rights cases. The increased during the 1978-81 period, and final table evaluates trend data for felony cases. continued to rise during the 1981-84 peried (i.e., and "up-up" pattern). This "up-up Population as an indicator of caseload changes. pattern alone, however, does not represent,,prlma facie fvidence of a "litigation explosion. This Earlier volumes In this Annual Report series up-up category must be separated into three have documented that the single best predictor of components: (3-a) courts whose upward increases 172 in both time periods were at approximately the fupport the often cited existence of a national same rate of increase and whose increases litigation explosion" in the state trial courts significantly exceeded the rate of increases in during the 1981-84 time period. the total population; (3-b) courts whose filings increased, during 1981-84, at a rate There are some state courts that have significantly less than the rate they were experienced significant increases in the case increasing at during 1978-81--which indicates a types described throughout this section, but the slowing of any upward trend that might have impact of that finding is reduced when one occured during earlier years; and (3-c) courts realizes that these are the courts in states that whose filings increased significantly during the have also experienced significant increases in period 1978-81, but whose filings increased at a their total populations. Changes in the number rate which approximated or was less than the rate of these filings are not attributable to an at which the population increased during increase in the propensity of Americans to sue, 1981-84. The last component (i.e., 3-c), but rather to a simple increase in the nunibers of Lepresents courts wher: there is not a hericans. litigation explosion, because filings did not increase at a rate equal to or significantly The findings, however, can be extended one different from population increases. Therefore, further step. Not only is the eviderice missing the only "up-up" pattern which may indicate to indicate a significant national increase in unusual increases in filings is a "3-a"--where filings above the increase in population, but a court filings increased significantly over both clear pattern emerges which generally supports periods. the "up-down" model described earlier. In a significant number of state courts, selected The second major ?roup of courts, which run civil filings have decreased bebeen the period counter to the "up-up ' pattern, are those courts 1981-1984 (see the individual tables for specific which exhibited significant increases in filings details 1. during 1978-81, but whose filings actually !ecreased during the 1981-84 period (i.e., an It may be that there was a litigation up-down'' pattern). Courts that fall into this explosion that peaked around 1981. The evidence category are no longer experiencing increases in from these charts tends to support that the number of civil suits. observation. There were significant increases in filings between 1978-81, far exceeding the Other miscellaneous patterns appear increases in population. In fact, the increases sporadically throughout the tables. These can were so large during 1978-81, that despite the clearly be identified as either st!pportive, or decreases that occurred during 1981-84, the not suppor;five of the claim to a litigation percentage changes from 1978-84 are still showing explosion. For example, some courts may not moderate increases. have experienced any significant change in filings for both time periods. On the other The "1 itigation explosion" has several hand, filings in some courts went down during the dimensions, and the often cited myth of a 1978-81 period, and have increased significantly continuing upward trend of civil lawsuits in the during the latter period. These situations will state courts could result from confusing the be discussed as they occur in each of the tables. number of new filin s with the other dimensions of the problem: (13 intensile media focus on the Limitations on the data enormous "size of the awards in a few selected and well publicized civil cases; and (2) The data presented on the following tables increased workload in the courts, not caused by are the most accurate, reliable, and tn increase in the rate of civil lawsuits, but by comprehensive data yet brought ;fo bear on the more complex cases," and perhaps fewer resources question tf whether there is a litigation available to the courts to handle expected explosion in the state courts. This is a increases in filings which results in larger preliminary look at the topic, however, and the !acklogs. This Feport does not reflect on the reader should consider the following caveats when size of awards, or the impact of "case evaluating the analysis--none of which are complexity" on court workload. thought to affect general conclusions that can be drawn from these tables: although the data are Additionally, there are a variety of representative from all the states, they do not potential explanations for the leveling off or include all of the courts and states in the decreases in civil suits: (1) The public's country; due to limited resources, Project staff attitude toward lawsuits may be changing. People were unable to complete the trend table for the may be deterred from filing as a result of missing years or identify all jurisdictional concerns about costs and civil litigation that is changes in those courts over time; the data are likely to take years--except for the more serious only as current as 1984 and changes may have cases, it may not be worth the effort; (2) For occured during 1985; the data do not include many years people speculated that greater numbers of other civil case types which may have included laws resulted in increased 1 itigation to different trends during that time period (e.g., interpret those laws--this testing of new divorce, support/custody , adoption, estate, civil legislation and judicial rules may have run its appeals, and miscellaneous civil cases); and the course; and (3) Finally, insurance companies and findings are restricted to the state courts only. attorneys may be increasing their efficiency in settling conflict before cases reach the courts. General findings and explanations The existence of any litigation explosions has been cyclical, and there is no evidence to A careful examination of available data support the notion of a consistent nationwide relating to tort, contract, real property rights, increase iti lawsuits in the state trial courts and small claims cases from a representative betiveen 1981-84. group of state courts provides no evidence to 173 TABLE 31: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort, contract, and real property rights case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Courts included in this table. experienced increases in their filings at a rate For inclusion in this table, a court must significantly higher than Increases in their have reported an identifiable tort, contract, and populations. These patterns are more firmly real property rights caseload, separate from all established in the follwing chart. other civil cases, in at least two of the three target years. Five states reported tort, The chart above displays how all of the contract, and real property rights cases for all courts which reported data during either of the the courts whlch had jurisdiction over tort, two periods fit into specific categories. The contract and real property rights cases in those following chart links the filing patterns of states. A total of 37 statewide courts, in 25 speclfic courts across the two time perlods to states, reported data. Of the 37 courts, 12 were test, more specifically, the various patterns general jurisdiction courts. identified earlier. Comparison of aggregated filings over time. Comparison of patterns among the courts. The following data are from the 29 courts in lhe following chart expands on the previous 20 states that reported comparable data for all one by 1 isting and categorizing courts by the three reporting years. These figures can be patterns they followed. These patterns are found on the bottom 1 ine of Table 31. explained in the introduction to this section (i.e., Part 11). These are the patterns for The increase in tort, contract, and real those 29 courts in 20 states that reported property rights filings between 1978-81 was 14%, comparable data for all three years. The (GI or while the population for the states reporting (L) after each court indicates whether it is a these data increased by 3%. Between 1981-84, the general or 1 imited jurisdiction court: population continued to grow another 3%, but the new filings decreased by 4%. These aggregate figures provide preliminary evidence for the 1. "Up-up" Pattern existence of the "up-down'' pattern discussed (no caveats): Civil Court of NYC (L) earlier in this section. 2. "Down-up" Pattern Comparison of courts whose filings increased or (no caveats): Alaska Superior Court (GI decreased during each of the time periods. New Mexico Maglstrate The following chart displays the number of Court (L) courts whose tort, contract, and real property Oregon Justice Court (L) rights filings have increased or decreased during the two time periods: 3. "Up-up" Pattern (change in '81-'84 1978-81 1981 -84 filings was less than 78-'81 increase Flllngs increased in filings): Nebraska County Court (L) signi f icant1 y more than the population: 19 7 4. "Up -up" Pattern (change in '81-'84 No significant difference population exceeds between the change or approximates in population and filings: 5 3 change in '81-'84 filings): Hawaii Circuit Court (GI Fi1ings did not increase Hawaii District Court (L) measureably during Delaware Justice of the this period: 0 3 Peace (L) Fllings increased at a 5. "Up-no :i gni ficant rate slower than the change : Delaware Court of Common population: 0 2 Pleas (L) Filings decreased during 6. "No significant change this period: 5 22 - no significant change : Delaware Superior Court (GI Comparable data were not avallable for 7. "Up-down'' the period: 8 0 Pattern: Alabama Distrct Court (GI Arkansas Chancery and Probate Court (GI The "up-down" pattern described in the Colorado District Court (GI Introduction to this section is illustrated in Colorado County Court (L) the above chart. Most of the courts reporting Indiana County Court (L) tort, contract, and real property rights cases Indiana Municipal Court of during 1978-81 experienced significant increases Marion County (L) in their filings. During the 1981-84 period, Kentucky Uistrict Court (L) however, the pattern reversed itsel f--the Maine District Court (L) majority of courts reported decreases in filings North Carolina Superior of these case types. Less than Genty-five Court (GI percent of the courts reporting tort, contract, North Carolina Dlstrict and real property rights cases during 1981-84 Court (L) Ohio Municipal Court (L) 174 Ohio County Court (L) TABLE 31: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort, contract, and real property rights case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (continued) Pennsylvania District Justice filings have continued to increase significantly Court (L 1 more than the population over the two time Tennessee Circuit Court and periods studied in this Report. Three additional Chancery (L) courts followed the "down-up pattern with significant increases reported during 1981 -84. 8. "No significfnt Another four courts experienced increases in change-down : Oregon District Court (L) filings between 1981-84, but the increases were Rhode Island District either less than or not significantly different Court (L) from population increases during that same time Washington Superlor Court (GI period, or the increases were less than the 9. "Down-down'' Pattern: increases reported during the 1978-81 period. District of Col umbi a The remaining 18 courts showed no evidence of a Superior Court (GI lltigation explosion" during 1981-84, and 17 of Colorado Water Court (GI those courts experienced a decrease in filings during that period. Of the courts studied in Table 31, the Civil Court of New York City is the only court whose 175 TABLE 31: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort, contract, and real property rights case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent chanae Percent chanae Percent chanae Fi1 ings 1978-1 981 - 1981-1 984" 1978-1 984- Juris- Popu- Popu- Popu- State and court title diction 1978 1981 1984 lation Filings lation Fi1ings lation Filings COMPLETE STATE DATA: Exclusive court jurisdiction: District of Col umb ia : Superior Court ...... G 121,931 108,426 96,975 - 6% -11% -1% -1 1% -7% -20% Kansas: District Court ...... G NC 54,005 57,140 -- -- 2% 6% -- -- Not exclusive court jurisdlctlon: Colorado (STATE TOTAL) 79,480 105,028 99,205 7% 3 2% 7% - 6% 14% 2 5% District Court ...... G 22,561 36.168 32,032 7% 6 0% 7% -1 2% 14% 42% Water Court ...... G 2,868 2,321 1.688 7% -1 9% 7% -23% 14% -41% County Court ...... L 54,051 66,539 65,485 7% 2 3% 7% -2% 14% 21 % Hawaii (STATE TOTAL 12,2041 17,3791 1 7,9601 6% 4281 6% 3x1 12% 47%i Circuit Court ...... G 2,7861 3,8301 3,9921 6% 37%i 6% 4%i 12% 43%f District Court ...... L 9,418 13,549 13.968 6% 44% 6% 3% 12% 4 8% North Carolina: 54.738 65,856 58,118 4% 2 0% 4% -1 2% 7% 6% Superior Court ...... G 11,541 13,756 12,482 4% 19% 4% -9% 7% 8% District Court ...... L 43,197 52,100 45,636 4% 21 % 4% -1 2% 7% 6% INCOMPLETE STATE DATA: A1 abama : District Court ...... L 40,130 55,818 51,805 2% 39% 2% -7% 4% 2 9% Alaska: Superior Court ...... G 2,683 2,312 3,107 3% -1 4% 21 % 34% 2 5% 16% Arkansas : Chancery and Probate Court ...... G 6,642 7,545 5,151 2% 14% 2% -32% 5% -22% Del aware: Superior Court ...... G 2,457 2,522 2,520 0% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% Court of Comon Pleas L 2,898 3,740 3,755 0% 29% 3% 0% 3% 30% Justice of the Peace .L 15,844 20,028 20,806 0% 2 6% 3% 4% 3% 31 % Indiana : Municipal Court Marion County ...... L 8,901 14,364 10,131 0% 61% 1% -29% 1% 14% County Court ...... L 3,550i 5,573i 3,664i 0% 57%i 1% - 3 4'61 1% 3x1 Kentucky: District Court ...... L 48,808 57,627 56,359 1% 18% 2% -2% 3% 1 5% Maine: District Court ...... L 17,751i 20.072 16,146 2% 13%i 2% -20% 4% -9%i Minnesota : County Court ...... L NC 28,014 21,582 -- -- 2% -23% -- -- Montana : District Court ...... G NC 7,764 6,492 -- -- 4% -1 6% -- -- Nebraska: County Court ...... L 9,236 11,128 13,027 1% 20% 2% 17% 3% 41% Municipal Court ...... L NC 17,781 17,712 -- -- 2% 0% -- -- New Hampshire: District Court ...... L NC 10,382 9,815 -- -- 4% - 5% -- -- New Mexico: Magistrate Court .....L 14,276 14,117 18,308 6% -1 % 7% 3 0% 14% 2 8% Bernalillo County Metropol itan Court . .L NC 8,290 9,744 -- -- 7% 18% -_ _- New York: Civil Court of New York City ...... L 130,131 151,159 195,163 -1 % 16% 1% 2 9% 0% 50% Court of Claims ...... L NC 1,330 1,678 -- -- 1% 26% -- -- Ohio: Municipal Court ...... L 241,951! 260,06ai 221.523: 0% 7%! 0% -1 5Xi 0% -8%f County Court ...... L 5,8541 11,3021 9,5421 0% 9381 0% -1 6%i 0% 63x1 176 TABLE 31: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort, contract, and real property rights case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (continued) Percent change Percent change Percent change Filings 1978-1 981 1981 -1 984 1978-1 984 Juris- Popu- Popu- Popu- State and court title diction 1978 1981 1984 lation Filings lation Filings lation Filings INCOMPLETE STATE DATA (continued): Oregon : District Court ...... L 31 600 33,862. i4,518. 6% 7% 1% -28% 7% -22% Justice Court ...... L 1 102i 942’ 1,336’ 6% -15Xi 1% 42x1 7% 21 xi Pennsylvania: District Justice Court ...... L 163 556 188,19gd 183,143 0% 15% 0% - 3%d 0% 12% Rhode Island: District Court ...... L 22,394 23,689 18,759 0% 6% 1% -21% 1% -16% Tennessee: Circuit Court and Chancery Court ...... G 20,561 23,442 21,505 3% 14% 2% -8% 6% 5% Texas: District Court ...... G NC 68.451 85,873 -- -- 8% 2 5% -- -- Washington: Superior Court ...... G 32,029 34,922 33,140 9% 9% 3% - 5% 12% 3% Totals for 29 courts in 20 states reporting comparable data for all three years 1,090,707 1,239,120 1,185,666 3% 14% 3% - 4% 5% 9% G = General jurisdiction court Indiana--County Court--Data do not include L = Limited jurisdiction court “other“ cases or “redocketed civil” cases. NC = Data are not comparable with o ther years. Maine--District Court--Due to implementation d = The number of dispositions was the only data of a new reporting system, data are missing element Drovided that Year. from two 1ocations. -- - Uata element is not appiicable. Ohio--Municipal Court and County Court--Data do not include cases classified as fData are incomplete: miscellaneous clvil. Hyaii-Circuit Court;-Uata do not include Oregon--Justice Court--Not all courts unreported cases. reported data. 177 TABLE 32: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported small claims case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Courts included in this table: two periods fit into specific categories. The For inclusion in this table, a court must following chart links the filing patterns of have reported an identifiable small claims specific courts across the two time periods to caseload, separate from all other civil cases, in test, more explicitly, the various patterns at least two of the three targeted years. identified earlier. Twenty-nine states reported smal 1 claims cases for all the courts which had jurisdiction over Comparison of patterns among the courts. small claims cases in those states. A total of The following chart expands on the previous 39 statewide courts, in 33 states, reported one by listing and categorizing courts by the data. Of the 39 courts, 11 were general patterns they follow. These are the patterns for jurisdiction courts. those 29 courts, in 25 states, that reported comparable data for all three years: Comparison of aggregated filings over time: The following data are from the 29 courts, in 25 states, that reported comparable data for all 1. "Up-up" Pattern three reporting years. These figures can be (no caveats): North Dakota County Court (L) found on the bottom line of Table 32. Rhode Island District Court (L) The increase in small claims filings between 1978-81 was 188, as the population for that same 2. "No signiflcant period rose only 2%. The period between 1981-84 change-up": New Jersey Superior Court (GI again provides a different picture. Durlng this second period, the population continued to 3. "Up-up" Pattern: increase at a rate of 2% for those states (change in '81-'84 reporting these data, yet small claims filings filinqs was less decreased by 6%. These aggregate figures tend to than 78-'81 support the "up-down" pattern discussed in the increase in introduction to this section. filings): Colorado County Court (L) Hawaii District Court (L) Comparison of courts whose fil ings increased or Illinois Circuit Court (GI decreased during each of the time periods. Maine District Court (L) The following chart displays the number of Missouri Circuit Court (GI courts whose small claims filings have increased Vermont District Court (L) or decreased during the two time periods: 4. "Up-up" Pattern 1978-81 1981 -84 (change in '81 -I84 population exceeds Filfngs increased or approxiyates significantly more change in 81-'84 than the population: 21 6 fi1 ings) : Alaska District Court (L) New Hampshire District No significant difference Court (L 1 between the changes in population and filings: 6 10 5. "Down-up" Pattern (Change in '81-'84 Filings did not increase population exceeds measureably during or approximates this period: 0 1 change in '81 -I84 fi1 ings) : District of Columbia Filings increased at a Superior Court (GI rate slower than the New York District Court population: 0 1 and City Court (L) Filings decreased during 6. "No significant change this period: 3 19 - No significant change Idaho District Court (L) Comparable data were Ohio Municipal Court (L) not available for the period: 9 2 7. I' Up -down " Pattern: California Municipal Court (L) During the period 1978-81, the majority of Indiana Superior Court courts experienced Significant increases in small and Circuit Court (GI claims flllngs; however, that pattern was Indiana County Court (L) reversed during the following three years when Kansas District Court (G) most of the courts reporting data experienced Kentucky District Court (L) decreases in small claims filings. Small claims Nebraska County Court (L) data fit the "up-down'' pattern described In the New Hampshire Municipal introduction to this section of the Annual Report. Court (L) North Carolina District The chart above displays how all of the Court (L) courts which reported data during either of the Ohio County Court (L) 178 TABLE 32: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported small claims case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (continued) Oregon District Court (L) during both 1978-81 and 1981-84. In addition, Pennsylvania-Phi ladelphia the New Jersey Superior Court experienced a Municipal Court (L) significant increase during 1981-84. Ten other courts also reported increases in their small 8. "No signi fictnt claims filings, but the increases were either change-down : significantly less than the earlier increase California Justice Court (L) during 1978-81, or were less than or approximated Iowa District Court (GI the population change for that same period which ' would indicate no "litigation explosion" at all. 9. "Dmn-down" Pattern: Eleven courts flt the "up-down" pattern, and Alabama District Court (L) another three courts also experienced decreases in small claims filings during 1981-84. Only two courts had signlficant and contlnuous increases in small claims filings 179 TABLE 32: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported small claims case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent change Percent change Percent change Filings 1978-1 981 1981-1 984 1978-1 984 Juris- Popu- Popu- POPU- State and court title diction 1978 1981 1984 1ati on Fi1 ings lation Filings lation Filings COMPLETE STATE DATA: Exclusive court jurisdiction: A1 abama : District Court ...... L 95,928 91,550 76,694 2% -5% 2% -1 6% 4% -20% A1 aska : District Court ...... L 7,94Ei 10,143i 10,735i 3% 28Xi 21 % 6%i 25% 35x1 Colorado: County Court ...... L 10,294 13,683 16,460 7% 33% 7% 20% 14% 60% Connecticut : Superior Court ...... G NC 90,447 73,096 -- -- 1% -1 9% __ -- District of Columbia: Superior Court ...... G 32,797 24,490 25,323 -6% -25% -1% 3% - 7% -23% Florida: County Court ...... L NC 172,208 163,171 -- -- 8% - 5% -- -- Hawaii : District Court ...... L 1,313 3,355 5,388 6% 156% 6% 61% 12% 31 0% Idaho: District Court ...... L 13,504 14,217 14,174 5% 5% 4% 0% 10% 5% I11 inoi s: Circuit Court ...... G 175,454 205,055 21 7,641 0% 17% 0% 6% 1% 24% Iowa: District Court ...... G 72,054 75,258 71,666 -1% 4% 0% - 5% 0% -1 % Kansas: District Court ...... G 10,670 14,707 14,229 2% 38% 2% - 3% 5% 33% Kentucky : District Court ...... L 27,585 34,550 28,525 1% 2 5% 2% -1 7% 3% 3% Maine : District Court ...... L 14,350 21,063 22,718 2% 47% 2% 8% 4% 58% Minnesota: County Court ...... L NC 99,420 90,271 -- -- 2% -9% -- -- Missouri : Circuit Court .....i..G 11,745 16,110 19,106 1% 3 7% 1% 19% 3% 63% New Jersey: Superior Court ...... G 40,535 42,012 51,137 1% 4% 1% 2 2% 2% 26% North Carolina: District Court ...... L 171,612 226,604 194,321 4% 32% 4% -1 4% 7% 13% North Dakota: County Court ...... L 5,396 6,446 8,523 1% 19% 4% 32% 5% 58% Okl ahoma : District Court ...... G 77,798 , NC 85,181 -- -- -_ -- 13% 9% Pennsylvania : Philadelphia Municipal Court . . . ..L 26,043 29,328 26,253 ox 13% 0% -1 0% 0% 1% Rhode Island: District Court ...... L 6,802 8,383 12,087 0% 2 3% 1% 44% 1% 78% South Dakota: Circuit Court ...... G NC 17,999 19,259 -_ -- 4% 7% -- -- Vernon t : District Court ...... L 6,252 7,978 8,952 4% 28% 3% 12% 6% 43% Washington: District Court ...... L 21,456 26,706 NC 9% 24% ------Wisconsin: Circuit Court ...... G NC 173,220 168,563 -- -- 1% -3% _- _- Not exclusive court jurisdiction: California (STATE TOTAL) 453,662 561,908 512,804 6% 24% 6% -9% 12% 13% Justice Court ...... L 32,128 35,477 30,225 6% 10% 6% -1 5% 12% -6% Municipal Court ...... L 421,534 526,431 482,579 6% 2 5% 6% -8% 12% 14% 18 0 TABLE 32: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported small claims case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (continued) -Percent change Percent change Percent change Filings 1978-1981 1981-1 984 1978-1 984 Juris- Popu- Poou- Popu- State and court title diction 1978 1981 1984 lation Filings 1aiion Fi1 ings lation Filings Indiana: (STATE TOTAL) NC 172,0131 156.7051 1% -9%i Superior Court and Circuit Court ...G 29,6621 44,5931 35,0421 0% 50'61 1% -21%f 1% 18Xi Small Claims Court of Marion County ....L NC 49,899 54,380 -- -- 1% 9% -- _- County Court ...... L 66,011 77,521 67,283i 0% 17%i 1% -13%i 1% 2%i New Hampshire (STATE TOTAL) 22,816 28,246 29,513 5% 24% 4% 4% 9% 29% District Court ...... L 22,114 27,408 28,993 5% 24% 4% 6% 9% 31 % Municipal Court ...... L 702 838 520 5% 19% 4% -38% 9% -26% Ohio (STATE TOTAL) 90,615 94,324 93,817 0% 4% 0% -1% 0% 4% Municipal Court ...... L 77,671 80,254 82,155 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 6% County Court ...... L 12,944 14,070 11,662 0% 9% 0% -1 % ox -lox INCOMPLETE STATE DATA: Nebraska : County Court ...... L 10,033 12,561 11,613 1% 25% 2% -8% 3% 1 6% New York: Civil Court of NYC ...L NC 59,728 52,065 -- -_ 1% -15% -- -- District Court and City Court ...... L 44,176 43,822 47,887 -1 % -1% 1% 9% 0% 8% Oregon: Oistrict Court ...... L 43,422 54,457 37,548 6% 2 5% 1% -31% 7% -14% Utah: Circuit Court ...... L NC 27,888 31,467 9% 13% Totals for 29 courts in 25 states reporting comparable data for all three years: 1,490,699 1,762,364 1,659,439 2% 18% 2% -6% 4% 11% G = General jurisdiction court L = Limited jurisdiction court Indiana--Superior Court and Circuit Court, NC Data are not comparable with other years County Court--0ata do not include cases -- - Data element is not applicable class if ied as "other ." iData are incomplete: Alaska--District Court--Uata do not include cases from low volume courts. 181 TABLE 33: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort case filings for 1978, 1987, and 1984. Courts included in this table: specific courts across the two time periods, to For inclusion in this table, a court must test more explicitly, the various patterns have reported an identifiable tort caseload, identi fled earl ier. separate from all other civil cases, in at least two of the three targeted years. Five states Comparison of patterns among the courts. reported tort filings for all the courts which The following chart expands on the previous had jurisdiction over torts in those states. A chart by listing and categorizing courts by the total of 21 statewide courts, in 17 states, patterns they followed. These patterns are reported data. Of the 21 courts, 17 were general explained in the introduction to this section jurisdiction courts. (i.e., Part 11). These are the patterns for those 17 courts that reported comparable data for Comparison of aggregated filings over time: all three years. The (G) and (L) after each The following data are from the 17 courts in court indicates whether it is a general or 13 states that reported comparable data for all limited jurisdiction court. three reporting years. These figures can be found on the bottom line of Table 33. The increase in tort case filings between 1. "Down -up " Pa t ter n 1978-81 was only 2%, while the population for (no caveats): Alaska Superior Court (GI those states grew 4% during the same time California Superior Court (GI period. Between 1981 -84 the population grew Florida Circuit Court (GI another 4% while tort filings increased by 7%. For the entire period 1978-84 total tort filings 2. "Up-up" Pattern: increased 9%, however, the population also (change in '81-'84) increased by 8%. This is the one case type, of filings was less those studied in this section, where the than 78-'81 increase aggregate number of cases increased over both in filings): Hawaii Circuit Court (ti) time periods evaluated. This does not qualify as Washington Superior Court (G) a litigation explosion", however, since the population increased at approximately the same 3. " Up -up " Pa t ter n rate as did the tort filings. (change in '81-'84 population exceeds Comparison of courts whose filings increased or or approximates decreased during each of the time periods. change in '81 ~'84 The following chart displays the number of filings) : Alaska District Court (L) courts whose tort filings have increased or decreased during the two time periods: 4. "Down-up" Pattern (Change in '81 -I84 1978-81 1981-84 population exceeds or approximate: Filings increased change in '81- 84 significantly more filings): North Dakota District than the population: 8 Court (G) No significant difference 5. "No significant change between the changes - no significant in population and filings: 5 change Ohio Court of Comnon Pleas (GI Filings increased at a Maine Superior Court (GI rate slcwer than the population: 1 1 6. "Up-down'' Pattern: Colorado District Court (GI Filings decreased during Hawaii District Court (L) this period: 5 8 Kansas District Court (GI New York Supreme Court Comparable data were and County Court (G) not available for Ohio County Court (L) the period: 2 2 Ohio Municipal Court (L) Tennessee Circuit Court ~~~~ ~ and Chancery Court (GI Although the aggregate filings increased somewhat over the years studied in Table 33, the 7. "No signific:nt .above chart indicates that tort filings increased change-down : Idaho District Court (G) significantly in less than half of the courts reporting data in this table. During the period 1981-84, only one-third of the courts reporting data had a significant increase in tort Of the courts reporting comparable data for filings--more courts experienced decreases than all three years, none experienced significant significant increases in tort filings during increases during both 1978-81 and 1981 -84. Three 1981-84. The chart above displays how all of the additional courts reported decreases during the courts which reported data during either of the first period but significant increases in the two periods fit into specific categories. The 1981-84 period. These three courts, however, are following chart links the filing patterns of in states that also experienced some of the 182 TABLE 33: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (continued) largest increases in population (i.e., Alaska, the largest increases in population, and California, and Hawaii 1. therefore do not qualify as being especially litigious, another eight courts reported The largest numerical increase in tort decreases in filings, and two other state courts filings between 1981-84 is in the California reported no significant change in their filings Superior Court (i.e., an increase of over 16,000 over both periods studied. Although tort filings cases). This increase, accounts for almost the do not fit the "up-down'' patterri as strongly as entire increase in the aggregate figures bebeen do other case types, neither do they provide any 1981-84. Between the years 1978-84 however, the evidence of an increased propensity of the increase in the rate of filings was 12%. but was American public to sue. matched by a 12% increase in the population. In addltion to the fact that most states which have large increases in filings also have 183 TABLE 33: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported tort case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. .- - ._I------3-GGiiTchapge- Percent change Percent change Filings 1978-1 981 1981 -1 984 1978-1 984 Juris- Popu- Popu- Popu- State and court title diction 1978 1981 1984 lation Filings lation Filings lation Filings COMPLETE STATE DATA: Exclusive court jurisdiction: Kansas--District Court ..G 3,249 4,517 4,033 2% 3 9% 2% -11% 5% 24% Idaho--District Court ...G 1,72ai 1,744i 1,72gi 5% 1%i 4% -1%' 10% O%i Not exclusive court jurisdiction: Alaska (STATE TOTAL) 1 ,356i 1 ,428i 1,8851 3% 6%f 21 % 31 %I 25% 39%1 Superior Court ...... G 921 886 1,305 3% -4% 21 % 47% 25% 42% District Court ...... L 4351 552i 580i 3% 27x1 21 % 5%i 25% 33%f Hawai i ( STATE TOTAL) 2,0321' 2,5051 2,304i 6% 23%f 6% -8%i 12% 13x1 Circuit Court ...... G 1 ,1551 1 ,46ai 1,611i 6% 27Xi 6% 1 O%i 12% 3981 District Court ...... L 877 1,037 693 6% 18% 6% -33% 12% -21% Ohio (STATE TOTAL) 39,645 41,603 36,171 0% 5% 0% -1 3% 0% -9% Court of Comnon Pleas ti 21,587 21,906 22,149 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% County Court ...... L 127 705 51 9 0% 455% 0% -26% 0% 309% Municipal Court ...... L 17,931 18.992 13.503 0% 6% 0% -29% 0% -25% INCOMPLETE STATE DATA: California: Superior Court ...... G 86.729 80.970 97.068 6% -7% 6% 20% 12% 12% Colorado: Ois tri ct Court and Denver Superior Court ...... G 3,481 5,089 4,199 7% 46% 7% -17% 14% 21 % F1ori da : Circui t Court ...... G 21 ,761i 21 ,063i 26,815i 12% -3%i 8% 27x1 20% 23%i Maine: Superior Court ...... G 1,803 1,914 2,083 2% 6% 2% 9% 4% 16% Maryland: Circuit Court ...... G 7, 902i 8,1351 NC 1% 3%i Montana : District Court ...... G NC 1,465 1,519 4% 4% -- -- New York: Supreme Court and County Court ...... G 35,684 39,234 37,847 -1% 10% 1% - 4% 0% 6% North Dakota: District Court ...... G 732 51 6 550 1% -30% 4% 7% 5% -25% Tennessee: Circuit Court, Chancery Court (Law and Equity Court in 1978 and 1981 1 ...... G 10,457 12,046 11,775 3% 15% 2% -2% 6% 13% Texas : District Court ...... G NC 28,698 34,224 -- -- 8% 19% -- -- Utah: District Court ...... G 872 775 NC 11% -11% Washington: Superior Court ...... G 6,882 7,919 8,997 9% 15% Totals for 17 courts in 13 states reporting comparable data for all three years 215,539 220,558 235,456 4% 2% 4% 7% 8% 9% G = General jurisdiction court Florida--Circuit Court--Data do not include L = Limited jurisdiction court professional tort cases. NC = Data are not comparable with other years Hawaii --Ci rcuit Court--Some tort cases are -- - Data elements are inapplicable included in transfers. Idaho--District Court--Some torts are iData are incomplete: included in the uncl assi fled category. Alaska--District Court--Data do not include MaT;yl and--Circui t Coyt--Data do not include low volume courts. unreported cases. 184 TABLE 34: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported contract case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Courts included in this table: increases in filings, while this trend reversed For inclusion in this table, a court must itself during the period 1981-84 when most courts have reported an identifiable contract caseload, experienced decreases in their filings of separate from all other civil cases, in at least contract cases. The Florida Circuit Court and two of the three targeted years. Two of the the Texas District Court were the two courts that states reported contract filings for all the experienced significant increases in their case courts which had jurisdiction over contract cases filings, yet they also recorded the largest in those states. A total of 15 statewide courts, increases in population for those courts that in 13 states, reported data. Of the 15 courts, reported data during 1981-84. The chart above 11 were general jurisdiction courts. displays how all of the courts which reported data during either of the two periods fit into Comparison of aggregated filings over time: specific categories. The following chart links The follwing data are from the 11 courts in the filing patterns of specific courts across the 10 states that reported comparable data for all two time periods to test, more specifically, the three reporting years. These figures can be various patterns identified earlier. found on the bottom line of Table 34. Comparison of patterns among the courts. The increase in contract case filings between The following chart expands on the previous 1978-81 was 14%. while the population for those one by listing and categorizing courts by the states grew 5% during the same period. Between patterns they followed. These patterns are 1981-84, the population grew another 4%, however, explained in the introduction to this section new contract filings decreased by 15%--a clear (i.e.. Part 11). These are the patterns for reversal in the earlier trend of caseload those 11 courts that reported comparable data for expansion. For the entire period 1978-84, total all three years. The (GI or (L) after each court contract filings decreased 4% while the indicates whether it is a general or limited population increased 9%. These aggregate data jurisdiction court: support the "up-down" pattern for contract fi1 ings. Comparison of courts whose filings increased or 1. "Up-up" Pattern decreased during each of the time periods. (no caveats): Florida Circuit Court (GI The following chart displays the number of courts whose contract filings have increased or 2. "Up-up" Pattern decreased during the two time periods: (change in '81-'84 population exceeds 1978-81 1981 -84 or approximates change in '81-'84 Fi1ings increased fi1 ings 1: Hawaii Circuit Court (GI significantly more Hawaii District Court (L) than the population: 7 2 3. "Up-down'' Pattern: No significant difference Colorado District Court (GI between change in Maine Superior Court (GI population and filings: 1 1 North Dakota District Court (GI Filings increased at a Ohio County Court (L) rate slower than the Ohio Municipal Court (L) population: 1 2 Tennessee Circuit Court and Chancery Court (GI Fi1ings decreased during this period: 2 10 4. "Down-down'' Pattern: Arkansas Court of Common Comparable data were Pleas (L) not available for Washington Superior Court (GI the period: 4 0 The Florida Circuit Court is the only court Once again, the "up-down" pattern that can lay claim to a large increase in materializes. Most of the courts studied during contract filings. Courts in 8 other states the 1978-81 period experienced significant followed the down trend after 1981. 185 TABLE 34: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported contract case filings for 1978, 198 1, and 1984. Percent change Percent change Percent change Ftlings 1978-1 981 1981 -1 984 1978-1 984 Jurts- Popu- Popu- Popu- State and court title diction 1978 1981 1984 lation Ftlings lation Ftltngs latton Ftltngs COMPLETE STATE DATA: Exclusive court jurisdlctlon: Kansas: District Court ...... G NC 39,175 41,982 -- -- 2% 7% Not exclusive court jurlsdlction: Hawai t (STATE TOTAL) 9,1751 13,4601 14.0551 6% 47x1 6% 4%f 12% 5381 Circuit Court ...... G 1,4341 2,0474 2,1311 6% 43x1 6% 4%i 12% 4981 District Court ...... L 7,741 11.413 11,924 6% 4 7% 6% 4% 12% 54% INCOMPLETE STATE DATA: Arkansas : Court of Common Pleas L 3771 300 102 2% -20%f 2% -66% 5% -73x1 Colorado: District Court ...... G 14,147 22,395 15,270 7% 58% 7% -32% 14% 8% Flort da: Circuit Court ...... G 27,005 29,677 38.650 12% 10% 8% 30% 20% 43% Maine: Superior Court ...... G 1,318 1,456 1,103 2% 1 0% 2% -24% 4% 16% Mary1 and: Circuit Court ...... G NC 6,576' 5,496' -- -- 2% -lbXi Montana : District Court ...... G NC 5,860 4,420 -- -- 4% -25% North Dakota: District Court ...... G 3,095 4.412 4,062 1% 4 3% 4% -8% 5% 31% Ohto: Munictpal Court ...... L 171,1661 187,6574 149.3321 0% 1081 ox -2O%f 0% -13x1 County Court ...... L 3.6481 7,7491 5,740i 0% 112x1 0% -26%1 ox 57%t Tennessee: Circutt Court, and Chancery Court ...... G 7,327 8,830 7,582 3% 21 % 2% -14% 6% 3% Texas: Dtstrict Court ...... G NC 38,902 51,152 -- -- 8% 31% -- _- Wash t ngton : Superior Court ...... G 21,679 18,748 13,891 9% -14% 3% -26% 12% -36% Totals for 11 courts in 10 states reporting comparable data for all three years 258,937 294,684 249,787 5% 14% 4% -15% 9% -4% G = General jurtsdictlon court Hawatt--Circuit Court--Some cases are L = Limited jurtsdtction court Included in transfers. NC = Data are not comparable wtth other years. Maryland--Circut t Court--L!ata do not tnclude -- - Data elements are Inapplicable. some "unreported cases. Ohio--Muntcipal Court and County Court--Some ioata are incomplete: contract cases are included in Arkansas--Court of Comnon Pleas--One county miscellaneous ctvtl cases. reported no data in 1978. .....-...- ...... TABLE 35: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported triable felony case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Courts included in this table: two periods fit into specific categories. The For inclusion in this table, a court must following chart links the filing patterns of have reported an identifiable triable felony specific courts across the two time periods to caseload, separate from all other criminal cases, test, more specifically, the various patterns in at least two of the three targeted years. A identified earlier. total of 28 statewide courts in 28 states reported data. All of these courts are general Comparison of patterns among the courts. jurisdiction courts. The following chart expands on the previous one by listing and categorizing courts by the Comparison of aggregated filings over time: patterns they follow. These patterns are The following data are from the 24 courts in explained in the introduction to this section 24 states that reported comparable data for all (t.e., Part 11). These are the patterns for three reporting years. These figures can be those 24 courts in 24 states that reported found on the bottom line of Table 35. comparable data for all three years. The increase Irl triable felony cases between 1978-81 was 28%. while the population for the states reporting these data increased by 3%. Between 1981 -84, the population continued to grow 1. "Up-up" Pattern another 3%, and new triable felony filings (no caveats): Alaska Superior Court tncreased by 7%. The pattern for these aggregate District of Columbia Superior ftlings evidence a considerable slowing of the Court filing pattern during 1981-84. In fact, during New Jersey Superior Court the 1981-84 period, triable felony case filings dtd not increase at a rate significantly greater 2. "Down-up" Pattern than the rate at which the population increased. (no caveats): Minnesota District Court Comparison of courts whose fil tngs increased or 3. "Up-up" Pattern: decreased during each of the time periods. (change in '81 -I84 The following chart displays the number of filings was less courts whose triable felony fil ings have than 78-'81 in- increased or decreased during the two time crease in filings): periods: Arkansas Circuit Court Hawaii Circuit Court 1978-81 1981 -84 I11 inois Circuit Court New York Supreme Court Filings increased and County Court sign if ican tly more than the population: 22 8 4. "Up-up" Pattern (change in '81-'84 No significant difference population exceeds between the changes or approximates in population and filings: 0 6 change in '81-'84 fi1 ings) : Arizona Superior Court Filings did not increase California Superior Court measureably during Colorado District Court this period: 0 1 Idaho Distrfct Court North Dakota District Court Filings increased at a Virginia Circuit Court rate slower than the Washington Superior Court popul att on: 0 2 5. "Up-down" Fi1ings decreased during Pattern: Georgia Superior Court this period: 2 11 Kansas Uistrict Court Maine Superior Court Comparable data were North Carolina Superior not available for Court the period: 4 0 Ohio Court of Common Pleas Oregon Circuit Court Rhode Island Superior Court Approximately three-fourths of those courts Wyoming Dtstrict Court reporting triable felony filings between 1978-81 experfenced stgniffcant increases In their 6. "Down-down" Pattern: caseloads. This tendency for increased filings, Wisconsin Circuit Court however, was greatly diminished during 1981 -84 when almost twice as many courts reported decreases in their felony filings as courts who Of the 24 statewide courts reporting data in reported filing increases significantly greater Table 35, only four experienced increases in than population increases. This observation is filings that continued to increase significantly more clearly illustrated in the following chart. more than the population. The number of triable The chart above displays how all of the felony filings decreased during the period courts whlch reported data during either of the 1981-84 in nine of the statewide courts reported 187 TABLE 35: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported triable felony case fflings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (continued) In this table. As is the case with torts, it may be a functfon of changes In a variety of appears as though the rate of increases in felony variables rangfng from: the actual crime rate, filings has decreased. Additionally, downward the rate of reported crime, the police clearance trends were experienced in a large number of rate, state crfminal law, and prosecuting rates. statewide courts. This trend in felony cases, 188 TABLE 35: Trend data for state courts that specifically reported triable felony case filings for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Percent change Percent change Percent change Fi1ings 1978-1 981 1981 -1 984 1978-1 984 Popu- Popu- Popu- State and court title ---1978 1981 1984 lation Filings lation Filings lation Filings Alaska: Superior Court ...... 778 1,194 1,846 3% 53% 21% 55% 25% 137% Arizona: Superior Court ...... 10,390i 14,357’ 15,36Di 11% 3811 9% 7%i 21% 48x1 Arkansas: Circuit Court ...... 8,9973 14,565.1 17.9935 2% 62x5 2% 23x5 5% iooxj California: Superior Court ...... 55.369.1 64,9933 74.412j 6% 17%5 6% 14xj 12% 34x5 Colorado : District Court ...... 10.604 13,868 14,783 7% 31 % 7% 7% 14% 39% District of Columbia : Superior Court ...... 3,415 4,283 6,035 -6% 2 5% -1 x 41 % - 7% 7 7% Georgia : Superior Court ...... 26,293 37.338 33,725 5% 42% 5% -10% 10% 28% Hawaii : Circuit Court ...... 1,729i 2,291i 2,6551 6% 33%1 6% 16Xi 12% 54%i Idaho: District Court ...... 2,845 3,302 3,649 5% 16% 4% 11% 10% 28% I1 1 inois : Circuit Court ...... 34,26d 41,795j 46,1075 0% 22%j ox 10x5 1% 35x5 Iowa : District Court ...... NC 8,166j 7,658j -- -- 0% -63 -- -- Kansas : District Court ...... 10,303 12,121 11,397 2% 18% 2% -6% 5% 11% Maine: Superior Court ...... 2,7903 3,281.1 3,184 2% 18x5 2% -3~5 4% i4xj Minnesota : District Court ...... 10,678 10,155 12,162 2% - 5% 2% 20% 4% 14% New Hampshire: Superior Court ...... NC 3,652 3,813 -- -- 4% 4% -- -- New Jersey: Superior Court ...... 24,311 29,101 37,135 1% 20% 1% 28% 2% 53% New York: Supreme Court-County Court ...... 31,5065 41,5875 49,1915 -1% 32%j 1% i8%j 0% 56x5 North Carolina: Superior Court ...... 30,576 42,792 42.160 4% 40% 4% -1% 7% 38% North Dakota : District Court ...... 916 1,233 1,284 1% 35% 4% 4% 5% 40% Ohio: Court of Common Pleas .... 31,575 41,076 37,073 OX 30% 0% -10% 0% 17% Oregon: Circuit Court ...... 16,097 20,198 19.913 6% 2 5% 1% -1 % 7% 24% Rhode Island: Superior Court ...... 2,396 4,576 4,232 0% 91 % 1% -8% 1% 7 7% South Dakota: Circuit Court ...... NC 2,654 2,606 -- -- 3% -2% -- -- Texas: District Court ...... NC 82,872 87.249 -- -- 8% 5% -- -- Virginia: Circuit Court ...... 29,354 40,444 42,642 3% 38% 4% 5% 7% 4 5% Washington: Superior Court ...... 11,168 15,442 15,432 9% 38% 3% 0% 12% 38% Wisconsin: Circuit Court ...... 15,8555 14,6015 13,6075 2% -8xj 1% - nj 3% -id Wy omi n g : District Court ...... 1.404 1,772 1,462 14% 26% 4% -17% 19% 4% 18 9 TABLE 35: Trend data for state courts that speclflcally reported trlable felony case ftltngs for 1978, 1981, and 1984. (conttnued) Percent change Percent change Percent change Ftltngs 1978-1 981 1981 -1 984 1978-1 984 Popu- Popu- Popu- State and court title ---1978 1981 1984 latton Ftltngs latton Ftltngs latton Ftltngs Totals for 24 courts in 24 states reporting comparable data for all three years 373,609 476,361 507,444 3% 28% 3% 7% 6% 3 6% Note: All of the courts ltsted above are general Cal tfornta--Felony flgures lnclude OWI/OUI jurisdiction courts. cases. NC = Data are not comparable wtth other years. Illinois-Felony caseload data tnclude -- - Data element Is not applicable. ere1 tmlnary,,heartngs from courts downstate. IData are incomplete: Iowa--Felony cases tnclude thtrd offense Artzha--Some felonies are included tn an Db/I/DUI cases tn 1981 and 1984. unclass t ft ed category. Matne--Felony ftgures tnclude classes A, 8, Hawait --Felony figures do not tnclude reopened and C. prior cases included in the unclasstfted New York--Felony ftgures tnclude DWI/DUI ctvtl category. cases. Wtsconstn--Felony ftgures tnclude ltmtted jExplanatton of data tncluded In the category: felony cases. Arkansas--Fel ony ftgures tnclude DWI/OUI cases. 190 Part 111 State court system charts Part 111 State court system charts Section 111 begins with a prototype chart of hears appeals from both other trial courts and a state court system. The prototype is followed administrative agencies is indicated by "civil by the organization charts for each state, appeals" in its list of civil case types. If it presented in alphabetical order. Each chart hears only one of these types of appeals, the illustrates, where appropriate, the four basic type is specified. Appeals from juvenile cases categories of state courts: courts of last are included in civil appeals, and appeals from resort, intermediate appel 1ate courts, general traffic/other violation cases are counted with jurisdiction trial courts, and limited criminal appeals. jurisdiction trial courts. The routes of appeal among the courts are indicated by lines and Other jurisdictional information provided arrws connEcti!g the courts. All routes of elsewhere in this Report appeal are up excEpt where arrows indictte that they are I'down. Some impor t an t j urisdi c t ional in f orma t ion needed to compare caseload data among the states CSIM case types information is not contained on the state organization charts, but is found elsewhere in this volume. Each appellate court has a section headed The point at which cases are counted, for "CSIM case types" which identifies a variety of example, and what is counted as a case are model case types, separated into mandatory and important in comparing data between states. discretionary cases. These case types are Notes in the sumnary tables in this volume defined in the 1984 State Appellate Court indicate when civil cases are counted. The count Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reportin . in criminal cases is much more complex and is Each trial Eourt also has a section headed 'CSIM explained in Figure E. Figure G illustrates the case types, which lists the civil, criminal, unit of count in juvenile cases. Figure F traffic/other violation, and juvenile subject indicates how differently felony cases are matter jurisdiction of that court using the model defined among the states. case types defined in State Court Modei The state court organization charts do not Statistical Dictionary or its Su ement. These indicate the wide range of dollar amount minimums appellate and trial case types4 are use in the and maximums in tort, contraqt, real property suhnary tables in Parts I and I1 of this volume. rights, and small claims cases among the trial Unless the "CSIM case types" information courts--which is essential in any comparison of provided for each court indicates that the court those data. That information is provided in has exclusive jurisdiction over a specific case Figure D. type, the simple listing of a case type indicates A1 though the organization charts reference that the court shares that jurisdiction with the existence of incidental appellate another court or courts in that state. The jurisdiction in the trial courts where reader can assume that the absence of a case type appropriate, they do not 1 ndicate whether those in that section indicates that the court does not appeals are de novo or on the record. For have jurisdiction over that subject matter. The obvious reasons de novo appeals have,,a greater information in these CSIM case type sections are impact on court administration than on the derived from the A ellate and Trial Court record" appeals. Therefore, it is important to Juris d ic t ion Gu idha t is ti ca 1 Rep0 rti n , classify appeals by these categories. These which were published for the first time in 1!85 classifications of appeals are provided in for the year 1984, and are updated each time data Figure H. are collected for another volume in this Annual Re ort series. These guides classify allthe Organizational information klements reported by each state into the CSIM model classification schemes (which appear In addition to identifying all of the courts in Appendix C). within a state and their routes of appeal, the To avoid confusion, ft should be pointed out charts indicate the number of ctrcuits/districts/ that situations exist in the appellate courts divisions/counties/courts at each court level and where one court has both mandatory and the number of judges or justices. The charts discretionary jurisdiction over the same case also indicate whether jury trials are normally type. Among the explanations that might account available for the case types within each trial for this situation are the following: (1) some court. Figure J provides a summary look at the appellate courts hear appeals from a variety of number of judges in the state courts. trial courts that have jurisdiction over similar case types. Whether a case Is mandatory or Missing jurisdictional informati on discretionary in the appellate courts may depend on the review It has already received in courts This Annual Re ort is devoted to caseload that have heard the case earlier, e.g., Does a inven toryethe j u risdi c t ional case come directly from a trial court, or through information provided here relates specifically to an intermediate appellate court?; (2) a second the intricacies of counting caseload by general explanation rests in the use of broad case subject matter categories in order to make the types. The criminal case type, for example, numbers as comparable as possible, and does not includes felonies and misdemeanors. The generally address non-statistical points such as appellate court may have to review felonies, but the type of the litigants or the nature of the may have discretion to hear misdemeanors; and (3) statutory restrictions on jurisdiction. some statutory provisions or court rules create The nature of the difference between situations where a mandatory appeal is converted mandatory and discretionary jurfsdiction in the into a discretionary appeal--for example, failure appellate courts, for example, is not spelled out to file an appeal in a timely manner. in the court organization charts and as discussed The model classification schemes include earlier, may involve as simple a matter as the incidental appellate jurisdiction exercised by timeliness of filing the cases. CSIM Project many trial courts. This appellate jurisdiction staff are very aware that these kinds of is specifically indicated in the listing of case questions may be both important and interesting types for each trial court. A trial court that to the reader. Now that the jurisdiction guides 193 Part 111 State Court Systems Charts. (continued) assure the proper grouping of similar cases, The exclusion of agencies that hear staff can divert some resources to developing new administrative complaints also raises questions techniques for expanding the jurisdictional about the relationship between caseload handled information provided in the court organization by judges practicing administrative law and the charts. regular state court caseload. Figure I begins to A few of the state court organization charts provide information concerning the appellate 1 ink contain a special note indicating the existence between administrative agency cases and the state of a court that is not included in the overall courts. Although the CSIM Project has not been chart. This situation exists when a state has a charged with examining this issue, its relevance court of special jurisdiction that receives only may require attention at some future date. complaints that would be handled by Finally, the following charts do not administrative agencies and boards in other distinguish between state courts, and local states. In order to maintain this Project's courts. There are many components to this fundamental goal of reporting comparable national classification scheme involving such things as: data on state courts, complaints handled by such revenue and expenditure concerns; administrative bodies are not reported in this database. The authority to enforce such things as uniform data acknowledgment of these courts in the collection methods; the extent to which a court organization charts alerts the reader to the fact handles state and/or local laws, etc. The that some states treat these adjudicatory bodies distinction between state and local courts cannot as courts, even though their caseloads do not fit be made on these charts until a typology is within any CSIM Project case definition. agreed upon for this dimension of court admini stration. 194 STATE COURT SYSTEM PROTOTYPE, 1984 FUR1OF LAST RESORT Court of Number of justices 1 ast CSIH case types: resort - Mandatory jurisd ict i on. - Dlscretlonary jurisdiction. 1 (hber of courts) Intermediate appellate court ColJrt of general jurisdiction Court of 1 fml ten 1juri sdl cti on NOTE: Re sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important informatlon relevant to each chart. 195 ALABAMA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 9 justices generally sit in panels CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, discipl {nary, original proceeding Court of cases. last - Discretionary jurisdiction in resort civil, non-capital criminal, admi nistratlve agency, juvenile, advisory opinion, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS I COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 3 judges sit en banc 5 judges sit en banc CSIM case types: CSIM case types: Intermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, - Mandatory jurisdiction in appellate adml nistrative agency, juveni le, criminal, juvenile, original courts original proceeding cases. proceeding, interlocutory - No discretlonary jurisdiction. decision cases. - No discretionary jurisdiction. tI 4-CIRCUIT COURT (39 clrcui ts) 114 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights. Exclusive domestic relations. civil appeals jurisdiction. Court of - Misdemeanor, OWI/OUI. Exclusive triable felony, general criminal appeals jurisdiction. jurisdiction - Juvenile. I Jury trials. t DISTRICT COURT (278 courts) (65 districts) (67 counties) 221 judges, 435 mayors 90 judges 67 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: CSIH case types: - Misdemeanor. MII/DUI. - Tort, contract, real - Exclusive mental - Moving traffic, property rights. health, estate park1ng. mi scel- Exclusive small claims jurisdiction. Courts of 1aneous traffic. jurisdi ction. 1imi ted Exclusive ordinance - Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. jurisdiction viol ation jurisdic- Exclusive limited felony tion. jurisdi ction. - Moving traffic, parking, miscellaneous traffic.. - Juvenile. No jury trials. No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 196 ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 PPREHECOIIRT 5 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, adminis- trative agency, juvenile, disciplinary , Court of certified questions from federal courts, last original proceeding cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in non-capital criminal , juvenile, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. COURT OF APPEALS 3 judges sit en banc CSIII case types: Intenedtate + - Mandatory jurisdictlon In non-capital appellate criminal, juvenile, original proceeding, court interlocutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in non-capital criminal, juvenile, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. ISUPERIOR COURT (4 districts. 13 courts) 27 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract. Exclusive real property rights, domestic relations, mental health, Court of estate, administrative agency, civil general appeals, miscellaneous civi1 jurisdiction. jurisdiction - Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. - Juvenile. Jury trials In most case types. DISTRICT COURT (4 districts) x14 judges; 54 naglstrates CSIM case types: - Tort, contract. Exclusive small claims jurisdiction. - Exclusive Iimited felony, misdemeanor, Court of DWI/DUI jurisdiction. 1 imited - Exclusive t raff ic/other violat ion juris- jurisdictfon diction, except for uncontested parking violations (which are handled administra- tively). - Juvenile. Jury trials in most case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of thls sectlon which contains important informatlon relevant to each chart. 197 ARIZONA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREHE COURT 5 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, disciplinary, certified questions from the Court of federal courts. original proceeding 1as.t cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding, inter- locutory decision cases. I COURT OF APPEALS (2 courts/divislons) I 15 judges sit in panels CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- Intermediate capital criminal, administrative agency, appellate juvenile, original proceeding, inter- court locutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdicti on 1 n admi nistra- tive agency cases. I SUPERIOR COURT (15 counties) 1 91 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, miscellaneous domestic relations. Exclusive estate, mental health. domestic relations except for miscellaneous civil , trial court appeals, miscellaneous civil jurisdi ction. - Misdemeanor, miscellaneous criminal. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenlle jurisdiction. Jury t ria 1s . I JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (84 precincts) MUNICIPAL COURT (75 citles/towns) 04 full-time and 4 part-time judges 106 full-time and 69 part-time judge CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property - Miscellaneous domestic relations. rights. miscellaneous domestic - Misdemeanor. DWI/DUI. relations. Exclusive small claims - Moving traffic. parking. miscel- Courts of jurisdiction. laneous traffic. Exclusive limited - Misdemeanor. DWI/DUI, miscellaneous ordinance violation jurisdiction. jurisdiction criminal. Exclusive limited felon) jurisdiction. - Moving traffic violations, parking, miscellaneous traffic. I Jury trials. except In small claims. I I Jury trials. except in civil cases. I II NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 198 ARKANSAS COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT* COURT OF APPEALS' 7 justices sit en banc 6 judges sit en banc CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- administrative agency, 1awyer disciplinary capital criminal, administrative agency, ourts of certified questions from the federal juvenile, interlocutory decision cases. last courts , o rlgl na 1 proceeding, inter 1 ocutory - No discretionary jurisdlctlon. resort decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency appeals. CIRCUIT COURT (23 circuits) CHANCERY AND PROBATE COURT (23 circults) 38 judges** 29 chancellors CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights. - Tort, contract, real property rights. Courts of Exclusive civi 1 appeals jurisdiction. Exclusive domestic relations (except for general - Misdemeanor, DVI/OUI, miscellaneous paternitylbastardy). estate, mental urisdicti on criminal. Exclusive triable felony, 1 health jurisdiction. crimi nal appeals jurisdiction. Jury tria1 s. I No jury trials. ~ MUNICIPAL COURT (118 courts) I COUNTY COURT (75 county courts)- I I 75 judges and 61 juvenile referees 104 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Contract. real property rights. - Real property rights. Exclusive paternity/ Exclusive small claims jurisdiction. bastardy jurisdi cti on. - Limlted felony, misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. - Traffic/other violation. No jury t ria 1s. I No jury t ria1 s . I POLICE COURT (2 courts) I CITY COURT (91 courts) 2 judges 85 judges Courts of CSIM case types: CSIM case types: limited - Contract, real property rights. - Contract, real property rights. urisdiction - Misdemeanor, OUI/OUl. - Misdemeanor, DWl/DUI. - Traffic/other violation. - Traffic/other violation. No jury trials. t No jury trials. 4 judges CSIM case types: - Contract. *Each of the appellate courts is the court of last resort for specific case types. Only a very few cases are ever appealed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals. **Seven judges also serve the Chancery and Probate Court. ***Referred to as the Juvenile Court when handling juvenile matters. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 199 CALIFORNIA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdlction In criminal, Court of disclpl inary cases. last - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil. non- resort capital crinlnal , adni nistrative agency, juvenlle, original proceeding, inter- locutory declsion cases. i COURT OF APPEAL (5 courts/districts) 74 judges sit in panels tCSIH case types: - llandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- I ntenedi ate capltal criminal, adminfstratlve agency. appel 1ate juvenile cases. court - Discretionary jurisdiction in administra- tive agency, original proceeding, inter- locutory decision cases. SUPERIOR COURT (58 counties) 655 judges, 78 commissioners, and 16 referees CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, miscellaneous clvil. Exclusive domestic Court of relations, estate, mental health, genera 1 civi 1 appeals jurisdiction. jurisdiction - DWI/DUI. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. - Excluslve juvenile jurisdiction. Jury t ria1 s. .1 I I : MUNICIPAL COURT (85 courts) 1 JUSTICE COURT (84 courts) 518 judges, 9 referees and 93 a4 judges comni ssioners CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract. real property - Tort, contract, real property rights. small claims, mlscellaneou! Coiwts of rights, smal 1 claims, miscellaneous civll. 1imi ted civil. - Limited felony, misdemeanor, DWI/ jurisdi ction - Limited felony, misdemeanor, DUI/ 0111. DUI. - Traffic/other violation. - Traff ic/other viol at4 on. I Jury trlals, except In parking cases.! Jury trlals, except in parking cases, NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnnlng of this sectlon which contafns important information relevant to each chart. 200 COLORADO COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPRERE COURT 7 justlces sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in clvll, crlminal. :ourt of administrative agency, juvenile, disciplinary, last > advisory oplnion, original proceeding, Inter- resort locutory decislon cases. L - Oiscretlonary jurisdiction in clvil. non-capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenlle. advlsory opinion, original proceeding cases. Intermedlate appel 1 ate court rI I I DISTRICT COURT (22 districts) DENVER PROBATE COURT DENVER JUVENILE COURT 102 judges 1 judge 3 judges CSIM case types: CSIH case types: CSIM case types: - Tort. contract, real property - Exclusive estate, - Excluslve adoptlon. rlghts, estate, clvil appeals mental health supportlcustody mental health. miscellaneous jurisdiction in jurisdictlon in civil. Excluslve domestic Denver. Denver. re1at 1 ons jurisdiction. - Excluslve juvenlle - Criminal appeals, limited jurlsdictlon In felony, miscellaneous crimina Denver. Exclusi ve triable felony jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdic- Courts of tion, except in Denver. general jurisdiction Jury trials, except ln appeals. Jury t ria1 s . No jury trials. WATER COURT (7 districts) 1 DENVER SUPERIOR COURT I 8 district judges serve 1 judge CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - - Real property rlghts. - Concurrent jurlsdictlon with Olstrlct Court in all civil actions between Sl,O00-~5,000. Denver Jury t ria1 s. only I I COUNTY COURT (63 counties) f 109 judges Denver only CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property Munl clpal rights, clvll trlal court Court of appeals. Excluslve small IMUNICIPAL COURT record claims jurisdl ctlon. (215 courts) Courts of - Criminal appeals, limlted llmlted felony. Excluslve misdemeanor 230 judges lurisdlction OHI/OUI jurisdiction. Municipal CSIM case types: - Moving traffic, mlscellaneous 'Court not - Movlng trafflc, park- trafflc. of record lng. mlscellaneous traf flc. Exclusive Jury trials, except In small ordinance vlolati on I claims and appeals. I jurlsdictlon. No jury trlals. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this sectlon which contains important informatlon relevant to each chart. 201 CONNECTICUT COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREHE COURT 6 justices sit en banc in conference, other- wise 5 justices sit a5 the Court in a panel whose membership rotates daily Court of + CSIM case types: 1ast - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, resort administrative agency cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, judge disciplinary cases. $APPELLATE COURT' 5 judges sit in panels CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- Intermediate capital crimlnal , admi nistrative agency e appellate juveni le, 1 awyer disciplinary, original court proceeding cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction In administra- tive agency (zoning only) cases. f geographlcal areas for civil/criminal matters, and 15 districts for juvenile matters) 125 judges and the appellate justices/judges CSIM case types: - Paternity/bastardy, mental health, miscellaneous civil. Exclusive tort, Court of contract, real property rights, small general claims. marriage dissolution. adminis- jurisdiction trative agency appeals jurisdiction. - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction. - Exclusive traffic/other violation juris- diction, except for uncontested parking (which is not counted). - Exclusi ve juvenl le jurisdiction. I Jury trials in most case types. t I PROBATE COURT (131 courts) 131 judges CSIM case types: Court of - Paternity/bastardy, miscellaneous 1 imited domestic relations, mental health, [urisdl ction miscellaneous civil. Exclusive adoption, estate jurisdiction. 1 NO jury trials. I *The Appellate Court was created by the ratification of a constitutional amendment in the fall of 1982 and began hearing cases on July '1, 1983. It replaced the former Appellate Session of Superior Court which was created by statute and had limited appellate jurisdiction. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. I 202 DELAWARE COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 5 justices slt en banc Court of CSIM case types: last - Mandatory jurlsdlctlon in clvll, crlmlnal, admlnfstratlve agency, lawyer disclpllnary, resort advisory oplnlons for the executlve and legislature. orlglnal proceeding cases. - Discretionary jurlsdlctlon in clvll, non-capital criminal, certlfled questlons from the federal courts, interlocutory declslon cases. COURT OF CHANCERY (3 counties) 1 SUPERIOR COURT (3 counties) 1 judge, and 3 chancellors 11 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property - Tort, contract, mental health, rlghts. mental health. mlscel laneous clvl 1. Exclusive Courts of Excluslve estate jurlsdlctlon. clvll appeals jurlsdlctlon. general - Misdemeanor. Exclusive triable urlsdlctlon felony, crlmlnal appeals, mls- cel laneous criminal jurlsdlctlon. No jury trlals. Jury trlals, except In appeals. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT FMILY COURT (3 countles) (19 courts) 13 judges 53 justlces of the peace and 1 CSIM case types: chlef magistrate - Excluslve domestlc relatlons CSIM case types: jurl sdi ction. - Tort. contract, real property - Mi sdemeanor. rights. - Moving trafflc, mlscellaneous - Misdemeanor, DNl/OUI. traffic (juvenile). - Moving trafflc, miscellaneous - Excluslve juvenile jurlsdlctlon. trafflc. Jury trlals in some case types. No jury trlals. COURT OF COnnON PLEAS (3 counties) rALDERIIAN'S COURT (12 twns) 5 judges 9 aldermen, 2 deputies. 2 Courts of CSIM case types: asslstants. and 2 mayors 1lml ted - Tort, contract. real property CSIM case types: jurl sdlctlon rlyhts, mlscellaneous clvll. - Excluslve small clalms - Llmlted felony, mlsdemeanor. jurlsdictlon. - Misdemeanor, OWI/OUI. - Trafflc/other vlolatlon. Jury trials In some case types. (No jury trials In New Castle) I NO jury trials. MUNICIPAL COURT OF HILNINGTON (1 city) 3 judges CSIM case types: - Llmlted felony, mlsdemeanor, our/ou1. - Trafflc/other vlolatlon. NO ju'ry trlals. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnnfng of thls section which contalns important lnformatlon relevant to each chart. 203 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 COURT OF APPEALS 9 judges sit in panels and en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurlsdictlon in civll, non- capftal criminal. admlnistratlve agency, Court of juvenl le, 1awyer discipl {nary. original last proceeding, Interlocutory decision resort cases. - Discretionary jurlsdictlon in civil. non- capital criminal, original proceeding cases. SUPERIOR COURT 51 judges CSIM case types: - Exclusive clvil jurlsdictlon (including adminlstratlve agency appeals). Court of - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction. general - Exclusive trafflc/other violation juris- jurisdiction diction, except for most parking cases (which are handled admi nistrat ively ) . - Exclusive juvenlle jurlsdlction. Jury trials In most case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnning of thls section which contalns important lnformation relevant to each chart. 204 FLORIDA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT I 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, discipli- Court of nary, advisory opinion cases. last - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- resort capital criminal , administrative agency, juvenile, advisory opinion, original proceeding. interlocutory decision cases. I r DISTRICT COURT OF APPA (5 courts) 46 judges sit in 3-judge panels CSlM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, Intermediate juvenile, original proceeding, inter- appel 1ate locutory decision cases. court - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, juvenile. original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. CIRCUIT COURT (20 circuits) h339 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights. miscellaneous civil. Exclusive domestic relations, mental health, estate. civil Court of appeals jurisdiction. general L - Misdemeanor, DUI/DIJI, miscellaneous jurlsdiction criminal . Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdl ction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials. except in appeals. I 1 CSlM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights. miscellaneous civil. Exclusive small Court of claims jurisdiction. 1 imited - fiisdemeanor. flWI/DUI, miscellaneous jurisdi ct i on criminal. - Exclusive traffic/other violation, except for no parking jurisdiction. NOTE: Re sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 205 GEORGIA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: :ourt of - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, 4 last discipl {nary, certified questions from federal courts, original proceeding resort cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil. non-capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding. interlocutory decision cases. COURT OF APPEALS 9 judges sit in panels and en banc Intermediate t CSIM case types: appellate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non-capital criminal, administrative court agency, juvenile, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non-capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding. interlocutory decision cases. 159 counties) 124 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, miscellaneous civil. judges, 3 of whom also serve a! Exclusive real property rights. State Court judges. Superior domestic relations, civil appeals Courts of Court judyes serve in the 94 jurisdiction. general remaining counties without a - Misdemeanor, DWI/OUI. Exclusive jurisdlction separate Juvenile Court judge. triable felony, criminal appeals, CSIM case types: miscellaneous criminal jurisdiction. - Moving traffic, miscellaneous - Traffic/other violation, except traffic. for parking. - Juvenile. - Juvenile. Jury t rla1 s. I STATE COURT MAGISTRATE COURT' (Bibb County and (62 courts) (159 counties) (159 counties) Rlchmond County) 32 full-time and 159 judges 159 chief magistrates 3 judges 47 part-time CSIM case types: and 340 magistrates, CSIM case types: judges. - Mental health, estate, 37 of whom also servi - Tort, contract, CSIM case types: miscellaneous civil. State. Probate, small claims. - Tort. contract, - Mi sdemeanor. OWI/OUI. Juvenile. Civil, or - Limited felony, small claims, - Moving traffic, Municipal Courts. mi scel 1aneous miscellaneous traffic. CSIM case types: civil. - Tort, contract, - Limited felony, small claims. misdemeanor, - Limited felony, 011 I/DU I. 1 imited misdemeanor. - Moving traffic, - Ordinance violation. Courts of mi scel 1aneous LNo jury trials. No jury trials. 1 imited traffic. jurisdiction MUNICIPAL COURT (1 court in Jury t ria1 s. Savannah and 1 court in COUNTY RECORDER'S COURT MUNICIPAL COURTS AND Charleston) (Chatan. DeKal b. THE CITY COURT OF Gwinett. and Muscogee ATLANTA E2: 391 courts) 2 judges Counties) CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, 7 judges - Limited felony, small claims. CSIM case types: DWI /DU I. - Limited felony, - Limited felony, - Traffic, ordinance mi sdemeanor. OW I/DU I. violation. - Trafficlother Jury trials in violation. civil cases. I No jury trials. I NO jury trials. 'In July of 1983 the Justice of the Peace Court and the Small Claims Court were merged into the Magistrate Court by Constitutional Article. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 206 GUAM COURT SYSTEM, 1984 Appeals to the United States District Court for the Territory of Guan (9th Circuit) f SUPERIOR COURT 6 judges CSIH case types: - Exclusive civil jurisdiction. Court of - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction. general - Exclusive traffic/other violation jurisdiction jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury t ria 1s . NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. I 207 HAWAII COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT 5 justices slt en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdlction in clvil, non-capltal crlmlnal, Court of adml nistrative agency, juveni le, disciplinary. certlfled last questions from federal courts, original proceeding cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdlctlon in clvil, non-capital crlmlnal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceedlng, interlocutory decision cases. 1 1 INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 3 judges sit en banc CSIM case types: Intermedi ate - Mandatory jurlsdlction in clvil, non- appellate capital crlmlnal, admlnistrative agency, court juvenlle, original proceedlng, inter- locutory decislon cases assigned to it by the Supreme Court. - No dlscretlonary jurisdiction. 1 CIRCUIT COURT AND FAMILY COURT (4 clrcults) 24 judges, 7 distrlct family judges, and 47 per diem judges. One first circult judge hears contested land matters and tax appeals. CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rlghts. Court of mlscellaneous civil. Exclusive domestic general relatlons, mental health. estate, admlnls- [urisdi ctl on trative agency appeals jurisdiction. - Misdemeanor, OWI/DUI, mlscellaneous crlmlnal. Exclusive trlable felony jurisdl ction. - Moving trafflc, miscellaneous trafflc. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury t rla1 s . DISTRICT COURT (4 circuits) 22 Audaes CSI~ca'se types: - Tort. contract, real property rights. miscellaneous clvil. Court of Exclusive small clalms jurlsdlctfon. llmited Misdemeanor. DUI/DUI. Excluslve llmlted felony jurlsdlctlon. 1 jurisdiction - - Hovlng trafflc. mlscellaneous trafflc. Excluslve parking, ordlnance vlolatl on jurisdl ctlon. No j u ry t rla1 s . I I lndlcates asslgnment of cases NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnnlng of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 208 IDAHO COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREHE COURT 5 justices sit en banc CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal. administrative agency, juvenile, disci - Court of plinary, original proceeding cases. 1 ast - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- resort capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, certified questions from federal courts, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. COURT OF APPEALS * 3 judges sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. non- Intermediate capital criminal, juvenile, administrative appellate agency, original proceeding cases assigned court to it by the Supreme Court. .- No discretionary jurisdlcti on. -1 DISTRICT COURT (7 dlstrlcts) 31 judges and 71 lawyer and non-lawyer magistrates, and 6 trial court admi nistrators CSlM case types: Court of - Exclusive civi 1 jurisdiction (1ncluding general civil appeals). jurl sdi ct i on - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction (1 ncludi ng criminal appeals) . - Exclusive traffic/other violation juris- diction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials, except in small claims. I I I Indicates assignment of cases NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important infonation relevant to each chart. 209 ILLINOIS COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT 7 justices sit en banc CSlH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction In civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, lawyer Court of disciplinary. original proceeding. inter- last locutory decision cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in clvll, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, certified questions from the federal courts, original proceeding. interlocutory decision cases. 1 APPELLATE COURT (5 courts/dlstrlcts) 34 judges sit in panels CSlH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- Intermed4 ate capital criminal, administrative agency, appellate juvenlle, original proceeding, inter- court locutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, interlocutory decision cases. CIRCUIT COURT (21 circuits) I 384 circuit and 321 associate circuit judges CSIH case types: - Exclusive civi 1 jurisdiction (includi ng court of administrative agency appeals). general - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction. jurisdiction , - Exclusive t raff ic/other viol at 1 on jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials in most case types. 1 NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 210 INDIANA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURI 5 justices sit en banc ourt of CSIM case types: last - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal. disciplinary, original proceeding cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non-capital criminal. administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding cases. tCOURT OF APPEALS (4 courts) 12 judges sit in four courts CSIM case types: Intermedlate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. non- appellate capital criminal, administrative court agency, juvenile, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction In inter- locutory decision cases. aCIRCUIT COURT (92 courts) SUPERIOR COURT (105 courts) I 104 judges 89 judges CSIH case types: CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, - Tort, contract, real property rights, small claims. domestic relations, small claims, domestic relations, mental health, estate, civil appeals, mental health, estate, civil appeals, Courts of miscellaneous civil. miscellaneous civil. general - Triable felony, misdemeanor, OWI/OUI, - Triable felony, misdemeanor, OWI/OUI, jurisdi ction criminal appeals, miscellaneous criminal appeals, miscellaneous criminal. criminal. - Moving traffic, parking, miscellaneous - Moving traffic. parking, miscellaneous traff ic. traffic. - Juvenile. - Juvenile. Jury trials, except In parking cases. Jury trials, except in parking cases. t COUNTY COURT (60 courts) PROBATE COURT (1 court) COUNTY 57 judges 1 judge CSIM case types: CSIH case types: 15 judges - Tort, contract, real - Adoptions, estate, CSIM case types: property rights, small mi scel laneous civi 1. - Tort, contract, real claims, mental health, - Juvenile. property rights, mental mi scel 1 aneous civi 1. health, civil trial - Limited felony, misde- court appeals, mi scel- meanor, OWI/DUI, miscel- laneous civil. laneous criminal. - Limited felony. misde- - Traffic/other violation. meanor, OWI/OUI, mlscel 1aneous criminal . - Traff 1c/other violati 01 Courts of Jury t ria1 s Jury t ria1 s. Jury t ria1 s . 1 imited . jurisdl ction CITY COURT (50 courts) TOWN COURT (28 courts) MARION COUNTY (8 courts) 50 judges 28 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: 8 judges - Tort, contract. - tlisdemeanor. OUI/OUI. CSIH case types: - Misdemeanor, OWI/OUI. - Traffic/other violation. - Small claims. - Traffic/other violation. - Miscellaneous criminal. Jury t ria1 s. Jury tria1 s. No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 211 IOWA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 9 justices sit in panels and en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal. administrative agency, Court of , juveni le, 1awyer disciplinary. certi fied 1 ast questions from federal courts, original resort proceeding cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non capital criminal. adninistrative agency. juvenile, original proceeding, inter- locutory decision cases. I I V t I COURT OF APPEALS 6 judges sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- Intermediate capital criminal , admi nistrati ve agency, appellate juvenile, original proceeding, inter- court locutory decision cases assigned to it by the Supreme Court. - No discretionary jurisdiction. DISTRICT COURT (8 districts) 99 judges; 39 district associate judges; 12 senior judges; and 166 part-time magistrates CSIM case types: - Exclusive civi1 jurisdiction (includi ng Court of t ria1 court appeals) . general - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction (including jurisdiction criminal appeals). - Exclusive traffic/other violation juris- diction, except for uncontested parking. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials, except in small claims and mental health cases. I I I I Indicates assignment of cases NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 212 KANSAS COURT SYSTEM, 1984 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. non- capital criminal, administrative agency, Court of disciplinary. certified questions from the 1 ast federal courts. original proceeding resort cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civll. non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile. original proceeding, inter- locutory decision cases. T COURT OF APPEALS 7 judges generally sit in panels CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- Intermediate capital criminal , administrative agency, appellate juvenile. original proceeding, criminal court interlocutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil inter- locutory decision cases. DISTRICT COURT (31 districts) 71 district, 69 associate district. and 74 district magistrate judges CSIM case types: Court of ,- Exclusive civi1 jurisdiction (1ncludi ng general civi 1 appeals) . jurisdiction - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction (1ncludi ng criminal appeals) . - Moving traffic, miscellaneous traffic. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials, except in small claims. t MUNICIPAL COURT ("Y 384 cities) Z5 356 judges Court of CSIM case types: limited - Moving traffic. miscellaneous traffic. jurisdiction Exclusive ordinance violation, parking jurisdiction. 1 NOTE: Re sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 213 KENTUCKY COURT WSEM, 1984 SUPREME COURl 7 justices sit en hanc CS1tl case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in capital and other criminal (death, life, 20 yrt sentence), Court of lawyer disciplinary, original proceeding 1ast cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, advisory opinions, original proceeding. interlocutory decision cases. t COURT OF APPEALS 14 judges generally sit in panels, and sit en banc in a rulemaking capacity CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- 1 n terinedi a te capital criminal , administrative agency, appellate juvenile, original proceeding cases. court - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal , adni nistrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding. inter- , locutory decision cases. CIRCUIT COURT (56 judicial circuits) 91 judges CSlll case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights, estate. Exclusive domestic relations, Court of except for paternitylbastardy, civil general appeals, miscellaneous civi1 jurisdiction. jurisdiction - Misdeneanor. Excliisive triable felony, crimi nal appeals jii risdi ct i on. Jury trials, except in appeals. t...DISTRICT COURT (56 judicial districts). 123 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, estate. Excliisive paternitylbastardy. mental health, small claims jiirisdiction. Court of - Misdemeanor. Excliisive limited felony, limited DW I/DU I jurisdi c t ion. iii risdi cti on - Exclusive traffic/other violation jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials In most case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 214 LOUISIANA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, Court of + administrative agency, disciplinary cases. last - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- resort capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, certified questions from the federal courts, interlocutory decision cases. t I COURTS OF APPEAL (5 courts) 1 48 judges sit in panels CSItl case types: Intermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- appellate capital criminal, administrative agency, court juvenile, original proceeding cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in orlginal proceeding cases. I1; DISTRICT COURTS 192 judges COURT (40 districts) CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, adoption, mental health. Exclusive marriage dissolution, support/custody. paternitylbastardy, estate. civil trial court appeals, miscellaneous civil juris- diction. - Misdemeanor, DWI/OUI. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. Courts of - Juvenile. general Jury trials in most case types. jurisdiction JUVENILE COURT FAMILY COURT (1 In (3 courts) East Baton Rouge) CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Support/custody, - Support/custody adoption. mental adoption, mental health. health. - Juvenile. - Juvenile. No jury trials. No jury trials. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT MAYOR'S COURT (-250 CITY AND PARISH COURTS (53 (*?a4 courts) courts) courts) 71 judges 384 justices of the peace CSIM case types: CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Traffic/other violation. - Tort, contract. real - Small claims. property rights. small Courts of - Traffic/other viol ati on. claims. 1 imited - Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. jurisdiction - Traffic/other violation. - Juvenile, except for status petitions. No jury trials. No jury trials. No jury trials. ithich contains important information 215 MAINE COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT SITTING AS LAY COURT 7 justlces generally sit en banc CSIM case types: Court of - Mandatory jurisdiction in clvll, non-capital criminal, last administrative agency, juvenl le, disclpl lnary. advisory resort opinion, original proceedlng, interlocutory declslon cases. - Discretionary jurisdictlon in crlminal extradition, administrative agency. orlglnal proceeding cases. I SUPERIOR COURT (16 counties) 15 justlces CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, marrlage dissolution, supportlcustody, mlscellaneous clvtl. Excluslve paternity/ Court of bastardy, clvll appeals jurlsdlctlon. general - Hlsdemeanor, DHI/DUI. Excluslve trlable jurl sdi ctlon felony, crlml nal appeals, mlscel laneous crlmlnal jurisdictlon. - Hovlng traffic, ordinance vlolatlon. Jury trials In most case types. DISTRICT COURT (13 districts) tPROBATE COURT (16 court! 22 judges 16 judges CSIM case types: CSIH case types: - Tort, contract. real property rlghts, - Excluslve adoption, mlscellaneous domestlc relations (except for adoption domestlc relatlons, estate jurisdlction and paternitylbastardy). Exclusive small claims, mental health jurisdic- tion. - Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. Excluslve limited felony jurlsdlctlon. - Moving trafflc, ordlnance vlolatlon. Excluslve parklng, miscell aneous traffic jurl sdl ctlon. Courts of - Excluslve juvenile jurisdictlon. 1 lmlted No jury trials. urisdict 1 on No jury trlals. AIM1NI STRAT 1VE COURT 2 judges CSIM case types: - Appeal of admlnlstrative agency cases. No jury trials. I NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginnlng of this section whlch contains important lnformatlon relevant to each chart. 216 MARYLAND COURT SYSTEM, 1984 7 judges sit en hanc CSIfl case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal. Court of administrative agency, juvenile. lawyer 1 ast disciplinary, certified questions from the resort federal courts, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, interlocutory decision cases. CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. non- Intermediate capital criminal, administrative agency, appell ate juvenile, interlocutory decision cases. court - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, original proceeding cases. 1 I CIRCUIT COURT (8 circuits in 24 counties) 104 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, estate, miscellaneous civil. Exclusive domestic relations, mental health, civil Court of appeals jurisdiction. general - tlisdemeanor. miscellaneous criminal. jurisdiction Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. - Juvenile, except in tlontgomery County. Jury trials in most case types. Juvenile in 1 DISTRICT COURT (12 districts in ORPHAN'S COURT (22 counties) 24 counties) 66 judges 88 judges CSIH case types: CSIM case types: - Estate, except where such cases - Tort, contract, real property are handled by Ci rcuit Court 1 n rights, miscellaneous civil. Montgomery and Harford Counties. Courts of Exclusive smal 1 claims jurisdic- limited tion. urisdiction - Misdemeanor. DUI/DUI. - Exclusive moving traffic, ordinanci violation, miscellaneous traffic jurisdiction. - Juvenile in Montgomery County. No jury trials. No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 217 MASSACHUSElTS COURT SYSTEM, 1984 7 justlces sit on the Court, and 5 justlces slt en banc CSIM case types: Court of - Mandatory jurisdlctlon in clvll, non-capital last crlmlnal , administratlve agency, judge resort disclplinary, advisory opinion, origlnal proceed1ng cases. - Olscretionary jurlsdlction in civll, non- capl tal crlmi nal , administrative agency, fl juvenlle, interlocutory declslon cases. 1 APPEALS COURT r10 justices sit in panels CSIM case types: Intermediate - Mandatory jurisdlctlon In civll, appellate non-capltal criminal, adminlstra- court tive agency, juvenile cases. - Oiscretlonary jurisdlctlon In Interlocutory declslon cases, I I TRIAL COURT OF THE CO#(OKUEALTH 279 justices I SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT OEPARTHENT BOSTON HUNICIPAL COURT OEPARTHENT (14 counties) (69 geographical dlvislons) DEPARTMENT (Boston) 61 justices 153 just1 ces 11 justlces CSIH case types: CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property - Tort, contract, real property - Tort, contract, real property rlghts, clvil appeals, mlscel- rlghts, small claims. slipport/ rights. small claims. support/ laneous clvll. custody, paternitylbastardy, custody. mental health, clvil - Trlable felony, rnlscellaneous mental health, clvil trlal trlal court appeals, and crlml nal. court appeals, mi scel 1 aneous miscellaneous clvil. clvll. - Trlable felony, misdemeanor. - Trlahle felony, llmited DWI/DUI, criminal appeals. felony , mi sdemeanor. DWI/DUI , - Traffldother violation. Court of crlmlnal appeals. general - Traf f lc/other violat ion. urlsdictlon - Juvenlle. I Jury trials. Jury trials in some case types. Jury trials In some case types. ~~~ JUVENILE COURT HOUSING :OUR1 I LAN0 COURT OEPARTHENT PROBATE AN0 FAHILY COURT OEPARMENT (Boston, OEPARMENT (Uorcester (1 statewlde court) DEPARTHENT (14 counties) Bristol County, County, Hanpden Springfield. and County, and Boston) 3 justices 37 justices Uorcester County) CSIM case types: CSIM case types: 4 justlces - Real property rights - Support/custody , 10 justlces CSIM case types: paternltylbastardy , CSIH case types: - Real property rights, mlscel laneous clvil. - Juvenile. small claims. Excluslve marriage dlssolutlon, adoptlon. mlscellaneous domestic relations, estate jurlsdlctlon. Jury t rla1 s . Jury t rla1 s . Jury trials. No jirry trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginnlng of this section which contains Important information relevant to each chart. 218 MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 7 justlces slt en banc CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurlsdlction In judge Court of dlscipl inary cases. last - Discretionary jurisdictlon In resort civll. non-capftal criminal, admlnlstratlve agency, juvenile, 1 awyer disci pl 1 nary, advisory opinion, orlginal proceeding. Interlocutory declslon cases. COURT OF APPEALS 1 18 judges sit In panels CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurlsdlctlon In clvll, Intermedlate non-capltal criminal, admlnlstra- appellate tive agency. juvenlle cases. court - Discretionary jurisdiction In civll , non-capl tal criml nal , adml nlst rat 1 ve agency, juveni 1e, orlglnal proceedlng. lnter- locutory declslon cases. I I COURT OF CLAIMS CIRCUIT COURT (1 court) (55 circuits) 1 circult judge serves 165 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Admlnlstratlve agency - Tort, contract, real appeals involving property rights, clalms agalnst the paternltylbastardy, Courts of state. admi nlstrati ve agency general No jury trlals. appeals. miscellaneous jurisdlctf on civil. Exclusive marriage dissolution, supportlcustody , civll trial court appeals jurisdi ctlon. - DWI/DUI, miscel- laneous criminal. Exclusive t rlab1 e felony , crlmlnal appeals jurl sdl ctl on. Jury trlals. PROBATE COURT MUNICIPAL COURT (100 districts) (83 counties) (6 courts) 244 judges 107 judges 10 judges CSIH case types: CSIH case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real - Paternltylbastardy, - Tort. contract, real property rights, mi scel laneous civi 1. property rights, small clalms. Excluslve adoption, small clalms. Courts of - Llmited felony, mis- miscellaneous domestlc - Llmited felony. mls- limlted demeanor, DWI/DUI. relatlons, mental demeanor, DUI/DUI. urlsdlctlon - Traffic/other health, estate. - Moving traffic. mis- violation. - Moving trafflc. miscel- cellaneous traffic, 1aneous traff ic. ordinance violation. - Excluslve juvenlle jurl sd 1 ct1 on. Jury trials In most Jury trlals in most case types. I No jury trials. case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnning of thls section which contalns import lnformation relevant to each chart. 219 MINNESOTA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT I 9 justices sit en banc and in panels CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in non-capital :ourt of criminal , administrative agency, disci- last plinary. certified questions from the resort federal courts cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal , admi nistrati ve agency, juvenile, original proceeding cases. I I COURT OF APPEALS 12 judges sit en banc and In panels CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. non- 1nt ermed 1 ate capital criminal, administrative agency, appellate juveni 1e cases. court - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding cases. 70 judges and 2 juvenile judges CSIM case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights, Court of domestic relations, mental health, estate, general civil appeals, miscellaneous civil. juri sdi ction - Hisdemeanor, criminal appeals. Exclusive triable felony jurisdiction. - Juvenile. Jury trials. I 3 unified districts I COUNTY COURT (85 county courts. except In Hennepin and COUNTY IC Ramsey Counties) 106 judges 28 judges CSIH case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, small claims. - Tort, contract, domestic relations. mental health, estate, miscel- real property 1aneous civi 1 . rights, civil - Limited felony, misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. appeals. - Traffic/other violation. - Limited felony, Courts of - Juvenile. misdemeanor, limited DW I/DUI . jurisdiction [ - Jury trials. I - Trafficlother I CONCILIATION OIVISION I PROBATE DIVISION I CSIH case types: CSIH case types: - Small claims. - Mental health, estate. No jury trials. Jury trials. Jury tria1 s. l+ NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 220 MISSISSIPPI COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT I 9 justices sit in panels and en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. Court of criminal, administrative agency, last juvenile, disciplinary. original resort proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in certified questions from the federal courts cases. t 40 judges 39 judges Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: - Civil actlons over $500. - Equity, divorce, alimony, pro- Ea s t a rdy . bate. guardianship. mental Courts of - Felonies , mi sdemeanors. commitments. general Appeals de novo or on record. - Hears juvenile if no County iurisdiction Court. Appeals de novo. I Jury trials. I Jury trials. I COUNTY COURT (17 counties)' 22 judges I I 1 judge Jurisdiction: If no Jurisdiction: - Civil actions under $10.000. Co1rnty - Delinquency. neglect. - Misdemeanors, felony preliml- Court. - Adult crimes against juveniles. naries. - Juvenile. Appeals de novo. Jury trial of adults. :ourts of 1 imited iri sdiction I MUNICIPAL COURT (78 courts)' JUSTICE COURT (191 courts)' 95 judges, 200 mayors 191 judges Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: -Municipal ordinance viol ati ons. - Civil actlons under $500. - Mi sdemeanors, felony preliml narles. Jury t ria1 s . I Jury trials. A trial court jurisdiction guide was never completed by Mississippi, and data are unavailable for the trial courts; therefore, the trial court terminology reported In this court system chart does not reflect CSIM Project model reporting terms. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginnlng of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 221 MISSOURI COURT SYSTEM, 1984 - SUPREHE COURT 7 justices sit en banc CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. criminal. administrative agency. juvenile. original Court of proceeding cases. 1ast - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- resort capital criminal, administrative agency, ' juvenile, disciplinary, original proceedini cases. I COURT OF APPEALS (3 courts) 32 judges sit in panels CSIH case types: lntermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- appellate capital criminal, administrative agency, court juvenile, original proceeding. inter- locutory decision cases. - No discretionary jurisdiction. CIRCUIT COURT (44 circuits) I 133 circuit. 170 associate circuit, and 335 municipal judges CSIH case types: - Exclusive civi 1 jurisdiction (1ncluding Court of civil appeals). general - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction (including jurisdiction criminal appeals). - Exclusive traffic/other violation jurisdiction. - Exclusive juveni 1e jurisdi ctlon. Jury trials in most case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 222 MONTANA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 ISUPREHECOURT 7 justlces slt en banc and In panels CSIH case types: - fiandatory jurlsdlction In clvll, criminal, Court of juvenl le, disclpl inary cases. last - Discretlonary jurlsdlctlon 1 n admi nistra- resort tlve agency, certified questlons from federal courts, original proceedlng, interlocutory decision cases. 32 judges CSIH case types: - Tort. contract, real property rlghts. Excluslve domestlc relations, mental Court of health, estate, civil appeals, mfscel- general laneous civl1 jurlsdictlon. jurisdlction - Hlsdemeanor. Exclusive trlable felony, criminal appeals, miscellaneous criminal jurlsdictl on. - Exclusive juvenile jurlsdlctlon. I Jury trials. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT (56 counties) MUNICIPAL CWRT (1 court) 45 judges, plus 37 judges who also serve Ci 1 judge Courts CSIH case types: CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rlghts, - Tort, contract, real property rlghts, small claims. small clalms. - Hlsdemeanor, DHI/DUI. - Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. - Moving traffic. parking, mlscellaneous - Moving trafflc, parking, mlscellaneous trafft c. traffic. Jury trials, except in small claims. Jury trials, except in small claims. Courts of limited iurisdl ction (96 citie! 47 judges. plus 37 judges who also serve Justlce of the Peace Courts CSIH case types: - Tort. contract, real property rlghts. small clalms. - Mlsdemeanor. DWI/DUI. - Movlng traffic, parking, rnlscellaneous traffic. Exclusive ordinance vlolatlon jurlsdlction. Jury trials in some case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnning of this sectlon which contalns important lnformation relevant to each chart. 223 NEBRASKA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 1 SUPREME COURT I 7 justices slt in panels and en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction over civil, crimlnal, administra- Court of tive agency, juvenile. disciplinary. original 1 ast proceeding cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction over civil, administrative agency, certified questions from the federal courts, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. L DISTRICT COURT (21 districts) I 48 judges CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, civil appeals. miscellaneous civil. Court of Exclusive domestic relations (except general adoptlons), mental health jurisdiction. jurl sdicti on - Mlsdemeanor, DMI/DUI. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals, miscellaneous criminal jurisdiction. Jury trials, except in appeals, I I 4 SEPARATE JUVENILE COURT (3 counties) WORMEN' S COHPENSATIOI COURT (1 court) 4 judges 6 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: -l - Juvenile. - Appeal of administrative agency case. I No jury trials. No jury trials. J Courts of 1 I 1 imited COUNTY COURT (21 districts) I MUNICIPAL COURT (2 cities) jurl sdi ction 44 judges 13 judges CSIH case types: CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, - Tort, contract, real property rlghts, small claims. Exclusive adoption, small claims. estate jurisdiction. - Limited felony, misdemeanor, OWI/ - Limited felony, misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. DUI. - Traffic/other violation. - Traffic/other violation. - Juvenile. Jury trlals. except in parking. Jury trials In clvil cases. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnning of thls section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 2 24 NEVADA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 PUPREME COURT I 5 justices sit en banc CSIH case types: Court of - Mandatory jurlsdlction In civll, crlmlnal. last admi nistrative agency, juveni le. 1awyer resort disciplinary. original proceedlng. 1 nter- locutory decision cases. - No discretionary jurisdiction. 25 judges CSIM case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights. Exclusive domestic relatfons, mental health, estate, clvil appeals, miscel- Court of laneous civil jurisdiction. general - Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. Excluslve jurlsdiction trlable felony, criminal appeals, miscel- laneous criminal jurlsdiction. - Exclusive juvenl le jurlsdiction. I Jury trlals In most case types. JUSTICE COURT (54 towns) MUNICIPAL COURT (15 incorporated clties/twns) 54 justices of the peace* CSIH case types: 15 judges - Tort, contract. real property CSIH case types: rights, small claims. - Tort, contract, real property Courts of - Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. Excluslve rights, small clalms. 1 imited limited felony jurisdiction. - Hisdemeanor. OWI/DUI. jurisdictlon - Movlng traffic, parking, miscel- - Movlng traffic, parking, miscel- 1 aneous traffic. laneous trafflc. Exclusive ordinance violation jurisdiction. Jury trials, except in small claims and parking case types. No jury trials. Nine justices of the peace also serve as Municipal Court judges. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of thls section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 225 NEW HAMPSHIRE COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 5 justices slt en banc CSIH case types: - No mandatory jurlsdictlon. :ourt of - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- last capital criminal, adninistrative agency, resort juvenile, disciplinary, advisory opinions for the state executive and legislature. orlginal proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. t SUPERIOR COURT (10 counties) I 18 justices CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights. miscel Court of laneous domestic relations, miscellaneous general civi1. Exclusive marriage dissolutlon, jurisdi ct l on paternitylbastardy , support/custody jurl sdict ion. - Miscellaneous criminal. Exclusive triahle felony, crimlnal appeals jurl sdi ctl on. Jury t rla 1 s . 1 t I DISTRICT COURT (42 districts) MUNICIPAL COURT (10 coui 8 full-tlme, 34 part-time. 4 associate 10 part-time and ‘2 special justices and 36 special justices CSIH case types: CSIM case types: - Real property rights, small claims, - Tort, contract. real property rights, mi scel 1 aneous civll. small clalms, miscellaneous domestlc - Misdemeanor, OWI/OUI. re1ati ons. - Traff lc/other viol at ion. - Misdemeanor, DNI/OUI. - Traff1 c/other viol ation. - Exclusive juvenile jurlsdictlon. No jury trlals. No jury t r 1 a1 s . Courts of 1 imiten u rlsdl ct1 on PROBATE COURT (10 counties) 10 judges CSIH case types: - Hlscellaneous domestlc relations, miscellaneous civil. Exclusive adoption, mental health, estate jurl sdi ctlon. No jury trlals. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginnlng of this section whlch contains important lnformatlon relevant to each chart. 226 NEW JERSEY COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. criminal, administrative agency, juveni le. disci- Court of plinary, original proceeding cases. 1ast - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil. non- resort capital criminal, administrative agency appeal, juvenile, disciplinary, certified questions from federal courts, inter- locutory decision cases. I APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT 1 21 judges sit in 7 panels (parts) CSIM case types: Intermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- appellate capital criminal s juveni le, admlni strative court agency cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in interlocutor) decision cases. SUPERIOR COURT: LAU DIVISION AN0 CWCERY OIVISION (21 counties) 308 judges authorized CSIM case types: Court of - Exclusive civil jurisdiction, except for general uncontested estate. Civil trial court jurisdiction appeals from surrogates. - Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals, miscellaneous criminal jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials in most cases. t It SURROGATES (21 counties) MUNICIPAL COURT (531 courts of which 14 were 21 surrogates inter-munidpal) CSIM case types: - Estate (uncontested). 369 judges CSIM case types: Courts of - Exclusive limited felony, 1 imited misdemeanor, DWI/DUI jurisdiction jurisdi ction. - Exclusive traffic/other violation jurisdiction. No jury trials. No jury trials. New Jersey has a Tax Court which hears complaints that are handled exclusively by administrative agencies in other states. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important lnfOfmatiOn relevant to each chart. 227 NEW MEXICO COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPRENE COURT 5 justlces generally slt In panels CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in clvll. criminal, administratlve agency, discl- :ourt of plinary, orlglnal proceeding, inter- last locutory decision cases. resort - Discretionary jurlsdlctlon in clvll. non capltal criminal. admlnistrative agency, juvenile, certlfled questlons from the federal courts cases. I COURT OF APPEALS 7 judges sit in panels CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurlsdictlon in clvll, non- Intermedlate capl tal crimi nal , admi nlstrati ve agency , appellate juveni 1e cases. court - Olscretlonary jurlsdlctlon in inter- locutory decision cases. 48 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rlghts. estate. Exclusive domestic relatlons, mental health, civil appeals. miscel- 1aneous civi 1 jurlsdi ction. - Hisdemeanor. Exclusive triable felony, crlmlnal appeals jurlsdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurlsdictlon. BERNALILLO COUNTY HETROPOLITAW COURT 11 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property - Tort, contract, real property rights. rights. - Ltmited felony,'mlsdemeanor. - Limited felony. mlsdemeanor, ow I / DU I. DWI/OUI. - Movlng traffic violatlon, - Traffidother violation. mi scel laneous traffIC. Jury trlals, except ln trafflc. Courts of 1lmi ted jurisdiction I HUMICIPAL COURT (81 courts) I PRORATE COURT (32 counties) 81 judges 32 judges CSIH case types: CSIM case types: - Traffic/other vlolatlon. - Estate. No jury trlals. I NO jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section whlch contains Important information relevant to each chart. 2 28 NEW YORK COURT SYSTEM, 1984 Court of last resort APPELLATE DIVISIONS OF SUPREME APPELLATE TERMS OF SUPREME COURT COURT (4 courts/divlsions) (2 courts/tem) 45 justices sit in panels and en 15 justices slt In panels In two banc in four districts terms. CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in clvll, . - Mandatory jurlsdiction in clvll, I non-capital criminal, administra- non-capital crirnlnal, juvenile, [ntermedi ate tive agency, juvenile, lawyer interlocutory decision cases. appellate disciplinary. origlnal proceed- - Discretlonary jurisdiction In non- courts ing, interlocutory decision capltal criminal, juvenile, inter- cases. 4 I locutory declsion cases. - Discretionary jurlsdlction In civll, non-capital criminal, Civil, felonies: juvenile, original proceedlng, 3rd and 4th interlocutory decision cases. Department I A Non-felonies: 2nd Oppartment SUPREME COURT (12 dlstrlcts) COUNTV COURT (57 countles outside MVC) 3 18 judges 117 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract. real property - Tort, contract, real property Courts of rights, miscellaneous civll. rights, mlscellaneous civil. general Exclusive marriage dissolution Exclusive trial cJurt appeals juris- jurisdlct l on jurisdiction. diction. - Triable felony, DUI, mlscellaneous - Triable felony, DUI/DUI. miscellaneous criminal. criminal. Exclusive criminal appeals. Jury t ria1 s . Jury t ria 1s . 1 COURT OF CLAIMS (1 court) SURROGATES' COURT (62 countles) 1 33 judges, 15 act as Supreme 76 surrogates; 43 county judges 3rd and 4th 2nd Court judges CSIM case types: Departments Oepartmen CSIM case types: - Adoption. estate. - Tort, contract, real property rights Involvlng the state. No jury trials. Jury trials In estate. 'I' I I -l 1 DISTRICT COURT (2 counties) CITV COURT (79 courts In 61 155 judges; 40 county judges 49 judges In Nassau and Suffolk clties) CSIM case types: CSIM case types: 166 judges - Domestic relations (except - Tort, contract, real property CSIM case types: marriage dissolution), rlghts. small claims. - Tort, contract, real property guardianship. Excl uslve - Lfmited felony, mlsdemeanor, rights, small claims. mental health jurisdiction, OW1 /DUI . - Llmited felony, misdemeanor. Courts o - Excluslve juvenile - Movlng traffic. miscellaneous DWI/DUI. llrnited jurisdl ct i on. traffic, ordlnance vlolation. - Moving traffic, miscellaneous jurlsdi ct No jury trials. t raff ic. ordi nance vlolation. I I Jury trials, except In traffic. Jury trlals. except In traffic. I II I 1 I I I I CIVIL COURT OF THE CITV OF CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITV OF TOWN AND VILLAGE JUSTICE COURT NEW VORK (1 court) NEY VORK (1 court) (2.424 courts) 120 judges 98 judges 2,327 justlces of the peace CSIM case types: CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property - Limited felony, misdemeanor, - Tort, contract, real property rights, small claims, mlscel- DW I/DU I. rlghts. small claims. eous civil. - Moving traffic, miscellaneous - Mlsdemeanor. OblI/DUI, miscel- traffic, ordinance violation. laneous crimlnal. - Traffic/other vlolatlon. Jury t ria1 s . Jury trials In criminal cases. Jury trials ln most case types. I 1 NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section whlch contains important lnformatlon relevant to each chart. 229 NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 EREMECOIIRT I 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurlsdiction In civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, judge Court of disciplinary, interlocutory decision last cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, juveni le. advisory opinions for the executive and legislature, original proceeding, inter- ilocutory decision cases. COURT OF APPEALS 12 judges sit in panels CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, Intermediate juvenile, 1 awyer discipl inary, original e appellate court t SUPERIOR COURT (34 districts) 68 judges and 100 clerks with estate juris- diction CSIM case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights. Court of miscellaneous civil cases. Exclusive general adoption. estate, mental health. jurisdiction administrative agency appeals jurisdiction. - Misdemeanor. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. Jury t ria1 s. tDISTRICT COURT (34 districts) 142 judges. and 614 magistrates of which approximately 100 magistrates are part-time CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights. Exclusive small claims, non-adoption Court of domestic relations, civi1 trial court limited appeals jurisdiction. jurisdiction - Misdemeanor. Exclusive limited felony. DIIIIDUI jurisdiction. - Excluslve traffic/other violation juris- diction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials in civil cases only. NOTE: Re sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains Important information relevant to each chart. 230 NORTH DAKOTA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT 5 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: Court of - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- 1ast capital criminal, administrative resort agency, juvenile, discipli nary, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. - No discretionary jurisdiction. I 1 tI DISTRICT COURT (7 judicial districts in 53 counties) 26 judges CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, guardianship. Exclusive domestic relations, appeals of administrative agency cases, Court of miscellaneous civil jurisdiction. general - Misdemeanor. mi scell aneous crimi nal . jurisdiction Exclusive triable felony jurisdic- tion. - Moving traffic, parking, miscel- 1aneous traff ic. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. I Jury trials in most case types. COUNTY COURT (53 counties) MUNICIPAL COURT (161 Incorporated cities) 26 judges I CSIM case types: 148 judges - Tort, contract, real property CSIM case types: rights, estate. Exclusive - OWI/OUl. smal 1 claims, mental health - Moving traffic, parking, Courts of jurisdiction. miscellaneous traffic. 1imi ted - Limited felony. misdemeanor, Exclusive ordinance violation jurisdiction DWI/OUI. criminal appeals. jurisdiction. - Moving traffic, parking, miscellaneous traffic. Jury trials, except in snall claims cases. No jury trials. NOTE: Re sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 231 OHIO COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREHE COURT 7 justlces slt en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdlctlon in clvil, criml nal, admi nlstratlve agency, :ourt of juvenile, dlsciplinary, orlglnal last proceedlng cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdlctlon fn civll, non-capital crlmlnal, juvenlle, origl nal proceeding. interlocutory declslon cases. 3 COURT OF APPEALS (12 courts) 53 judges slt fn panels of 3 members eacl CSIH case types: :ntermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction In clvll, appellate criminal , addnistrative agency, court 4 juvenile, orlglnal proceeding. inter- locutory declslon cases. - No dlscretlonary jurisdlctlon. I COURT OF COMnON PLEAS (88 counties) 329 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, appeal of admlnlstrative agency cases, mlscellaneous clvil. Excluslve Court of domestic relatlons, mental health, general estate jurlsdictlon. irisdictf on - Excluslve trlable felony, miscel- 1 aneous crlmi nal jurlsdictlon. - Excluslve juvenile jurlsdictlon. Jury trlals in most case types. ~~ HUN ICI PAL :OURT (118 courts) COUHTY COURT (51 courts) 198 judges 1 61 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rlghts, - Tort, contract, real property small claims. mlscellaneous clvll. rights, small clalms, mlscel- - Limited felony, mlsdemeanor, DMl/OUI, 1aneous clvi 1. crlmlnal appeals. - Limited felony, mfsdemeanor. - Traffic/other vlolation. DWI/DUI. crlmlnal appeals. - Traffic/other violatlon. except for parking cases. Jury trials ln most case types. I Jury trials In most case types. Courts of 1lmi ted urisdi ction RT OF CLAIMS (1 court) MAYOR'S COURT (690 judges) 1 1 judge sits on temporary 690 judges (mayors) ass1gnment CSlH case types: CSIH case types: - DWI/DUI. - Appeal of administratlve - Traffic/other vlolatlon. agency cases, mlscellaneous laneous civil actions agafnsl the state. Jury t ria 1 . No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginnlng of thls sectlon which contalns important information relevant to each chart. 232 OKLAHOMA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 - SUPREME COURT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 9 justices sit en banc 3 judges sit en banc CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, - Mandatory jurisdiction in administrative agency, juvenile, lawyer criminal, juvenile, original proceeding Courts of disciplinary, advisory opinion, cases. last original proceeding, interlocutory - Discretionary jurisdiction in inter- resort decision cases. locutory decision cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, administrative agency, juvenile, interlocutory decision cases. COURT OF APPEALS (4 courts) 12 judges sit in four permanent divisions of 3 menbers each CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in I ntermed iate civil, administrative agency, appellate juvenile, original proceed- court ing. interlocutory decision cases that are assigned to it by the Supreme Court. - No discretionary jurisdic- tion. DISTRICT COURT (26 districts) 71 district, 77 associate district, and 54 judges CSIH case types: - Exclusive civil jurisdiction, except for concurrent jurisdiction in appeal of Court of administrative agency cases. general - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction (1ncludi ng jurisdiction criminal appeals) . - Moving traffic, miscellaneous traffic, ordinance violation. - Exclusive juveni 1e jurisdiction. Jury t ria1 s. t ~~~~ COURT OF TAX REVIEU MUNICIPAL COURT NOT OF WNICIPAL CRIMIl iL COURT (1 court) RECORD (167 courts) OF RECORD (2 courts) 3 district judges serve Approximately 250 full/ Courts of CSIM case types: part-time judges 1 imited - Appeal of administrative CSIM case types: jurisdiction agency cases. - Traffi c/other viol ation. No jury trials. Jury t ria1 s. I Indicates assignment of cases. Oklahoma has a Uorkers' Compensation Court which hears complaints that are handled exclusively by administrative agencies in other states. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this sectfon which contains important information relevant to each chart. 233 OREGON COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 7 justlces slt en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurlsdlctlon In capital crlmlnal, Court of admi nlstratlve agency, dlsclpllnary, last orlglnal proceeding cases. resort - Olscretlonary jurlsdlctlon In civil, non- capital crlmlnal, admlnlstratlve agency, juvenl le, discipl lnary. certlfied questlons from the federal courts, orlglnal , proceedlng cases. COURT OF APPEALS I 10 judges slt In panels and en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurlsdlctlon In clvll, non- Intermed1 ate capltal crlmlnal, admlnistratlve agency, appellate juvenlle, orlglnal proceedlng, lnter- court locutory declsion cases. - No discretionary jurlsdiction. III CIRCUIT COURT (I8 circuits with 36 courts) (1 court) 84 judges 1 judge CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract. real property rlghts. - Civll appeals adoptlon, estate, clvll appeals, mental Courts of . health. Exclusive domestlc relatlons general tratlve lurlsdfctfon agencies. jurlsdictlon. - Excluslve triable felony, crimlnal appeals jurlsdlctlon. - Juvenile. Jury trlals In most cases. It COUNTY COURT JUSTICE COURT MUNICIPAL COURT DISTRICT COURT (8 counties) (38 camunitles) (196 courts) (27 districts) 8 judges 38 judges 144 judges 57 judges CSIH case types: CSIM case types: CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Adoptlon. mental - Tort, contract, - Ml sdemeanor, - Tort, contract, health, estate. real property ow I /ou I. real property - Juvenlle. rlghts. small - Traffic/other rights, small claims. vlolatl on. clalms, probate/ Courts of - Limited felony, wllls/lntestate. 1 lmlted misdemeanor, - Llmited felony, urlsdlctlon ow 1/OU 1. mlsdemeanor. - Moving trafflc, ou mu1. parklng, mls- - Trafflc/other cel laneous vi01 at! on. trafflc. Jury trials in most Jury trlals In most Jury trlals In some No jury trlals. case types. case types. case types. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnning of this sectlon whlch contalns important lnformatlon relevant to each chart. 234 PUERTO RlCO COURT SYSTEM, 1984 1 SIIIWK COIIH r 7 justices CSII! case types: - Mandatory civil, non-capital criminal, Court nf juvenile cases. 1 ast - Discretionary civil, non-capital criminal, resort administrative agency, juveni le, 1 awyer and judge disciplinary, advisory opinions. original proceeding, interlocutory decisiof cases. CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, domestic relations, appeal of administra- Court of tive agency cases, miscellaneous civil. general Exclusive estate, civil appeals of trial jur isdi c t ion court cases jurisdiction. - Hisdemeanor. Exclurive triahle felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. DISTRICT COURT (39 courts) 1 99 judges CSIt! case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, miscellaneous donestic relations, appeal of administrative agency cases, miscel- laneous civil. - Misdemeanor. Exclusive limited felony, DW I /DU 1 jurisdi cti on. - Traffic/other violation, except no parking, I NO jury trials. I I JUSTICE OF THE PEACE (3 courts) MUNICIPAL COURT (52 courts) 3 regular and 8 special judges and 56 judges honorary magistrates CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Traffic/other violation. - Justices of the Peace are empowered to handle only preliminary matters such as arraignment. setting bail and issuing search warrants. They do not reach decision or verdict. No trials. No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains Important information relevant to each chart. 236 RHODE ISLAND COURT SYSTEM, 1984 :ourt of 1 ast resort CSIM case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights, civil Court of appeals, miscellaneous civil. general - Misdemeanor, DWI/oUI. Exclusive triable jurisdiction felony, crimi nal appeals juri sdi ction. Jury t ria1 s . 1 FMILY COURT (4 counties) 13 judges 11 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property - Exclusive domestic relations rights, appeals of administrative jurisdiction. agency cases. Exclusive small - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. claims, mental health jurisdiction. - Misdemeanor, DUI/DUI. Exclusive 1 imited felony jurisdiction. - Ordinance violation. Exclusive moving traffic for those cases not handled admi nistratively. I NO jury trials. No jury trials. 1 Courts of limited [urisdlction MUNICIPAL COURT (2 cities) 1PROBATE COURT (39 cities/tarns) The number of judges is unavailable 39 judges CSIH case types: CSIH case types: - Ordinance violation. Exclusive - Exclusive estate jurisdiction. parking jurisdi ction. No jury trials. No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important lnformatfon relevant to each chart. 237 SOUTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 1 5 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, juvenile, disciplinary, certified questions Court of from the federal courts, original proceed- 1ast ing, interlocutory decision cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdlction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding, 1nter- locutory decision cases. I i I COURT OF APPEALS I 6 judges sit in panels and en banc I CSIM case types: Intermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- appel 1 ate capital criminal , administrative agency, court juvenile, original proceeding cases 1 assigned to it by the Supreme Court. J CIRCUIT COURT (16 cf rcults) 31 judges and 23 masters-in-equity CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, Court of miscellaneous civil. Exclusive civil general appeals jurisdi ction. jurisdicti on - Misdemeanor, OMI/OUI. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals, miscellaneous criml nal juri sdlction. Jury trials, except in appeals. I FAMILY COUl (16 clrcults) I MAGISTRATE COURT (320 Courts) 46 judges 320 magistrates CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Miscellaneous civil. Exclu- - Tort, contract, real propert! sive domestic relations rights, some paternity/ jurisdiction, except for somf bastardy. paternitylbastardy cases - Limited felony, misdemeanor, heard in the Magistrate OW I/DU I. Court. - Traff1 c/other violation. - Juvenile traffic. - Juvenile. - Juvenile. No jury trials. I Jury trials. ~~ PROBATE COURT (46 courts) MUNICIPAL COURT (250 courts) 46 judges 250 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Exclusive mental health, - Limited felony, misdemeanor. estate jurl sdl ct 1 on. OH I/DU I. - Traffic/other violation. No jury trials. Jury t ria1 s. I Indicates assignment of cases. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 238 SOUTH DAKOTA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT I 5 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction over civil, Court of criminal , administrative agency. juvenl le, last discipl 1 nary, origi nal proceed4 ng cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction over advisory opinions for the state executive, Inter- locutory decision, original proceeding cases. t I CIRCUIT COURT (8 circuits) 35 judges, 7 full-time and 10 part-time lawyer magistrates, 16 part-time lay magistrates. 81 full-time clerk-magis- trates. and 32 part-time clerk-magistrates CSIH case types: - Exclusive civil jurisdiction (including civil appeals). - Exclusive criminal jurisdiction (including criminal appeals). - Exclusive traffic/other violation juris- diction (except for uncontested parking. which is handled administratively). - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials, except in mall claims. NOTE: Re sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 239 TENNESSEE COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 5 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: Court of - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, last workers compensation, lawyer dlscipli nary resort cases. - Discretionary jurlsdlctlon In civil, non- capltal criminal, juvenile, original proceeding, Interlocutory decision cases. COURT OF APPEALS (3) 1 COURT OF CRIHINAL APPEALS (3) 1 12 judges generally slt in panels and 9 judges sit In panels and en banc en banc CSIM case types: Intenedlate CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdlctlon In non-capital appellate - Mandatory jurlsdlctlon in civil, criminal, juvenile, original proceeding courts admlnlstrative agency, juvenlle cases. cases. - Discretionary jurisdictlon in interlocu- - Discretlonary jurisdictlon 1 n 1 nterlocu- tory declslon cases. 1 b CIRCUIT COURT CHANCERY COURT CRIMINAL COURT (95 counties In 31 districts)* (23 districts) (13 distrtcts) 66 judges Court(s) of CSIM case types: 30 chancellors 26 judges general - Civll. except small claims. Civil CSIM case types: CSlM case types: jurlsdlctlon appeals jurlsdlction. - Civil, except small - Criminal. - Crimlnal. claims. Crlminal appeals - Moving traffic. mlscellaneous traffic. jurisdi ction. Jury trials. Ju ry t ria 1s . Jury t ria1 s. a JUVENILE COURT (16 counties) PROBATE COURT (2) MUNICIPAL COURT (~300courts) 16 juvenile judges, 3 judges; 5 general 300 judges CSIM case types: sesslon judges also CSIM case types: - Paternlty/bastardy, mental serve - Hlsdemeanor, DHI/OUl. health. CSIM case types: - Traffic/other - Juvenile. - Estate. vlolatlon. No jury trials. No jury trials. No jury trlals. I JI II Courts of GENERAL SESSIONS COURT (92 counties and 2 1 lmt ted additional countles have a trial justlce lurlsdlctlon court) 77 full-time and 38 part-tlme judges. (This includes 2 justlces of the peace.) CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, . marrlage dissolution. supportlcustody. mental health. estate. appeal of administrative agency case. Exclusive malt claims jurlsdlction. - Mlsdemeanor, DUI/DUI. - Ordinance vlolatlon. - Juvenile. No jury trlals. *The state of Tennessee was dlvlded into 31 judicial dlstrlcts on September 1. 1984. There Is a Clrcult In each dlstrfct. Twenty three dlstrlcts have separate Chancery Courts, and thirteen distrlcts have separate Crlmlnal Courts. The Clrcult Court has jurlsdlctlon over Chancery and Crlmlnal matters In the remalnlng circuits. There Is one presldlng judge for each dlstrlct. As a result of the redlstrlcting. two Law and Equity Courts became Circuit Courts and the other two became Chancery Courts. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnnlng of this sectlon whlch contains lmportant lnfonatlon relevant to each chart. 24 0 TEXAS COURT SYSTEM, 1984 ~UPRENECOURT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 9 justices sit en banc 9 judges sit in panels and en banc CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil cases. - Mandatory jurisdiction in criminal, Courts of - Discretionary jurisdiction in original proceeding cases. last civll , administrative agency, - Discretionary jurisdiction in non- resort juvenile, certified questions from capital criminal. original proceeding federal courts, original proceeding cases. proceeding cases. I 1 DISTRICT COURTS (367 courts) - DISTRICT COURT (357 courts) CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT (10 courtsl 357 judges CSIM case types: 10 judges Court of - Tort, contract, real property CSIM case types: general rlghts, domestic relations, - Triable felony. misdemeanor, jurisdiction estate, miscellaneous civil. OWI/OUI, miscellaneous criminal Exclusive adminlstrative agency cases. appeals jurisdiction. - Triable felony, mlsdemeanor. OWI/OUI, miscellaneous criminal. - Juvenile. Jury trials. Jury trials. c COUNTY LEVEL COURTS (387 courts) tr CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTY COURT PROBATE COURT COUNTY COURT AT LAW (122 courts) (254 courts) (11 courts) 122 judges 11 ju.!yes CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort. contract, real property - Estate. rights, small claims. marriage dissolution, estate, mental health, civil trial court appeals, miscel 1aneous civil. - Misdemeanor, DWI/OUI, criminal appeals. - Moving traffic, parking, Courts of miscellaneous traffic. 1imi ted - Juvenile. jurl sdi ctl on I Jury t ria1 5. Jury t ria1 s. J MUNICIPAL COURT* (832 courts) JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURP (940 Courts) I 1.078 judges 940 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Limited felony. misdemeanor. - Tort, contract, real property - Moving traffic. parking, miscellaneous rights, small claims, mental health. traffic. Excluslve ordinance viol ati on - Limited felony, misdemeanor. jurisdiction. - Moving traffic, parking, miscellaneous traffic. Jury t ria 1s . Jury t ria1 s . *Some tiuniclpal and Justice of the Peace Courts may appeal to the District Court. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 24 1 UTAH COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREW COURT 5 justlces sit en banc CSIH case types: Court of - Mandatory jurisdiction fn civll. last crlmlnal , admi nistratl ve agency, resort juvenile, lawyer dlsclpllnary, orlglnal proceedlng cases. - Discretionary jurisdlctlon In lnter- locutory decision cases. 1 count1es) 29 judges CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, real property rlghts. Court of Excluslve domestlc relatlons. estate, general mental health, cfvll appeals, miscel- jurl sdl c t 1 on laneous clvi1 jurisdlctlon. - Misdemeanor. Excluslve trlable felony, crlmi nal appeals jurlsdictlon. Jury trlals In most case types. I 1 I I - CIRCUIT COURT (12 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE circuits in 29 counties; COURT (171 cities/ may have secondary counties) 1ocations) 163 judges 37 judges CSIH case types: CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, small - Tort, contract, real claims. property rlghts, small - Llmited felony, misde- clalms. meanor, OWI/DUI. - Llmlted felony, mlsde- - Trafffc/other rneanor, DWI/DUI. vlolatl on. Excluslve mlscellaneous crimloil 1 jurisdl c t lon. - Trafflc/other violatl on. Jury trlals, except In Courts of small clalms and parking Jury trials In some case 1iml ted cases, types. jurl sdl ction JUVENILE COURT (5 juvenlle court dlstrlcts) 9 judges CSIH case types: - Movl no trafflc. mi scellaneous traffic (juveille). . - Excluslve juvenile jurlsdlctlon. I NO jury trials. - NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnnlng of thls section which contafns lmportant lnformatlon relevant to each chart. 24 2 VERMONT COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT 5 justices sit en banc CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal. :ourt of administrative agency, juvenile, original last proceeding, interlocutory decision cases. resort - Discretionary jurisdiction in interlocutory decision cases. I I t 31 SUPERIOR COURT (14 counties) DISTRICT COURT* (14 circuits) 10 judges 14 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract, support/custody, - Tort, contract, support/custody, paternitylbastardy, miscellaneous paternitylbastardy, miscellaneous domestic relations. miscellaneous domestic relations. mental health. civil. Exclusive real-property Exclusive small claims jurisdiction. Courts of rights, marriage dissolution, civil - Triable felony. Exclusive mis- general appeals juri sdiction. demeanor, DWI/DUI jurisdiction. lurisdictlon - Triable felony. - Exclusive moving traffic, miscel- 1aneous traffic. ordinance violation, jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury t ria1 s. Jury t ria1 s. I I PROBATE COURT (19 districts) 1 The number of judges is unknown CSIH case types: Court of - Mental health, miscellaneous domestic 1 imited relations, miscellaneous civil. Exclusive jurisdi ction adoption, estate jurisdiction. No jury trials. I I *The District Court was created as a court of limited jurisdiction. but since its creation, has steadily increased its scope to include almost all criminal business. In 1983, the District Court was granted jurisdiction over all criminal cases. and has become the court of general jurlsdlction for most criminal matters. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 24 3 VIRGINIA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT* I 7 justices slt en banc and in panels CSIH case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in capital criminal, adml nlstrative agency, 1awyer disclpl lnary Court of cases. last - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- resort capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, judge disciplinary, original proceeding, Interlocutory decision cases. t I CIRCUIT COURT (31 circuits) 120 judges CSIH case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights. mental health, admi nlstrative agency appeals, miscellaneous civil. Exclusive domestic relations (except for support/ Court of custody), civi 1 appeals from tri a1 courts, general estate jurlsdl ct 1 on. jurlsdi ctlon - Mlsdemeanor. criminal appeals, miscel- 1aneous criminal . Exclusive triable felony jurisdiction. - Ordinance violation. I Jury trlals. Juvenile, and Domestic Relations Courts)** 99.75 FTE general district and 69.25 FTE juvenlle and domestic relations judges CSIH case types: - Tort, contract, real property rights, Court of support/custody , mental health, admi nls- 1 imited trative agency appeals. jurlsdictlon - Misdemeanor. Exclusive OWI/OUI. llmited felony jurlsdl ct ion. - Ordinance violation. Excluslve moving traffic, parking, miscellaneous trafflc jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurlsdfction. No jury t ria1 s . *The Vlrglnfa Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, became effectlve January 1, 1985. **The Distrlct Court is referred to as the Juvenile and Oomestlc Relatlons Court when hearing juvenile and domestic relations cases, and as the General District Court for the balance of the cases. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of thls sectlon which contains Important Information relevant to each chart. 244 WASHINGTON COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT 9 justices sit en banc and in panels CSIM case types: / - Mandatory jurisdiction In clvll. criminal, admi nlstrative agency, juvenl le, certl fied :ourt of questions from federal courts cases. 1ast - Discretionary jurlsdlctlon in civil, non- resort capltal crfminal. admlnlstratlve agency. juvenlle, dlsci pli nary, orlginal proceed- lng, interlocutory decision cases. I COURT OF APPEALS (3 divlsions/courts) 16 judges slt en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurlsdlction In civil, non- Intenedl ate capltal criminal, admlnlstrative agency, appellate juvenlle. origlnal proceeding cases. court - Discretlonary jurisdiction 1 n adml nlstra- t 1 ve agency, 1 nterlocutory decl slon cases. I SUPERIOR COURT (29 districts) 128 judges CSIM case types: - Tort. contract. Excluslve real Court of property rights, domestlc relations, general estate, mental health, clvll appeals, jurisdiction miscellaneous clvl1 jurlsdlctlon. - Excluslve triable felony, crlmlnal appeals jurisdl ction. - Excluslve juvenlle jurfsdictfon. Jury trials In most case types. MUNICIPAL COURT (136 cities) t DISTRICT COURT (64 counties with 68 locations)* Judges* CSIM case types: Judges* - Misdemeanor, OWI/OUI. CSIM case types: - Moving trafflc, parklng. - Tort, contract, miscellaneous mi scel laneous trafflc. domest 1 c re1at 1 ons. Courts of Exclusive ordinance violation Exclusive small claims limited jurlsdlctlon. jurisdlctlon. jurisdictlon - Misdemeanor, DWI/OUI. Excluslve limlted felony juri sdl ct 1 on. - Moving traffic. parklng. mlscellaneous trafflc. Jury trials. except in parking. Jury trials, except In parklng. *There are 203 judges asslgned to the Munlcipal Court and Oistrlct Court: 164 are attorneys, 39 are non-attorneys; 87 are full-tlme. 116 are part-tlme. **Ofstrict Court provides servlces to munlclpalltles that do not have a Munlclpal Court. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beglnnlng of thls section whlch contalns Important informatlon relevant to each chart. 24 5 WEST VIRGINIA COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 5 justices sit en hanc CSIM case types: - No mandatory jurl sdi ct i on. Court of - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, 1ast non-capital criminal, administrative resort agency. juvenile. disciplinary. certified questions from the federal courts. orfgina proceeding. interlocutory decision cases. f 1 CIRCUIT COURT (31 circuits) 60 judges CSIM case types: - Tort. contract. Exclusive real property rights, domestic relations, mental health, Court of estate. civil appeals, miscellaneous civil general jurisdiction. jurisdiction - Nisdemeanor. DUI/DUl. miscellaneous criminal. Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdi cti on. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. Jury trials. tI tI MAGISTRATE COURT (55 counties) 1 MUNICIPAL COURT (54 courts) 11 150 magistrates 54 judges CSIM case types: CSIM case types: - Tort, contract. - DUI/OUI. Courts of - Misdemeanor. D\JI/OUI. Exclusive - Moving traffic, miscellaneous 1 imited limited felony jurisdiction. traffic. Exclusive parking, jurisdict ion - Moving traffic, miscellaneous ordinance viol at i on jurisdiction. traff ic. Jury trials. No jury trials. 11 NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the heginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 246 WISCONSIN COURT SYSTEM, 1984 SUPREME COURT I 7 justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil. non- Court of capital criminal , disciplinary, certi fled 1ast questions from federal courts, original resort proceeding cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, non- capital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding cases. 1t COURT OF APPEALS (4 districts/courts) I 12 judges sit in 3-judge districts CSIM case types: Intermediate - Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non- appel 1ate capital criminal, administrative agency, court juvenile, original proceeding cases. - Discretionary jurisdiction in interlocutoi decision cases. 1 CIRCUIT COURT (69 circuits) 190 judges CSIM case types: - Exclusive civil jurisdiction (including civil appeals). Court of - DUI/DUI. Exclusive triable felony. general misdemeanor. criminal appeals jurisdiction, jurisdiction - Contested: moving traffic, parking, mi scellaneous traffic. Ordinance violatior if no Municipal Court. - Exclusive juveni 1e jurisdiction. Jury trial in most case types. tI 1 MUNICIPAL COURT (211 cities) 213 judges Court of CSIM case types: limited - DWI/DUI. jurisdiction - Traffic/other violation. No jury trials. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 247 WYOMING COURT SYSTEM, 1984 I SUPREME COURT I 5,justices sit en banc CSIM case types: - Mandatory jurisdiction over civil, Court of criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, 1ast 1awyer df sci pl{nary. certi fled questions resort from the federal courts, original proceeding cases. - No discretionary jurisdiction. 1 I DISTRICT COURT (9 districts) 17 judges CSIfl case types: - Tort. contract, real property rights. Exclusive domestic relations (except for Court of miscellaneous domestic relations), mental general health, estate, civil appeals, miscel- jurisdiction 1aneous civil jurisdiction. - Exclusive triable felony, criminal appeals jurisdiction. - Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. I Jury trials. 9 I JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT MUNICIPAL COURT (78 municipalities) (21 municipalities In 15 counties and 7 districts) 76 judges CSIM case types: 26 justices of the peace - DWI/DUI. CSIH case types: - Moving traffic. parking, miscel- - Tort. contract, real property 1aneous traffic. Excliisive rights, small claims. ordinance violation juri sdiction. - Limited felony, misdemeanor, DWI/DU I. - Moving traffic, parking, miscel- laneous trafficlother violation. Jury trials. except in small claims. Jury t ria 1s . .ts. 12 counties, 22 municipalities) 19 judges CSIH case tvoes: - Tort, co&act. real property rights, small claims, miscellaneous domestic re1ations. - Limited felony. misdemeanor, DWI/DUI. - Moving traffic. parking. miscellaneous traffic violation. I Jury trials, except in small claims. NOTE: Be sure to read the text at the beginning of this section which contains important information relevant to each chart. 248 FIGURE H: State trial courts with incidental appellate jurisdiction, 1984. "Incidental appellate jurisdiction" is a term resources than on the record appeals. Second, adopted by the COSCA Court Statistics and the existence of an appeal in the trial court may Information Systems Committee to designate the affect subsequent appeals of right in the authority given to review civil and criminal appellate courts. Finally, appeals from cases of other trial courts (or divisions administrative agencies to the trial courts thereof) or of administrative agencies. An "X" provide the first link between administrative law in the appropriate column indicates whether a and the regular state courts. court has such incidental appellate jurisdiction. An "X" in the column entitled "Source of All state trial courts are listed in this figure trial court appeals" indicates the court(s1 from in order to clearly identify those which have which appeals are taken. Additionally, there is incidental appell ate jurisdiction. information next to the "X" to indicate whether The source of trial court appeals indicates the appeal is: on the record; (de novo) on the the courts from which trial court appeals come, record; or de novo. and whether they are heard do novo or on the The state court system organization charts record. This distinction between de novo and on found in Part 111 of this volume also indicate the record appeals is important for a variety of the routes of appeal for both trial and appellate reasons. First, from an administrative courts in each state court system. perspective, de novo appeals consume more 249 - . .. . - . FIGURE H: State trial courts with incidental appellate jurisdiction, 1984. Hears appeals Juris- 'from trial courts from administra- Source of State and court title: ---diction Civi1 c riminal tive agencies trial court appeals ALABAMA: Circuit Court G X X X District Court L X de novo Probate Court L X de novo Municipal Court L X de novo ALASKA: Superior Court G X X X District Court L X (de novo) on the record ARIZONA : Superior Court G X X Justices of the Peace Court L X both de novo and Municipal Court L X on the record SAS : Circuit Court G X X X Chancery and Probate Court G X de novo Court of Comnon Pleas L X de novo County Court L X de novo Municipal Court L X de novo City Court, Police Court L X de novo CALIFORNIA: Superior Court G X X X Justice Court L X both de novo and Municipal Court L X on the record ADO : District Court G X X X Water Court G County Court L X on the record L X on the record Superior Court G X Probate Court L i Court of Chancery G Superior Court G X X X Family Court L X on the record Justice of the Peace Court L X de novo Court of Comnon Pleas L X on the record Municipal Court of Wilmington L X de novo Alderman's Court L X de novo DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Superior Court G X IDA: Circuit Court G X X X County Court L X on the record EORGIA: Superior Court G X X X State Court L Juveni 1e Court L Justice of the Peace Court L Municipal Court L Civil Court L Magistrate Court L X' de novo Probate Court L X de novo recorder"^ Court L ""tKit Court G X District Court L ~DAHO: District Court G X X X Magi strates Oivi- sion (both de novo and on the record) Y2i:i Court G X Superior Court and Circuit Court G X X X Probate Court L County Court L Municipal Court of Marion County L Small Claims Court of Marion County L City Court and Town Court L X de novo 250 . . . - FIGURE H: State trial courts with incidental appellate jurisdiction, 1984.(continued) IOWA: Ois trict Court G X X Magistrates and associate judges on the record TSAict Court G X X X Magistrate judges on the record Municipal Court L X de novo KENTUCKY: Circuit Court G X X X District Court L X on the record, (de novo) on the record ANA : District Court G X X City Court and Parish Courts L X on the record Family Court and Juvenile Court L Justice of the Peace Court L X de novo Mayor's Court L X de novo MINE: Superior Court G X X X District Court L X on the record Probate Court L X on the record Y',"C1YtCourt G X X X District Court L X both de novo and on the record Orphans ' Court L MASSACHUSETTS: Trial Court of the Cornonwealth: G Superior Court Department X X X Other departments both de novo and on the record District Court Department X On the record X De novo: District Court, Juvenile Court Boston Municipal Court Dept. X X On the record: District Court in Suffolk County, Boston Municipal Court Housing Court Department Juvenile Court Department Probate and Family Court Dept. Circuit Court G X X X Court of Claims G District Court L X on the record Municipal Court L X de novo Probate Court L X on the record Court G X X ! "E?:;County Court L X on the record Probate Court L X on the record Conciliation Court L X de novo County Municipal Court L X on the record ' -PI: (Data are unavailable) Circuit Court G Chancery Court G County Court L Family Court L Municipal Court L Justice Court L RI: Circuit Court G X X X Associate, Municipal Divisions -- de novo MONTANA: District Court G X X X Justice of the Peace Court and Municipal Court L X de novo City Court L X de novo 251 FIGURE H: State trial courts with incidental appellate jurisdiction, 1984.-(continued) Hears appeals Juris- from trial courts from admlnistra- Source of State and court title: ---diction C1 VI1 c riminav tive agencies trial court appeals NEBRASKA: District Court G X X X Workmen's Compensation Court L Separate Juvenile Court L County Court L X on the record Municipal Court L X on the record "E:A ct Court G X X X Justice Court L X on the record (de novo) on the record Municipal Court L X de novo if jury trlal requested E: Superior Court G X District Court L X de novo Probate Court L L X de novo Superior Court G X Municipal Court L X (de novo) on the record, Y.n on the record -Surrogate's Court L '?ZfEOt.Court G X X X Magistrate Court L X de novo Probate Court L X de novo Municipal Court L X de novo Bernal ill o County Metropol 1 tan Court L X de novo Supreme Court G County Court G X X Civil Court of the City of New York L Criminal Court of City of New York L Family Court L Surrogates ' Court L Court of C1 aims L District Court and City Court L X on the record Town Court and Village Justice Court L X on the record INA: Superior Court G X X District Court L X do novo TA: District Court G X X Xa County Court L X de novo Municipal Court L X de novo 0: Court of Common Pleas G X County Court L X Municipal Court L X Court of Claims L X Mayor's Court L X de novo YET?;t court G X X Court of lax Review L X Municipal Criminal Court of Record and Municipal Court Not of Record L X de novo N: Circuit Court G X X X Tax Court G X DIstrict Court L County Court L X de novo Justice Court L X de novo Munici a1 Court L X de novo TEF5Itimnon P1 eas G X X X District Justice Court L X de novo Philadelphia Municipal Court L X de novo Phi ladelphla Traffic Court L X de novo Pittsburgh City Magistrates Court L X de novo 25 2 FIGURE H: State trial courts with incidental appellate jurisdiction, 1984.(continued) PUERTO RICO: Superior Court G X X X District Court L X Municipal Judges L ISLANO: Superior Court G X X X District Court L X de novo Family Court L Probate Court L X de novo L Circuit Court G X X X Family Court L Magistrate Court L X de novo, (de novo) on the record, on the record Probate Court L X (ditto) L X (ditto) Circuit Court G X X X Magistrates Division de novo (usually) %:::*Court, Chancery Court, Criminal Court G X X X General Sessions Court L X de novo Probate Court L X de novo Municipal Court L X de novo Juvenile Court L X de novo YStrict Court and Criminal District Court G X County Court at Law, Constitutional County Court, and Probate Court L X X Municipal Court L X de novo Justice of the Peace Court L X de novo 'TYi tri ct Court G X X X Circuit Court L X on the record Justice of the Peace Court L X de novo Juvenile Court L NT: Superior Court G X X District Court G X Small claims: de novo, on the record Probate Court L X de novo, on the record T;Zi Court G X X X District Court L X X de novo WASHINGTON: Superior Court G X X X District Court L X de novo, on the record Municipal Court L X de novo, on the record INIA: Circuit Court G X X X Magistrate Court L X de novo Municipal Court L IN: Circuit Court G X X X Municipal Justice Court L X de novo, on the record c t Court G X X X County Court L X on the record Justice of the Peace Court L X on the record Municipal Court L X on the record Source: Data were gathered from the court profiles used to compile the 1984 State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. Jurisdiction codes : 253 G = General jurisdiction court. L = Limited jurisdiction court. FIGURE I: Route of appeals of administrative agency cases to state appellate courts, 1984. An important, but often over1 ooked component from which appeals are taken directly to the of state court systems is the link between appellate courts are specifically ideltifled in "conventional " court cases that routinely make up this table using the generic terms: Public the workloads of state courts (e.g., criminal, Service Commission," "Workers' Compensation tort, and juvenile cases), and cases involving Commission, I' and "Unemployment Insurance administrative agencies. Figure I demonstrates Commission." Other agencies are identified when the 1 ink between these two important components appropriate. of the legal system by identifying the route of appeals of administrative agency decisions to the To further enhance an understanding of the state appellate courts. A blank space indicates 1 ink between administrative law and conventional that no information was available for that data state courts, an "M" and "D" are used in lieu of element. All codes used in this figure are the "X" employed in the previous tables. An "til" defined at the end of this figure. indicates a mandator{ appeal coming from the specified source; a D" means a discretionary There are three basic sources of these appeal, and an "M/D" represents either a cases. They may come to the appellate court mandatory or discretionary appeal, depending on directly from either the agency, the trial the situatlon. An "0" is used when an appeal courts, or the intermediate appellate courts. cannot come directly from the specific source. The most frequently cited administrative agencies 254 0 FIGURE I: Route of appeals of administrative agency cases_to state-- appellate courts, 1984.. An appeal of an administrative agency case comes to this court directly from the: Yorkers UnemDl.- oy- Inter- Public Compen- ment mediate State: Court Service sation Insurance Trial appellate Court name type Comm. Comm. Comm. Other Agencies: court(s) court ALABAMA: Supreme Court ...... COLR I4 0 0 I4 0 0 Court of Civil Appeals ...... IAC 0 0 0 0 M -- Court of Criminal Appeals ...... ALASKA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC ------ ARIZONA : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 D Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 M D 0 M -- ARKANSAS: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (M/D) 0 0 Court of Appeals ... COLR 0 0 M 0 0 -- CALIFORNIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR D 0 0 0 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 D 0 M/D n/o -- --- COLORADO : Supreme Court ...... COLR I4 0 0 0 0 D Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 M 14 SEVERAL (M) f4 -- CONNECTICUT: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 n/o Appellate Court .... IAC 0 M 0 0 M -- DELAWARE: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 M -- --- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court of Appeals ... COLR M M M ALL (M) 0 -- --~ FLORIDA: Supreme Court ...... COLR M 0 0 0 0 14/D District Court of Appeals ...... IAC 0 14 I4 ALL (MI 0 -- -~- GEORGIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 HAWAII : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 n/o Intermediate Court of Appeals ...... IAC M M M ALL (14) 0 -- -~~ IDRItO: Supreme Court ...... COLR M M M 0 M -- Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 0 -- --~ - \ FIGURE I? Route of 'aopeals of administrative agency cases to state appellate courts. 1984. (continued) -\ An appeal of an administrative agency case comes to this court directly from the: Workers Unemploy- Inter- Public Compen- ment mediate State: Court Service sation Insurance Trial appellate Court name type Comm. Comm. Comm. Other Agencies: court(s 1 court ILLIN0 IS: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 M/O Appel 1ate Court .... IAC 0 0 0 LABOR RELATIONS (14); BO. ELEC (14) 1.1 POLLUTION CONTROL (M) --- INDIANA: . Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC I4 M M ALL, (14) 14 --- IOWA : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 M Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 El KANSAS : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 l.l/O Court of Appeals ... IAC M 0 0 TAX BOARO (14) I M KENTUCKY: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 M/O LOUISIANA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 M/O I4/D Court of Appeals ... IAC M 0 0 CIVIL SERVICE COMM (14); ENVIR. :M -- PROT. (MI; ETHICS COMT4. (M) MAINE: Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as Law Court ...... COLR F1 0 0 0 I4 MARY LAt1 0 : Court of Appeals ... COLR 0 0 0 0 M/U M/U Court of Special Appeals ...... IAC 0 0 0 0 til _- --- MASSACHUSETTS: Supreme Judicial Court ...... COLR 0 0 D TAX BOARO (M) M/D D Appeals Court ...... IAC 0 0 0 LABOR RELATIONS(M1 14 -- MICHIGAN : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC M/O M/D M/D ALL (M/O) 0 _- MINNESOTA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 14 0 TAX COURT (M) 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC M 0 M ALL (M) M -- MISSISSIPPI: Supreme Court ...... COLR M 0 0 0 MISSOURI: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 REVENUE CASES (M) 0 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 ALL (M) M _- FIGURE I: Route of appeals of administrative agency cases to state appellate courts, 1984. (continued) An appeal of an admlnfstrative agency case comes to this court df rectly From- the: Workers Unemploy- Inter- Pub1 ic Compen- ment mediate State: Court Service sation Insurance Trial appellate Court name type corn. corn. corn. Other Agencies: court(s) court tIONTAIIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR D D D ALL (D) D NEBRASKA: Supreme Court ...... NEVADA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 M NElJ HAMPSHIRE: Supreme Court ...... COLR D 0 D ALL (0) 0 NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 14/D Appellate Oivisf on of Superior Court . IAC M 14 I4 ALL (M) 0 -- --- NEW MEXICO: Supreme Court ...... COLR M 0 M ALL (M/D) M 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 ALL (MI M -- --- NEW YORK: Court of Appeals ... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 Appellate Division of Supreme Court .. IAC M* M M ENVIRONMENTAL BO; (MI; M Appellate Term of HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL (M) Supreme Court ..... IAC ------ NORTH CAROLINA: 1 Supreme Court ...... COLR I4 0 0 0 0 M/D Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 M 0 PROPERTY TAX (MI; COMM. INSURANCE (t.1); BD. STATE M/O CONTRACT APPEALS (14) NORTH DAKOTA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 M OHIO: Supreme Court ...... COLR I4 0 0 BOARD TAX APPEALS (MI; ELSE (MI 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 BOARD TAX APPEALS (14) M OKLAHOMA: Supreme Court ...... COLR D 14 0 TAX COURT (M); BANKING BD (0); D -- TAX COMM (D); BD PROPERTY/ CASUALTY RATES (D) Court of Criminal Appeals ...... COLR ------Court of Appeals ... IAC D M 0 CASES TRANSFERRED FROM 0 SUPREME COURT --- OREGON : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 TAX COURT APPEALS (MI 0 D Court of Appeals ... IAC M M M ALL (MI 0 -- PEN NSY LVAN I A: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 LEGISLATIVE REAPPOR. COMM (M) M D Superior Court ..... IAC ------Commonwealth Court . IAC M/D MID H/D ALL (M/D) M/D -- 257 FIGURE I: Route of appeals of administrative agency cases to state appellate courts, 1984. (continued) An appeal of an administrative agency case comes to this court directly from the: Workers Unempl oy- Inter- Public ComDen- ment iitediate State: Court Service sation Insurance Trial appellate Court name type Comm. Comm. Comm. Other Agencies: court(s) court PUERTO RICO: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 M 0 LABOR RELATIONS; COIN M/D -- MUNICIPAL COMPLAINTS; MIN. WAGE BO.; SUGAR BO (MI RHODE ISLAND: Supreme Court ...... COLR M D 0 0 --- SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 D 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 CASES TRANSFERRED FRO14 I4 -- SUPREHE COURT --- SOUTH DAKOTA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 --- TENNESSEE: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 D Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 M -- Court of Criminal Appeals ...... IAC ------~ TEXAS: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Court of Criminal Appeals ...... COLR -- _- -- -- Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 --- UTAH: Supreme Court ...... COLR M M M ELSE, EXCEPT TAX COIWSSIOH (14) --- VERMONT: Supreme Court ...... COLR M M M (MI --- VIRGINIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR M D 0 0 --- WASHINGTON: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 0 tl/D Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 D -- --- WEST VIRGINIA: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 D D 0 --- WISCONSIN: Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 D 0 Court of Appeals ... IAC 0 0 0 0 Id -- --- WYOMING : Supreme Court ...... COLR 0 0 0 0 _- - Data element is inapplicable. ALL = All state agency cases. ELSE = All other state agency cases. New York--Appellate Division of Supreme Court: Public Service Commission cases are applicable to the Third Department only. Source: 1984 State Appellate Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting. 258 FIGURE J: Number of judges/justices in the state courts, 1984. Court( s) Intermediate General Limited of last appellate jurisdiction jurisdictf on State: resort court(s) court(s) court( s 1 A1 abama 9 8 114 813 (includes 435 mayors) Alaska 5 3 27 68 (includes 54 magistrates) Arizona 5 15 91 263 (includes 84 justices of the peace, 73 part-time judges) Arkansas 13 -- 67 331 (includes 61 juvenile referees) Cal iforni a 7 74 749 (includes 78 704 (includes 93 commissioners, commissioners, 9 referees) 16 referees) Colorado 7 10 107 339 Connecticut 6 5 125 131 Del aware 5 -- 15 90 (includes 53 justices of the peace, 1 chief magistrate, 9 aldermen, 2 deputies, 2 assistants, 2 mayors) District of Columbia 9 -- 51 -- F1 orida 7 46 339 206 Georgia 7 9 124 799 (data are incomplete; includes 86 part-time judges, 159 chief magistrates, 340 magi strates 1 Hawaii 5 3 24 22 Idaho 5 3 102 (includes 71 -- lawyer and non- lawyer magistrates) I11inois 7 34 705 -- Indiana 5 12 193 159 Iowa 9 6 304 (includes 166 -- part-time mag- istrates) Kansas 7 7 214 (includes 74 356 district magis- Kentucky 7 Louisiana 7 Ma ine 7 -_ 15 40 Mary1 and 7 13 104 154 Massachusetts 7 10 279 -- Michi gan 7 18 165 361 tlinnesota 9 12 72 134 Mississippi 9 -- 79 509 (includes 200 mayors, 191 jus- tices of the peace) Elissouri 7 32 638 -- Montana 7 -- 32 167 (includes 82 justices of the peace 1 Nebraska 67 Nevada 69 (includes 54 justices of the peace 1 New Hampshire 5 -- 18 104 (includes 44 part-time judges) New Jersey 7 21 308 390 ( includes 21 surrogates) New Mexico 5 7 48 192 New York 7 60 435 3,009 (includes 76 surrogates, 2,327 justice of the peace) North Carolina 7 12 168 (includes 100 756 (includes 614 magistrates) clerks who hear uncontested probate) North Dakota 5 -- 26 174 Olii o 7 53 329 950 (includes G90 mayors) Oklahoma 12 12 2 02 273 (includes unknown number of part-time judges) Oregon 7 10 85 247 Pennsylvania 7 24 309 578 (includes 554 justices of the peace 1 Puerto Rico 7 -- 32 166 Rhode Island 5 -- 19 63 (data are incomplete) 259 FIGURE J: Number of judges/justices in the state courts, 1984Jcontinued) Court(s1 Intermediate General Limited of last appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction State: resort court(s) court(s) court(s 1 South Carolina 5 6 31 662 (includes 320 magistrates) South Dakota 5 _- 183 (includes 13 part- -- time lawyer magistrates, 15 lay magistrates, 81 full-time magi strate/ clerks, 32 part-time lay magi strate/clerks 1 Tennessee 5 21 122 434 (includes 38 part-time judges 1 Texas 18 80 367 2,405 (includes 940 justices of Utah 5 _- 29 209 (includes 163 justices of the peace) Vermont 5 -- 24 33 (1982 figure) Virgf nia 7 _- 120 162 Washington 9 16 128 203 (includes 116 part-time judges) West Virginia 5 -_ 60 204 (includes 150 masistrates) Misconsi n 7 12 190 21 3 Hyorning 5 -_ 17 121 (includes 26 justices of - the peace) Total 361 716 8,401 18,158 -- = The state does not have a court at the indicated level. WOTE: This table identlfies, in parentheses, all individuals who hear :ases but are not entitled judges/ justices. Some states, however, may have given the title "judge to officials \vho are called magistrates, justices of the peace, etc., in other states. 260 Appendices Appendix A: Technical discussion of former estimation procedures A. Calculation of Missing and Incomplete Data independent variables included in the predictive equation were available. The regression as Least squares linear regression was used to calculated again using a reduced nuiiiber of estimate the total volume of filings and independent variables, tailored to tlie data dispositions in appellate courts and for the available for the remaining states. This total civil. criminal. and juvenile caseloads in resulted in a hierarchy of regression equations trial court; in the 1981 Annual Report. That for each figure to be predicted. The predictive procedure was similar to the one that was used to equations that were used to estimate filings and estimate national totals for previous editions of dispositions are available in tlie previous the Annual Re ort. As available from state to editions of this series. stat& independent variables was used in a series of regression equations to predict This year, however, it was deterinined that 1981 filings and dispositions for states for whom when tlie numerous variations in the way cases are data were not available. Each regression counted in the trial and appellate courts are equation was calculated using data from all 50 considered with the nuinber of courts that report states, the Uistrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, complete and comparable data for the various case and, for trial courts, Guam. types, any effort to compute national estimates for missing data would be based on too small a The best predictive equation for each sample, resulting in an urireliable set of dependent variable was identified, using a figures. These figures, therefore, were not stepwise procedure. Variables were added to the comDuted. We hooe to reinstate this Drocedure predictive equation only if their addition was for' tlie 19b5 Annbal Report, depending'on tlie statistically significant at the p < .Ool quantity and ua it o data. For this Report, level. This equation was then used-to provide we have inclujed'onfy :otals of reported cases in the estimates for all courts for which all the the appellate and trial courts. 263 Appendix B: Sources of 1984 state court caseload statistics. ALABAI4A: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of Courts, Alabama Judicial System Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1904 (Montgomery, Alabama: 1984). Additional unpublished data were provided by by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by the Administrative Director of Courts. ALASKA: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, Alaska Court System, 1984 Annual Report (Anchorage, Alaska: 1985). ARIZONA : COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, The Arizona Courts, 1984 Annual Judicial Re ort (Phoenix, Arizona: 1985). Additional unpublished data were provided by the Administrative &or of the Courts. ARKANSAS: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Executive Secretary of the Arkansas Judicial Department, Report of the Judicial Department of Arkansas, FY 83-84 (Little Rock, Arkansas: 1985). CALIFORH IA: COLR, IAC, GJC. LJC: Judicial Council of California, 1985 Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the California Courts (San Francisco, California: 1985). Additional uripublished data were provided by the Administrative Director of the California Courts. COLORADO: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: State Court Administrator, Annual Report, Colorado Judiciary 1983-84 (Denver, Colorado: 1984). CONNECTICUT: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Chief Court Administrator, Judicial Department, Report of the Connecticut Judicial Department, 1982-1384 (Hartford. Connecticut: 1985). DELAWARE: COLR, GJC, LJC: Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 1904 Annual Report of the Delaware Judi ciarL ( Wilmi ngton, Del aware: 1985). DISTRICT OF COLU14BIA: COLR, GJC: Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia and the Executive Officer, 1984 Annual Report (Washington, O.C.: 1985). Additional unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals and by the Executive Officer. FLORIDA : COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the State Courts Administrator. GEORGIA: COLR, GJC, LJC: The Judicial Council of Georgia and the Administrative Office of the Courts, Eleventh Annual Report on the Work of the Georgia Courts (Atlanta, Georgia: 1985). 1AC: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. GUAM: GJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, Judiciary Territory of Guam 1984 Annual Report (Agana, Guam: 1985). HAWAI I : COLR, IAC: Administrative Director of the Courts, The Judiciar , State of Hawaii: Annual Report 1983-1984 (Honolulu, Hawaii: 1985). Administrative Director ofythe Courts, Statistical Supplement July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1984 (Honolulu. Hawaii: 1985). C, * dministrat ve Director of the Courts, The Judiciar State of Hawaii: Annual Re ort %33-%4 (ionolulu, Hibtaii: 1985). Additional unpublished dsa were provided by the Adminiitrative Director of the Courts. IDAHO : COLR, IAC, GJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, The Idaho Courts 1984 Annual Report (Boise, Idaho: 1985). ILLI140 IS : COLR, IAC, GJC: Unpublished data were provided by the Administrative Director of the Courts, and will be published in the 1904 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of Illinois (Springfield, Ill: 1986). IHDIANA: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration, 1984 Indiana Judicial Report (Indianapolis, Indiana: 1985). IOWA: COLR, IAC, GJC: State Court Administrator of the Judicial Department, 1984 Annual Statistical Report, Iowa Judiciary (Des Moines, Iowa: 1985). 264 Appendix 8: Sources of 1984 state court caseload statistics.(continued) KANSAS: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Judicial Administrator, Annual Report of tlie Courts of Kansas: 1983-1984 Fiscal -Year (Topeka, Kansas: 1984). KENTUCKY: COLR, IAC: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of tlie Supreme Court. GJC, LJC: Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Kentucky Court of Justice 1983-1984 Report (Frankfort, Kentucky: 1985). LOUISIANA: CDLR: UnDublished data were Drovided bv tlie Clerk of the Suoreme Court. IAC, GJC,'LJC: Judicial Admihstrator,-Annual Report 1984 of the Judicial Council (New Orleans, Louisiana : 1985 1. MAINE: COLR, GJC, LJC: State Court Administrator, Annual Report 1984 (Portland, Maine: 1985). Additional unpublished data were provided by the State Court Administrator. MARY LAND : COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: State Court Administrator, Annual Report of the Maryland Judiciary 1983-84 and Statistical Abstract 1983-84 (Annapolis, Maryland: 1984). MASSACHUSETTS: COLR: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court. IAC: Unpublished data were provided by tlie Clerk of the Appeals Court. GJC: Chief Administrative Justice, Annual Report of the Nassachusetts Trial Court, 1984 (Boston, Massachusetts: 1985). .MICHIGAN .- -. .. -. . . .: COLR, GJC, LJC: State Court Administrator, 1984 Report of the State Court Administrator and Circuit Court Supplement (Lansing, Michigan: 1905). IAC: Unpublished data were provided by the Chief Clerk of tlie Court of Appeals. MINNESOTA: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were supplied by the State Court Administrator. MISSISSIPPI: COLR: Mississippi Supreme Court, Mississippi Supreme Court Annual Report 1984 (Jackson, Mississippi: 1985). GJC, LJC: No data are available for cases handled by tlie Trial Courts for 1984. MISSOURI: COLR, IAC: State Courts Administrator, Missouri Judicial Report Fiscal Year 1984 (Jefferson City, Missouri : 1985 1. GJC: Unpublished data were provided by the State Courts Administrator, and will be published in the Missouri Judicial Report FY 1984 (Jefferson City, Missouri: 1985). MONTANA: COLR: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the State Court Administrator. NEBRASKA: COLR, GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the State Court Administrator, and will be published in The Courts of Nebraska 1984 (Lincoln, Nebraska: 1985). NEVADA: COLR: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. GJC, LJC: No data are available for cases handled by the Trial Courts for 1984. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. COLR: ' GJC, LJC: Chairman, Judicial Council, Twentieth Biennial Report of the Judicial Council of tlie State of New Ham shire (Concord, New Hampshire: 1984). Additional unpublished data were provided by the Director, +ministrative Office of the Courts. NEW JERSEY: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, 1984 Annual Report: New Jersey Judiciary (Trenton. New Jersey: 1984). Additional unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by the Adminiscrative Director of the Courts. NEW MEXICO: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Judicial Department, State of New Mexico Annual Report July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 (Santa Fe, New Mexico: 1984). NEW YORK: COLR, IAC, GJC. LJC: Unpublished data were provided by tlie Chief Administrative Judge, and N 11 be published in the Seventh Annual Report 1985 (New York, New York: 1985). 265 ' ' Appendix B: Sources of 1984 state court caseload statistics. (continued) NORTH CAROL I IIA: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, North Carolina Courts, 1983-84 (Raleigh, North Carolina: 1985). IIORTH UAKOTA: COLR, GJC, LJC: North Dakota Judicial Council, Annual Report, 1984 (Bismarck. North Dakota: 1985). OHIO: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Supreme Court, Ohio Courts Sumnary 1904 (Columbus. Ohio: 1985). OKLAHOMA: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Judiciary, Annual Report of the Oklahoma Judiciary 1983-84 (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: 1985). OREGON : COLR, IAC. GJC, LJC: State Court Administrator. 31st Annual Report Relating to Judicial Administration in the Courts of Oregon, 1984 (Salem, Oregon: 1985). PEIJNSY L VAN I A : COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Acting State Court Administrator, 1984 Annual Report (Philadelphia, Pennsylvanfa: 1385). Additional unpublished data were provided by the Acting State Court Administrator and the Clerk of the Commonwealth Court. PUERTO RICO: COLR, GJC, LJC: Administrative Director of the Courts, Anuario Estadistica. 1983-84 (Hato Rey, Puerto Rico: 1984). Additional unpublished data were provided by the Administrative Director of the Courts. RHODE ISLAND : COLR: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the State Court Administrator. SOUTH CAROLINA: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Director of the Judicial Department of South Carolina, Annual Report, 1984 (Darlington, South Carolina: 1985). Additional unpublished data were provide3 by the Director of the Office of Court Administration. SOUTH DAKOTA: COLR, GJC: State Court Administrator, Beticlimark 1984: Annual Report of the South Dakota Unified Judicial System (Pierre, South Dakota: 1985). TENNESSEE: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1984 Annual Report (Nashville, Tennessee: 1985). TEXAS: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Texas Judicial Council, 56th Annual Report 1983/84 (Austin, Texas: 1985). UTAH : COLR: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. GJC, LJC: Utah Judicial Council, Utah Courts 1983-84 (Salt Lake City, Utah: 1985). VERMONT: COLR, GJC, LJC: State Court Administrator, Judicial Statistics for Year Ending June 30, 1984 (Montpelier, Vermont: 1984). VIRGIN I A: COLR, GJC, LJC: Executive Secretary, Supreme Court, State of the Judiciary Report 1984 (Richmond, Virginia: 1985). Additional unpublished data were provided by the State Court Administrator. WASHINGTON: COLR, IAC, GJC, LJC: Administrator for the Courts, Annual Report of the Courts of Washington, 1984 (Olympia, Washington: 1985 1. WEST VIRGINIA: COLR: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals. GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the Administrative Director of the Courts. WISCONSIN: COLR, IAC: Unpublished data were provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the Director of the State Courts. WYOMING : COLR, GJC, LJC: Unpublished data were provided by the Court Coordinator. COLR = Court of last resort. GJC = General jurisdiction court. IAC = Intermediate appellate court, LJC = Limited jurisdiction court. 266 Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection. STATE NAME, COURT NAME Court of last resort or tntermediate appellate court Number of divistons/departments, Number of authorized justtces/judges Time period covered -- Beginning -Eiid======pending Fi1 ed Disposed pending Cases: Mandatory jurisdtctlon: Appeals of final judgments: Ctvil ...... Crtmtnal: Capital crimes (death/life) ...... Other crtminal ...... Total criminal ...... Juvenile ...... Admini strative agency ...... Unclassified (e.g., constitutional Issue) ..... Total appeals of final judgments ...... Other mandatory cases: Dt sct plinary : Attorney ...... Judge ...... Total dtsciplinary ...... Ortgtnal proceedtngs (e.g., writs) ...... Interlocutory dectstons ...... Advtsory opinions: Intra-state (legislature, executive, courts). Federal courts (i,e,, certified question) ... Total advisory optnions ...... Total other mandatory cases ...... Total mandatory jurisdiction cases ...... Dtscretlonary jurtsdtctton: Petitions of final judgments: Civtl ...... Criminal ...... Juvent 1e ...... Admt nt strative agency ...... Unclassified (e.g,, constitutional issue) ...... Total petitions of final judgments ...... Other discretionary petitions: Dtsctpl tnary: Attorney ...... Judge ...... Total disciplinary ...... Orfginal proceedfngs (e.g., writs ...... Interlocutory decistons ...... Advtsory optnions: Intra-state (legislature, executtve, courts) .. Federal courts (1 .e., certified question) ..... Total advisory opinions ...... Total other discretionary petitions ...... Total discretionary jurisdiction cases ...... Grand total cases ...... Other proceedings: Rehearing/reconsideration requests ...... Motions ...... Other matters (e.g., bar admissions) ...... ~~ Boldface headings indicate the classifications used by the CSIM Project. N/A = The case type is handled by the court, but the data are unavailable. X = The data for this case type are known to be included in the total but are unavailable by category. 8 -- - Data element is not applicable. NOTE: Begin pending, filed outside the parentheses, disposed outside the parentheses, and end pending figures reported as discretionary jurisdiction cases represent petitions/motions for review. Filed figures instde the parentheses represent those newly filed petittons/motions that were granted review during the time period covered on this profile. For those interested, filed figures tnside the parentheses can then be added to total mandatory jurisdictien cases filed to arrive at the number of new cases that the court will ultimately consfder “on the merits. Dtsposed figures inside the parenthese; represent the number of discretionary petitions granted review that were disposed of “on the merits. This number is rarely available, and is usually included In either the total discretionary petitions disposed, or the mandatory jurisdiction cases. For those interested, disposed figures inside the parentheses can be added to,,total mandatory jurisdiction cases disposed to arrive at the number of cases that the court disposed of on the merits. 267 Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection. (continued) Manner of Oisposi tion Preargument Decision disposition Opinions without (dismised/ Per opinion withdra\tn/ Signed curiam (memo/ Trans- settled) opinion opinion order) ferred Other Mandatory jurisdiction: Appeals of final judgments: Civil ...... Criminal ...... Juvenile ...... Administrative agency ...... Miscellaneous (e.g.. postconviction writ) ..... Unclassified (e.g., constitutional issue) ..... Other mandatory cases: Disciplinary ...... Original jurisdiction (e.g., election cases) . . Interlocutory decisions ...... Total mandatory jurisdiction cases ...... Discretionary jurisdiction (cases granted only): Petitions of final judgments: Civil ...... Criminal ...... Juvenile ...... Administrative agency ...... Miscellaneous (e.g., postconviction writ) ..... Unclassified (e.g., constitutional issue) ..... Other discretionary petitions ...... Disciplinary ...... Original jurisdiction (e.g., election cases) .. Total discretionary jurisdiction cases ...... Grand total ...... Decisions on appeal from final judgments Admi n is- trative Unclas- ---Civil Criminal Juvenile agency sified Total Opinions : Affirmed ...... Modified ...... Reversed ...... Remanded ...... Mixed ...... Dismissed ...... Other ...... Decisions without opinion: Affirmed ...... Modified ...... Reversed ...... Remanded ...... Mixed ...... Dismissed ...... Other ...... Decisions on appeal of other cases Relief Relief Petition Petition granted denied granted denied Other Discretionary jurisdiction: Petitions of final judgments: Civil ...... Criminal ...... Juvenile ...... Administrative agency ...... f.!iscellaneous (e.g., postconviction \wit) . ... Unclassified (e.g., constitutional issue) . ... Other discretionary petitions ...... Disciplinary ...... Original jurisdiction (e.g., election cases .. Total discretionary jurisdiction cases ...... 268 Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection. (cont!nued) ...... -e...... e...... ea...... C a ...... LV)...... - : :=.: . .a*= ...... E . ..- ...V) ...... OF. .e ...al ... ..,-me .v ...VI ...... +E. .al .. .I ... .VO. .c .v ...... al ...... >e...*.- ...... e ...... ea ...a ...... oem ...... ,- .. an.. . .v.rc ...e .... e.. . .+eo :c" ...v .v)V).r .r V).. c ... .al .. +I.. .. al ....a EU .- .V) .v E.. .e .v) SEI: : * ue '.C . 0 ..r .rv . . :3 ; *g :$ ..r . L .. f i i ea.. .e .v) .a EV ..r .m ox... . v'3 : * 'Om* .- .vV) v-.C . .e .m '72 ;; z-: : ma.. :m2alm .v 0 L 'FC.. .al -C .m . .-a L.C .. .> V) 0 .- . *E c a+ .. ..,-av.rbL . L.,- 0 ...eoaleL3 . 0 a,.- -c .mal-alm.- .e 00 .. aal 20 :- al5 22 LEF v hL - 7 mu) .m- V)? tn VI- m V)OLV E E e.-..-- W'r nc al? 0 V) o c c al mv,-.- V) L V).r .C.C.C E al.r VF v m 9 alv-v e+ >.- > VI v L V).r vew e2 al.,-,.- L a8.- L ~euu3usacooEXj VE ma.Val 0e I-0 m .C 0 269 L1 Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection. (continued) 0 E .r L 4 c L le > -c 4 L c: zC ...... ::E: .... u..In.. C.. u..In.. . ..a . . 56:: .rm...... F u"C ea.. CW.. 0 U'3 : : oa.. .u .r 07.. u4.. .-=.a I.r a%.. . .3 . . 'C.. 2" :- mu? .4 ec E 0 0-.r .r- .C .C E uu >.r w .r .r L LUUV ualInn. 1 0" Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection.(continued) STATE NAME. COURT NAME Court of general jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction Number of circuits or districts. Number of judges Time period covered End Beginning Filed sposed pend ing ni pending Civil: Tort ...... Auto tort ...... Professional tort ...... Product liability tort ...... Miscellaneous tort ...... Total tort ...... Contract ...... Real property rights ...... Small claims ...... Domestic relations: Marriage dissolution ...... Support/custody ...... Adoption ...... Paternity/bastardy ...... Miscellaneous domestic relations ...... Total domestic relations ...... Estate: Probate/wills/intestate ...... Guardi anship/conservatorship/t rusteeshi p ...... Mlscellaneous estate ...... Total estate ...... Mental health ...... Appeal : Appeal of administrative agency case ...... Appeal of trial court case ...... Total civil appeals ...... Miscellaneous civil ...... - Total civil ...... Criminal: Felony: ...... Triable felony ...... Limited felony ...... Misdemeanor ...... Felony/misdemeanor ...... our/ou1 ...... Appeal ...... Miscellaneous criminal ...... __ Total criminal ...... Traffic/other violation: Moving traffic violation ...... Ordinance violation ...... Parking vlolation ...... Miscellaneous traffic ...... Total traffidother violation ...... Juvenile: Criminal-type offense ...... Status offense ...... Child-victim petition ...... Miscellaneous juvenile ...... __ - - - Total juvenile ...... Grand total cases ...... Other proceedings: Postconviction remedy ...... Preliminary hearings ...... Sentence review only ...... Total other proceedings ...... 271 Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection.(continued) Tria1 Trial Jury Nnry Total Jvrr Nnry Total Civil: Criminal: Tort: Felony: ...... Auto tort ...... Triable felony ...... Professional tort ...... Limited felony ...... Product 1 iabi1 ity tort ...... Misdemeanor ...... Miscellaneous tort ...... Felony/mi sdemeanor ...... Total tort ...... DUI/DUI ...... Contract ...... Appeal ...... Real property rights ...... Miscellaneoi~scriminal ...... Small claims ...... Total crlmlnal ...... Uomestic relations: Marriage dissolution ...... Trafficlother violation: Support/custody ...... Moving traffic ...... Adootion ...... Ordinance violation ...... Paternitylbastardy ...... Parking violation ...... Miscellaneous dcmestlc relat ons .. Miscellaneous traffIC ...... Total domestic relations ...... Total t raffic/other vi01 ation ..... Estate: Probate/wi 1ls/i ntestate ...... Juvenile: Guardi anshi p/conservatorshi p/ Criminal-type juvenile petition .. trusteeship ...... 'Status petition ...... Miscellaneous estate ...... Child-victim petltion ...... Total estate ...... Miscellaneous juvenile ...... Mental health ...... Total juvenile ...... Appeal : Appeal of administrative Grand total trials ...... agency case ...... Appeal of trial court case ...... Total civil appeals ...... Miscellaneous civil ...... Total civil ...... Civil dispositions Oi missed/ withdrawn/ Uncontested/Default settled Transferred Arbitration Total Civil: . .Tort: Auto tort ...... Professional tort ...... Product liability tort ...... Miscellaneous tort ...... Total tort ...... Contract ...... Real property rights ...... Small claims ...... Domestic relations: Marriage dissolution ...... Support/custody ...... Adoption ...... Paterni tylbastardy ...... Miscellaneous domestic relations .. Total domestic relations ...... Estate: Probate/wills/intestate ...... Guardianship/conservatorship/ ..... trusteeship ...... Miscellaneous estate ...... Total estate ...... Mental health ...... Appeal : Appeal of administrative qgency case ...... Appeal of trial court case ...... Total civil appeal ...... Miscellaneous civil ...... Total civil ...... 27 2 Appendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection.(continued) Criminal dispositions Miscellaneous I Felony Misdemeanor OWI/OUI Appeal criminal - Total Jury trial : Conviction ...... tiuilty plea ...... Acquittal ...... Dismissed ...... Non-jury trial: Conviction ...... Guilty plea ...... Acquittal ...... Dismissed ...... Uismissed/nolle prosequi . Bail forfeiture ...... Bound over ...... Transferred ...... Other ...... Total dispositions ...... Traffic/other violation dispositions Moving traffic Ordinance Miscellaneous traffic/ violation violation Parking other violation -Total Jury trial: Conviction ...... Acquittal ...... Non-jury trial : Conviction ...... Acquittal ...... Guilty plea ...... Dismissed/nolle prosequi . Bail forfeiture ...... Parking fines ...... Transferred ...... Other ...... Total ...... Aye of pending casoload (days) 0-30 31-60 61-90 91-1R0 181-360 361-720 Over 720 Average age days days days days days days of pending cases Civil: . Tort: Auto tort ...... Professional tort ...... Product liability tort ...... Miscellaneous tort ...... Total tort ...... Contract ...... Real property rights ...... Small claims ...... Domestic relations: Marriage dissolution ...... Support/custody ...... Adoption ...... Paternitylbastardy ...... Miscellaneous domestic relations . Total domestic relations ...... Estate: Probate/uills/intestate ...... Guardi anshi p/conservatorshi p/ trusteeship ...... Miscellaneous estate ...... Total estate ...... Hental health ...... Appeal : Appeal of adminfstratlve agency case ...... Appeal of trial court case ...... Total appeal ...... Miscellaneous civfl ...... Total civil ...... 27 3 !- wendix C: Prototype of statistical profile used in 1984 data collection.(continiied) Age of pending caseload (days) 0-30 31-60 61-90 91-180 1131-360 3151-720 Over 720 Average age days days days days days days of pending cases Criminal : Felony ...... Triable felony ...... Limited felony ...... Misdemeanor ...... Felony/misdemeanor ...... OWI/OUI ...... Appeal ...... fliscellaneous criminal ...... Total criminal ...... Traffic/other violation: Hoviny traffic ...... Ordinance vi01 ation ...... Parking violation ...... fliscellaneous traffic ...... Total trafficlother violation ..... Juvenile: Criminal-type juvenile petition .. Status petition ...... Child-victim petition ...... fliscel laneous juvenile ...... Total juvenile ...... Boldface headings indicate the classifications used by the CSII! project. N/A = This case type is handled by the court, but the data are unavailahle. X = The data for this case type are known to be included in the total hut are unavailable by category. -- = Not applicable. Units of count: Civil unit of count. Criminal unit of count. Traffic/other violation unit of count. Juvenile unit of count. Trial definitions: Jury trial definition. Non-jury trial definition. aCourt jurisdiction. bparticular court or reporting system information. CJudye information. fBeginniny pending figure for the 1981 court year does not equal the end pending figure for the 1980 court year. gChanye in pending does not equal the difference between filings and dispositions. hFiyure was computed. ',Data are incomplete. JExplanation of data included in the category. kAOdi t ional information. 1Special source or revision in the data. mlnformation on disposftion type or trial data. nlnforination on age of pending caseload data; Source: i 27 4 Appendix D: State population data. Population (in thousands) State or territory J uven i1 e Adult Total A1 abama ...... 1. 110 2. 880 3. 930 Alaska ...... 162 338 500 Arizona ...... 857 2. 196 3.053 Arkansas ...... 652 1. 697 2. 349 Cal ifornia ...... 6. 661 18. 961 25. 622 Colorado ...... 856 2. 322 3. 178 Connecticut ...... 747 2. 407 3. 154 Delaware ...... 155 458 613 Dist. of Columbia ...... 135 4881' J 623 Florida ...... 2. 511 8.465 10. 976 Georgia ...... 1.632 4. 205 5. 837 Hawaii ...... 287 752 1. 039 Idaho ...... 322 679 1. 001 Illinois ...... 3. 090 8. 421 11. 511 Indiana 1.511 3. 987 5.498 ...... Iowa ...... 784 2. 126 2. 910 Kansas ...... 652 1. 786 2. 438 Kentucky ...... 1. 031 2. 692 3. 723 Louisiana ...... 1. 355 3. 107 4. 462 Maine ...... 306 850 1. 156 Mary1and ...... 1.085 3.2G4 4. 349 Massachusetts ...... 1. 365 4. 433 5. 798 Michi gan ...... 2. 486 6. 589 9. 075 Minnesota ...... 1. 124 3. 038 4.162 Mississippi ...... 797 1. 801 2. 598 Missouri ...... 1. 314 3.694 5. 008 Montana ...... 236 588 824 Nebraska ...... 443 1. 163 1. 606 Nevada ...... 234 677 911 New Hampshire ...... 2 52 725 977 New Jersey ...... 1. 854 5. 661 7. 515 New Mexico ...... 436 988 1. 424 New York ...... 4. 389 13. 346 17. 735 North Carolina ...... 1 .GO1 4. 564 6. 165 North Dakota ...... 198 488 68G OlliO ...... 2. 079 7. 873 10.752 Oklahoma ...... 921 2. 377 3. 298 Oregon ...... 709 1. 965 2. 674 Pennsyl vani a ...... 2. 910 8. 991 11.901 Puerto Rico ...... N/A N/A 3. 267 Rhode Island ...... 226 736 962 South Carolina ...... 927 2. 373 3. 300 South Dakota ...... 206 500 706 Tennessee ...... 1. 246 3. 471 4. 717 Texas ...... 4. 717 11. 272 15. 989 Utah ...... 625 1. 027 1. 652 Vermont ...... 140 390 530 Virginia ...... 1. 428 4. 208 5. 636 Washington ...... 1. 159 3. 190 4. 349 West Virginia ...... 531 1. 421 1.952 Wisconsin ...... 1.278 3. 488 4. 7G6 Wyoming ...... 160 351 511 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. series P.25. No . 970 . Puerto Rico's data are unavailable except for the total . 27 5 Appendix E: Total State Population for Trend Tables, 1978, 1981, and 1984. Population (in thousands) State or territory 1978 1981 1984 A1 abama 3,834 3,917 3,990 A1 aska 401 41 2 500 Arizona 2,518 2,794 3,053 Arkansas 2,241 2,296 2,349 California 22,839 24,196 25 ,622 Colorado 2,767 2,965 3,178 Connecticut 3,095 3,134 3,154 Del aware 598 598 61 3 Dist. of Columbia 670 631 623 Florida 9,132 10.183 10,976 Georgia 5,286 5,574 5,837 Hawa ii 929 981 1,039 Idaho 91 1 959 1,001 I11 inois 11,434 11,462 11,511 Indiana 5,446 5,468 5,498 Iowa 2,919 2,899 2,910 Kansas 2,333 2,383 2,438 Kentucky 3,611 3,662 3,723 llaine 1,115 1,133 1,156 tlaryl and 4,212 4,263 4,349 Minnesota 4,005 4,094 4,162 tli ssouri 4,871 4,941 5,008 Montana 784 793 824 Nebraska 1,561 1,577 1,606 New Harnpshi re 894 936 977 New Jersey 7,356 7,404 7,515 New Mexico 1,252 1,328 1,424 fkrr York 17,720 17,602 17,735 North Carolina 5,739 5,953 6,165 North Dakota 651 658 686 Ohio 10,715 10,781 10,752 Oklahoma 2,913 3,100 3,298 Oregon 2,510 2,651 2;674 Pennsylvania 11,8G5 11,871 11.901 Rhode Island 957 953 9G2 South Dakota G89 GO6 706 Tennessee 4,462 4.612 4,717 Texas 13.498 14,766 15,909 Utah 1,364 1,518 1,652 Vermont 498 51 6 530 Virgi ni a 5,284 5,430 5,636 Washington 3,886 4,217 4,349 Wisconsin 4,631 4,742 4,766 Wyoming 431 492 51 1 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 276