------If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
...\ II'. c;::;;"..,~¥ 5/1 ~ ?,,;).
/\ 1980 Report on Caseloads and Operations of the Courts of W ashin~on \ 1\ \. \ \
Office of the Administrator for the Courts Olympia, Washington
fl' .l. ------
Report on Caseloads and Operations of the Courts of Washington
T(.\lll ((9"," Tl ~ ~ 1980 II \: ',,~~(' h 1...~'" U.S. Department of Justice NeJII 81586 National Institute of Justice Prepared by d d xacUy as received from the This document .has, bee~ :epr? ui~epo~nts of view or opinions stated Statistics & Analysis Section A r' ,,~, f !O ~~ _~~_, " ,. person or organization orlgmat;nt~ . authors and do not necessarily Judicial Services & Activities Division ''-' ""'"''''~~ '.~:·.1 ;",; { !() f\;j:;.· in this docuhmenjft. ~rel pt~~i~i~no or ;olicies of the National Institute of represent teo ICla Office of the Administrator for the Courts Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by 1 f J tice Washington State Temp e 0 us Contents to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). THE COURTS OF WASHINGTON Overview Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis ...... sion of the copyright owner. 3 EXPENDITURES FOR COURT SERVICES Expenditures by the State ...... " . 5 Expenditures by Local Government...... 5 Revenue from Court Activity...... 6 THE SUPREME COURT Overview...... 9 Intake ...... 10 Court Activity...... 13 The eagle is symbolic of protection and freedom to t~e Outlook ...... 16 Indians of the Pacific Northwest. The feathers of thIS II powerful bird are thought to convey extraordinary strength Statistical Tables ...... 16 and power. . . THE COURT OF APPEALS Washington's judiciary also symbolIzes freedom, equalI~y, I Overview .. '.' ...... 21 strength and protection to its citizens; the same traIts Intake ...... ' ...... 22 possessed by one of the Pacific Northwest's most spectacular Court Activity ...... '...... 25 birds-the eagle. Outlook ...... 28 The eagle has been recreated in Indian symbols for t~e cover of this judicial report by Diane Robertson, an OlympIa Statistical Tables ...... ,,29 artist. THE SUPERIOR COURTS Overview ...... 35 Intake ...... 38 Court Activity ...... 47 Outlook ...... 52 Statistical Tables ...... 54 THE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION Overview ...... " .81 Intake ...... 82 Court Activity ...... 85 Outlook ...... 88 Statistical 'rabIes ...... 89 ,
&" .le ------=------______.r
Washington Court System: 1980
Supreme Court THE COURTS OF WASHINGTON 9 Justices Jurisdiction: " - Direct appeals wherein actions of state officials are involved.. cOll."ltitutionality of a statute is questioned, conflictIng statutes or rules of law are involved, or the OVERVIEW OF 1980 issue is of broad public interest - Aggrieved pany has right of review when reversal in The greatest changes experienced in the Washington in judicial staff of only 33% during the same period. Court of Appe:als is not unanimous; otherwise review court system dUfi"g 1980 were in the courts of limited Mandatory arbitration has been initiated for civil cases in is discretionary. jurisdictior:. A one-day mandatory jail sentence for con which there is a claim for damages of $10,000 or less. viction of driving while intox\cated (DWI) was enacted in This program is being monitored in King and Yakima 1979 and implemented in 1980. Court rules and proce .. Counties where it has been implem~r:t;::d and evaluations , Constitutionality of statutes dures were developed for the pending decriminalization of will be .forthcoming. King County SI.tperior Court, the Conflicting statutes or rules of law traffic offenses in 1981; the Office of the Administrator largest In the state and the court wit:l possibly the most ------~------~ for the Courts was engaged not only in assisting with the serious congestion problem of all the superior courts, has Court of Appeals development of the new court rules but also with the undertaken other innovative changes with respect to cal 16 Judgee. (3 Divisions) extensive training of both court and law enforcement per endar management and settlement conferences. These Jurisdiction: sonnel. The advent of electronic ..recording in the courts will bear watching. - Appeals from lower courts except those in jurisdicti.on of of limited jurisdiction (effective January, 1981) also re the Supreree Court quired the development of new court rules regarding pro A special concern is the rapidly growing caseload in the cedures, equipment and appeals on the record. In July, Court of Appeals. As the caseload of the superior courts 1980 the district courts underwent another change in that and their productivity grows, so grows the caseload of the th'ey were required to change their jury systems and share appellate courts, especially the Court of Appeals. An Superior Court the same jury pools used by the superior courts. In the analysis of available data indicates that the Court of 117 Judges* (28 Court Districts) midst of these procedural changes, the courts of limited Appeals may have reached the limit of its current Jurisdiction: jurisdiction experienced a dramatic change in the distri capacity with respect to caseload. The number of matters - Exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil matters involving dollar amounts over $3000; title or possession bution of their caseloads. Civil and criminal case filings that can be fairly and properly processed by the appellate of real property; cases involving legality of any tax, increased far above previous trends, placing an additional courts is finite and even though the Court of Appeals was impost, assessment or toll; probate and domestic matter ~urden on district and municipal courts. expanded in 1978, evidence indicates that either further - Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal cases with expansion or other means of increasing the appellate In all the courts, criminal case filings increased far the exception of minor misdemeanors courts' productivity may be necessary. - Exclusive original jurisdiction over juvenile matters above expectations based on historic trends. Misdemean or filings in the courts of limited jurisdiction increased Appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction heard de novo. 18%; felony filings in the superior courts increased 21%; Above all else, it has become increasingly evident that every part of the judicial system has an effect on every criminal appeals filed in the appellate courts ii1.creased * 8 Additional judges authorized by 1979 & 1980 Legislatures other part. Changes that occur in one segment of the 17%. Whether this is the result of increased activity on effective January 1981. courts impact all segments of the courts. the part of law enforcement officials and prosecutors, in creased crime-or both-cannot be determined at this time. The following is a report on business transacted by the But the result is increased levels of work and pressure on courts of Washington during the 1980 calendar year. This the judiciary. report consists of an appraisal of the caseloads and a Coupled with the increase in criminal caseloads is an summary of the activities of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction increase in civil caseloads. The increase of civil jurisdic Court of Appeals, the Superior Courts and the Courts of 213 Judges (136 attorney, 77 non-attorney) tion for the district courts during 1979 has had a Limited Jurisdiction. Report material is based on statis significant impact on district court civil caseloads. With tics reported to the Administrator for the Courts by the District Court., Municipal Courts civil filings almost 50% above historic trends, workloads courts of Washington during 1980. (72 Courts) (149 Courts) in district courts have increased substantially. There has Established by counties Established by cities not been, however, any corresponding decrease in superi Emphasis in this report is placed on 'Intake' and 'Court Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Activity'. Intake refers to those matters filed with the - Civil actions involving dollar amounts of $3000 - Violations of municipal ordinances (maximum or court civil caseloads. The question arises as to the courts during the year, th~ composition and source of or less fine of $500 and/or jail sentence of 6 months source of these new civil filings in the district courts. - Small claims or less) those filings and the evaluation of trends that are - Misdemeanors with maximum fine of $500 or less Many innovative changes are being tried in the superi apparent. Court activity generally refers to the disposi and/or jail sentence of 6 months or less or courts to cope with a caseload that has increased tion of cases, trial activity, judicial workloads and, where - Traffic matters almost 80% in the last ten years corn pared to an increase available, pending caseloads. - Felony matters for preliminary hearings Provide court services directly to 93 municipalities Figure 1 t Indicates route of appeal
2 3
q' .l. -"""1
EXPENDITURES FOR COURT SERVICES -'------Washington's courts are financed through funds appro priated by the state and local governments. This section EXPENDITURES BY LOCAL distinguishes between state expenditures for the judicial GOVERNMENT system and those of the cities and counties. State fiscal Local governments finance the major portion of the activities are based on a biennium consisting of two state's judicial system, including the cost of court admin consecutive fis~al years. Fiscal operations of the cities and istration, grand juries, local law libraries, facilities, civil counties are based on the calendr:n' y,,:ar. process services, petit juries, and witness expenses. EXPENDITURES BY THE STATE With the exception of one-half the salaries of superior Court operations funded directly by the state include court judges, the operation of the superior courts and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Clerk's Office, district courts are funded by the counties. Many district the Court of Appeals, superior court judges (one-half of courts have municipal court departments and receive a the salaries and benefits), the State Law Library, Re portion of their operating costs from the cities. Municipal porter of Decisions and the Office of the Administrator courts are funded by the cities they serve. for the Courts.
Expenditures to support the judiciary comprise a small In 1979, cities and counties of Washington expended portion of the total cost of operating state government. $41.5 million for judical services and operations. This During the 1977-1979 biennium, state expenditures total represents an increase of 14% over the previous year's ed $7.9 billion. Only $17.6 million, or two-tentbs of one expenditures. As was the case with state expenditures, the ~rcent, was expended on the judiciary. (This proportion amount spent to support local courts was small relative dId not change from the biennium immediately preced to the expenditures for other city and county government ing.) operations. Expenditures for judicial services during 1979 In fiscal year 1979-80, the first half of the current represented only 3.3% of the almost $1.25 billion spent biennium, the state expended $12.0 million for judicial by Washington's cities and counties. The courts had a operations, an increase of 24.9% over the previous fiscal smaller percentage increase in costs than the remainder of year. government services-14% compared to 14.7% for other government costs.
Table 1 State Expenditures for Judicial Services FY 1978/79 FY 1979/80 Supreme Court $2,167,955 $ 2,456,899 Court of Appeals 2,488,089 2,804,112 Superior Court Judges 2,707,841 3,197,881 State Law Library 594,725 679,631 Administrator for the Courts 1,306,761 2,544,992 Judicial Council 107,978 108,934 Judges' Retirement Fund 288,000 282,000 Total State Expenditures $9,661,349 $12,074,449
4 Preceding page blank 5
.l. - ~------
,. ",) ':1. ,1~. i!
d' ,)'
, J~ ,', Table 2 1 " Local Government Expenditures for Judicial Services 1/ I) ~. ~~1 1978 1979 ~ \' ;:, Expenditures for Judicial Services2 " $33.5 million ,~i ('). Counties ...... $28.4 million t;J· o 0 Cities ...... 8.0 million 8.0 million 0 Total Expenditures ...... $36.4 million $41.5 million
" Breakdown by Court I) :: .- '; Superior Court ...... $15.4 million $17.6 million () l~ 12.7 million 15.5 million District Courts ...... '::' 'f Municipal Cts. & Traffic Viol. Burs...... 7.9 million, 7.9 million .. j! 3 3 Total Expenditures .... ~ ...... $36.4 million $41.5 million 0 ::=P Other Expenditures Related to the Judiciary 4 $5.5 million "" County Clerk ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• w $4.7 million ,0 ,;, :: 5 Probation/Parole Services ~')'I (j Counties ...... $1.83 million $2.9 million .;J r:} " Cities ...... 0.13 million 0.1 million Total Probation/Parole Services $1.96 million $3.0 million '" II, 6 Juvenile Services C! .. ,;., Counties ...... $18.25 million $21.5 million Cities ...... 0.78 million 0.7 million Ci. ''0 $22.2 million --', Total Juvenile Services ...... $19.03 million "
1. Source of data: BARS, Washington State Auditor 2. Judicial Services comprise BARS account 512.00. 3. Detail does not sum to the totals because sub-accounts are not reported by some local govern- ments. 4. These figures are taken from BARS account 514.21 (Records Services) and include all "duties of the Clerk of the Court" and some other activities not related to the courts. 5. These figures are taken from BARS account 523.30 (Probation and Parole Services) and can include other programs not under the control of the courts.' 6. Juvenile Services comprise BARS account 527.00.
REVENUE FROM COURT ACTIVITY The role of the judiciary is not to produce a profit or to During recent years, the trial courts have been required act as a revenue-producing agency. Revenue is generated to collect surcharges and assessments on fines and forfeit by the courts, however, in three areas: (1) fees for the ures. Almost $10.3 million was distributed to a number () ,~ filing of cases and documents with the courts; (2) fines of state agency funds during fiscal year 1979/80. I), and bail forfeitures from persons convicted of crimes or traffic violations; (3) special surcharges and assessments Table 3 Revenue to State Funds from Court Activity on fines and forfeitures for dedicated state funds. () Fiscal Year 1979/80 During 1979, the trial courts generated more than .The Supreme Court (.( $46.1 million in revenue from filing fees, fines and Traffic Safety Education $6,240,000 " forfeitures. The appellate courts collected approximately Highway Safety 380,000 a $41,500 from filing fees during the same period. Most of State Game 197,000 I Motor Vehicle Intox. Penalty 1,040,000 the revenue collected by the trial courts was used by the I,t cities and counties to defray costs of operating and Criminal Justice Training Comm. 2,400,000 {,I maintaining judicial services. Victims of Crime Compensation 19,542 o
6
" I .l. THE SUPREME COURT
..------aa------______M~D ______aa.__ Statistics on the caseload and operation of the Supreme Court have been compiled from monthly reports submit nent of the State Judicial Information System. Some sub ted by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The data reported sequent statistical data was collected using that system. was collected, for the most part, using manual tallying Nineteen hundred and eighty one will mark a transition methods. In- March, 1980, the Supreme Court began im to direct reliance on ACORDS for future statistical infor mation on the Supreme Court. plementation of ACORDS, the appellate court compo..
OVERVIEW While filings in 1980 were below those for 1979, the Supreme Court disposed of more matters in 1980 than during the year. This increase in the number of cases in any previous year and more cases than were filed disposed ,"as accompanied by an 8% increase in the number of opinions mandated. Table 4 Filings in the Supreme Court Table 5 Year New Filings in the Supreme Court Filings % Change 1975 1979 1980 % Change 504 Appeals 1976 1M 134 -27.2% 589 +16.8% Petitions for Review 1977 412 400 -2.9% 638 +8.3% P~rsonal Restraint Petitions 1978 27 55 +103,7% 654 +2.5% Notices of Discretionary Review 160 161 1979 785 +0.6% +20.0% Disciplinary Proceedings _2 --1.l +750.0% 1980 767 -2.5% Total Matters Filed 785 767 -2.3%
8 Preceding page blank 9
.... THE SUPREME COURT •.e =
INTAKE The number of criminal appeals filed in the Supreme The types of matters filed in the Supreme Court Appeals filed in the Supreme Court are either filed Court during 1980 decreased much less than did the Supreme Court number of civil appeals. . include appeals of judgments from trial courts, petitions directly or are certified from the Court of Appeals. All Petitions for Review Filed: 1975-1980 for review of a decision by the Court of Appeals, personal those filed directly in the Supreme Court have shown a restraint petitions, notices of discretionary review (which marked increase in the last few years. Table 9 encompass many types of matters) .and disciplinary pro Appeals Filed by Type ceedings against members of the Bar. These may be filed Table 6 1979 1980 % Change directly in the Supreme Court or may be certified Supreme Court Appeals Filed by Source Civil Appeals Filed (transt'erred) to the Supreme Court from the Court of 149 103 -30.9% Filed Certified Total Criminal Appeals Filed 35 31 -11.4% Appeals. Year Directly fromCOA Filed 1975 94 (60.6%) 61 (39.3%) 155 (100%) Appeals Filed 1976 97 (48.5%) 103 (51.5%) 200 (100%) There were 134 appeals filed in the Supreme Court 1977 141 (63.5%) 81 (36.5%) 222 (100%) during 1980, lower than the trend established over the 1978 134 (73.2%) 49 (26.8%) 183 (100%) Petitions for Review Filed previous ten years. The appellate courts overall, however, 1979 154 (83.7%) 30 (16.3%) 184 (100%) 1980 116 (86.6%) 18 (13.4%) 134 (100%) The Supreme Court received 400 petitions for review experienced an incr~ase in appellate filings. (See table 7.) during 1980, 2.9% less than in 1979. The relationship ... between the number of petitions for review filed in the 200-i:W~~::~:~~*~r-t8jj::~~riW%~~~~~:~~t:~~m~1~r-200 Supreme Court and the number of appeals for which opinions are remitted in the Court of Appeals has The total number of appeals filed both in the Supreme stabilized over the last six years. (See table 10.) Court and in the Court of Appeals during the year shows ,suprem~ Court a substantial increase over 1979. Appeals Filed: 1975-1980 Tabie 10 'COA Opinions vs Petiti()l~sfor Review Table 7 New Appeals* Filed in the Appellate Courts COA Opinions Petitions for Year Remitted Review Filed Ratio Supreme Court of All 1975 574 235 0,41 Year Court Appeals New Appeals 1976 5·87 232 'VAO 1975 94 (6.2%) . 1405 (93.8%) 1499 (100%) 1977 .657 291 . 0.44 1976 9'1 (6.2%) 1472 (93.8%) 1569 (100%) 1978 948 337 0.36 1977 141 (7.8%) 1662 (92.2%) 1803 (100%\ 1979 n08 412 0.37 Figure 3 1978 134 (7.2%) 1736 (92.8%) 1870 (100%) 1980 997 400 OAO ,1979 154(7.6%) 1877.(91.4%) 2031 (100%) 1980 ,i 116 (5.1 %) 2165 (94.9%) 2281 (100%) *NOTE; This does. not include. those appeals transferr~? Other Matters Filed between the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court The proportions of petitions for review that are civil or Other matters filed in the Supreme Court bclude Per or between divisions of the Court of Appeals. criminal have fluctuated on either side of 50% over the sonal Restraint Petitions, Notices of Discretionary Re last six years. (See table 11.) Petitions for review of civil view and Disciplinary 'Proceedings against members of The proportions of appeals filed that are civil or cases increased slightly from 1979 to 1980 while those for the Bar. criminal have fluctuated greatly over the last six years but criminal cases decreased 8.4%. Personal restraint petitions filed during 1980 paralleled have remained within the same general boundaries. an increase in the Court of Appeals. The 55 personal 50 Table 8 Table 11 restraint petitions filed were'more than double the num ber filed in 1979. (See table 12.) Types of Appeals Filed Petitions for Review Filed Year Civil Criminal Year Civil Criminal Total Table 12 1975 130 (83.9%) 25 (16.1%) 1975 127 (54.0%) 108 (46.0%) 235 (100%) Personal Restraint Petitions Filed in the Appellate 1976 154 (77.0%) 46 (23.0%) 1976 107 (46.1%) 125 (53.9%) 232 (100%) 197" lms 1977 1978 1979 19:~0 1977 156 (70.3%) 66 (29.7%) 1977 136 (46.7%) 155 (53.3%) 291 (100%) Courts 1978 129 (70.5%) 54 (29.5%) 1978 160 (47.5%) 177 (52.5%) 337 (100%) 1979 1980 % Change 1979 149 (81.0%) 35 (19.0%) 1979 222 (53.9%) 190 (46.1%) 412 (100%) Supreme Court 27 55 +103.7% 1980 103 (76.9%) 31 (23.1%) 1980 226 (56."o/..,J 174 (43.5%) 400 (100%) Court of Appeals Figure 2 174 313 +79.9%
10 11
L' ------
THE SUPREME COURT - COURT ACfIVITY . For the purpose of this report, COURT ACTIVITY mcludes termintions (dispositions), time-in-process for Supreme Court app~als and pending caseload in the Supreme Court. Appeals Filed & Disposed: 1975-1980 There was little change in the number of notices of While the Supreme Court is engaged in far more Supreme Court discretionary review filed in 1980 compared to 1979. a.ctivities than are referenced by these categories, statis There has been a substantial increase, however, over the tiCS have been collected only in these areas. Other Matters Filed: 1975-1980 last several years. (See table 13.) Disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar Termination of Appeals II Personal Restraint Petitions increased sharply in 1980 and followed a pattern of wide The Supreme Court terminated 167 appeals during fluctuations over the last six years. (See table 13.) 1980,33 more than were filed. l:lijiliIlll Notices of Discretionary Review Appeal dispositions have followed a pattern exhibited Table 13 by the court over the last ten years. The number of Other Matters Filed in the Supreme Court appeals disposed of in any year is very closely related to Personal Notices of the humber of appeals filed in the Court the previous Restraint Discretionary Disciplinary year. (See figure 4 and table 14.) Year Petitions Review Proceedings 1975 21 89 4 5 1976 32 120 Table 14 110 11 1977 4 Appeals Disposed vs Filed Previous Year 1978 1 123 10 1979 27 160 2 Appeals Appeals Filed 1980 55 161 17 Year Disposed Previous Year 1975 160 151 1976 151 155 1977 200 200 1978 231 222 1979 175 183 1980 167 184 mjIml .¢\ppeals Disposed III Appeals Filed When discussing the termination of appellate matters Figure 5 by opinion, it must be remembered that there is a period of 20 days from the time an opinion is written and filed Figure 4 before it can be mandated to the court in which the issue originated. The appellant or respondent thus has a period Table 15 of time in which to seek reconsideration of the court's decision. The statistics reported for the Supreme Court Appeals Terminated and the Court of Appeals for appellate matters termi Manner of Termination 1979 1980 % Change nated with an opinion are based on the 'final' conclusion Opinion Mandated 118 80 -32.2% of the matter with the mandate on remission of the Denied or Dismissed 20 33 +65.0% opinion and not on its filing which occurred a month earli Transferred to eOA --lL~ +45.9% er. Total Appeals Terminated 175 167 -4.6%
13
12
l't -=
THE SUPREME COURT
Termination of Petitions for Review Opinions Mandated Pending Caseload The Supreme Court disposed of 402 petitions for re Opinions were mandated on 203 matters during 1980, Supreme Court 14 more than in 1979 and an increase of 7.4%. While 19'iotot~1 of 276 matters ~ere left pending at the end of view during 1980, almost the same number terminated in Q fewer opinions were mandated on appeals, almost twice as th ,a ecrease of 19.3% In the pending caseload durin Cases Pending: 1.975-1980 1979 and substantially more than in previous years. The many opinions were mandated on cases that had .e y~ar. The number of matters pending hearin how~ growth in dispositions for these cases is reflective of the rel;~lted from petitions for review than in 1979. The number of ev~r~ Increased by. 7 .3% while the number of cases ~ith an growth in their filings. The number of petitions for review opinions on personal restraint petitions and disciplinary OpInIOn or order In process was reduced from 94 at the for which opinions were mandated (indictive of those that start of the year to 10 by year's end. The numb'er of 600r-,-,..-,-_·-"T"'_..,...._ proceedings was more than twice that for 1979. 600 were 'granted') increased sharply in 1978 and again in mthatters set for hearing increased 14.8% from the start of 1980 showing that these matters are consuming more of e year to the end of 1980. the Court's time than the increase in their volume indi- Table1S Opinions Mandated cated. Table 19 ,-t--1---;1---+----I-----1400 1979 1980 % Cbange Pending Caseload Table 16 . Appeals U8' 80 -32.2% 40 . 79 +97.5% Start End Petitions for Review Terminated . Petitions for Review of Year of Year % Change Personal Restraint Petn. 5 9 +80.0% Awaiting Hearing Opinion Notice of Discretionary Rev. 22 22 +0.0% Mandated Denied Dismissed Total Set for Hearing 115 132 Year Disciplinary Proceedings _4_ --1L +225.0% . +14.8% 1 221 Ready for Setting 21 22 +4.8% 1975 29 (13%) 191 Total Opinions Remitted 189 203 +7.4%. Not Ready to Set 1976 23 (12%) 160 2 185 ---11L ---11L +0.0% 263 Subtotal 248 266 +7.3% 1977 23 ( 9%) 236 4 200 1978 76 (21%) 274 6 356 NOTE: The number of opinions mandated is not the Opinion/Order 1979 40 (10%) 363 5 408 same as the number of opinions written or the number of in Process --2L -.UL -89.4% 402 1980 79 (20%) 316 7 cases for which opinions are filed. It is possible for more Total Pending 342 276 -19.3% than one opinion (concurring or dissenting) to be written Opinion/Order Filed 00 for a single case and there is a time lag between (he point but Not Yet Mandated 21 63 +200.0% Terminati.on of Other Matters at which the opinion is filed and when it is mandated during which a motion for reconsideration can be filed. The Supreme Court disposed of 54 personal restraint . There were also 63 cases for which opinions had been petitions, 155 notices of discretionary review and 13 disci ~~.d but not yet. mandated pending at the end of 1980 plinary proceedings during 1980. As in prior years, the IS was three tImes the number awaiting remittance at the start of the year and indicates that 42 m .. numbers of tllese matters disposed were commensurate 'l d h ore OpInIOnS Cases for which opinions have been filed were flet an were remitted during the year. with the numbers filed during the year. but not yet manda~ed are not included. Figure 6 Table 17 Other Matters Terminated Personal Notices of Manner of Restraint Discretionary Disciplinary Termination Petitions Review Proceedings Opinion Mandated 9 22 13 Denied 16 129 N/A Dismissed 0 0 0 Transferred ~ _4_ N/A Total Terminated 54 155 13
14 15
L) ,l. I~ I
THE SUPREME COURT ------______.e ______OUTLOOK Events in the Supreme Court are linked quite closely previously in the Court of Appeals and brought to the with those of the Court of Appeals. The rapid increase in Supreme Court for review. As the pending ci:1seload in the appeals filed in the Court of Appeal portends a similar Court of Appeals grows (because of filings exceeding the rise in the number of petitions for review in the Supreme capacity of the Court to dispose of them within a year's Court separated by the time taken to process the appeals time) and the time-to-process appeals is perceived to in in the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court crease, there will probably be a tendency to seek to file can probably expect a substantial rise in the number of directly in the Supreme COI.lrt rather than in the Court of . petitions for review filed in 1982 as a result of the increase Appeals in order to obtain a faster resolution. Therefore, in Court of Appeals filings in 1980. the number of appeals filed directly in the Supreme Court In the past, a great many appellate matters heard in the can probably be expected to increase in the next few years. Supreme Court were cases that had been filed in the Court of Appeals and certified to the Supreme Court. The Most indicators point to an increasing caseload for the reduction in certifications in recent years indicates the fu Supreme Court starting possibly in 1982. The increase ture caseload of the Supreme Court will consist mostly will probably be both in direct appeals filed and in of matters filed originally in the Supreme Court or heard petitions for review.
Table 20 SUPREME COURT HISTORY OF FILINGS: 1975-1980 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 APPEALS FILED Criminal 25 46 66 54 35 31 Civil ....!l9.... J..2£ -..l&. -11.2.... ~ .J.QL Total Appeals 155 200 222 183 184 134 PETITIONS FOR REVIEW FILED Criminal 108 125 155 177 190 174 Civil -11L .J.QL ~ ~ 222 226 Total Petitions for Review 235 232 291 337 412 400 OTHER MATTERS FILED Personal Restraint Petitions 21 32 4 1 27 55 Petn. for Discretionary Review 89 120 110 123 160 161 Disciplinary Proceedings _4_ _ 5_ _11_ ----liL _2_ ---1..L Total Other Matters 114 157 125 134 189 233 TOTAL FILINGS 504 589 638 654 785 767
16
51 t r r
Table ~1 SUPREME COURT 1980 Activity --ornER MATTERS- APPEALS ~-- -PETN FOR REVlEW- Pers. Discr. Disc. Crim. Civil TOTAL ALL Crim. Civil TOTAL Restr. Rev. Proc. MATTERS FILED 31 103 134 174 226 400 55 161 17 767 TERMINATED Opinion Mandated 15 65 80 44 35 79 Writ Denied 9 22 13 203 148 168 316 16 129 461 Dismissed 4 29 33 0 0 0 Transferred _ 5_ 0 0 0 33 ~ 21.. _5_ _2_ _ 7_ _lL _4_ TOTAL TERMINATED -.2!.. 24 143 167 197 205 402 54 155 13 791 PENDING AT YEAR END Awaiting Hearing Set 9 17 26 36 52 88 5 -11 2 132 Ready for Setting 10 3 13 Not Ready for Setting 0 3 6 22 2!L -.&. ~ _ 8_ _0_ TOTAL AWAITING HEARING .....ll...... ill... 49 76 125 36 52 88 13 32 8 266 Opinion/Order in Process _ 0_ _ 7_ _ 7_ _0_ _2_ _ 2_ ~,- _1_ _0_ TOTAL PENDING 49 .JQ... 83 132 36 54 90 13 33 8 276 (Awaiting Remittance*) (3) (19) (22) (9) (25) (34) *In addition to total pendins. (4) (3) (0) (63)
Ib+ ,\, -~------
The Court of Appeals
, Preceding page blank :
" ,'I. r r
No
The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington Figure 7
.\' ------
THE COURT OF APPEALS - - Caseload and operations statistics_of the Court of Ap appellate court component of the State Judicial Informa peals have been compiled from monthly reports submitted tion System. Nineteen hundred and eighty one will mark by the Clerks of the three divisions of the Court. This data a transition to direct reliance on ACORDS for future was proviclp,d, for the most part, by ACORDS, the statistical information on the Court of Appeals.
OVERVIEW
The Court of Appeals experienced a greater one-year Appeals represented 81.8% of all matters filed in the increase in its caseload during 1980 than in any year since Court of Appeals during 1980. The number of appeals its founding in 1969. A total of 2,752 appeals and other filed in the Court of Appeals increased substantially. As matters were filed in 1980 compared to 2,243 in 1979. in the Supreme Court, the number of personal restraint This was an increase of 509 cases or 22.7% in one year. petitions increased dramatically from 197910 1980. No explanation has been found to account for - this dramatic growth in appellate filings. Table 24 New Filings in the Court of Appeals Table 22 Filings in the Court of Appeals 1979 1980 % Change Appeals 1,921 2,251 +17.2% Year Filings % Change Personal Restraint Petitions 174 313 +79.9% 1975 1,819 Notices of Discretionary Review ~ --ill.. +27.0% 1976 1,777 -2.3% Total Matters Filed 2,243 2,752 +22.7% 1977 1,996 +12.3% 1978 2,093 +4.8% 1979 2,243 +7.2% The number of matters disposed in the Court of 1980 2,752 +22.7% Appeals during 1980 was slightly less than in 1979 but still above previous years. With the sudden and dramatic increase in new cases filed, it is not unexpected that the Table 23 pending caseload of the Court of Appeals increased con Court of Appeals Filings by Di."ision siderably during the year. I! 1979 1980 % Change It appears the Court's caseload capacity may have been 11 Division I 1,086 1,425 +31.2% pushed to the limit. If this is truly the case, further growth Division II 615 771 +25.4% in intake may result in substantial increases in the time Division III 561 556 -0.9% required to process appellate matters. ,\!
i \ 21 \ I : :~ r.-t
l't .'\. THE COURT OF APPEALS ...... - p.9 INTAKE Substantial. fluctuations in the number of superior Table 28 court cases tried and the types of cases tried can have a Appeals Filed by Divisiolll Those matters filed in the Court of Appeals have been profound effect on the number of apr-~als filed in the grouped into three categories for statistical reporting and Court of Appeals appellate courts. At present there is no answer as to why 1979 1980 % Cbange analysis. They include appeals, personal restraint peti there has been such an increase in appeals filed while the Division I 941 (49.0%) 1224 (54.4%) +30.1% Appeals Filed: 1975-1980 Division II tions and notices of discretionary review. These matters number of cases tried in superior courts has decreased in 513 (26.7%) 602 (26.7%) +17.3% Division III are either filed directly in each division or may be the last few years. (See table 26.) 467 (24.3%) 425 (18.9%) -9.0% transferred from one division to another or to the Court of Total Court 1921 (100%) 2251 (100%) There is, however, a very strong correlation between +17.2% Appeals from the Supreme Court. the number of criminal cases disposed in the superior courts and the number of new criminal appeals filed in the The proportions of civil and criminal appeals filed in appellate courts (including the Supreme Court). The ra each division vary considerably. Division I (Seattle) has Appeals Filed tio of new criminal appeals to criminal dispositions in the the highest proportion of criminal appeals and, conse A total of 2,251 appeals were filed in the Court of superior courts appears to be increasing at a steady rate quen~ly, the largest share of all criminal appeals (62.2%) Appeals during 1980, an increase of 17.2% over 1979. and foreshadows a significant increase in criminal ap filed ~n the Court of Appeals. Division III (Spokane) has This number was much greater than expected based on peals as the superior courts dispose of the increased the highest proportion of civil appeals in its caseload. the trend exhibited over the previous five years. criminal caseload of 1980. Table 29 Table 25 t, Types of Appeals Filed by Division Appeals Filed by Source 11l1l1l Table 21 Criminal Appeals Filed* YS Civil Criminal Total Filed iiii " jill Division I (Seattle) Year Directly Transferred Total Filed Superior Court Criminal Dispositions. m: : :: Appeals Filed in 1980 693 531 1224 , :::; :::l 1975 1405 (95.8%) 62 (4.2%) 1467 (100%) , :::~ Superior Ct. New Proportion Within Division 56.6% 43.4% 100.0% ml Criminal Share of Total Court 1976 1472 (97.4%) 40 (2.6%) 1512 (100%) :iiil Criminal 49.5% 62.5% 54.4% OU" 500 Year J)ispositioits Appeals 1977 1662 (97.9%) 35 (2.1%) 1697 (100%) Ratio Division II (Tacoma) 1818 (100%) :i!i! m: 1975 '14,284' 1978 1736 (95.5%) 82 (4.5%) 491 3.4% Appeals Filed in 1980 387 215 f m: mi iiil :i:: 1976 602 1979 1877 (97.7%) 44 (2.3%) 1921 (100%) I 14,374 507 3.5% Proportion Within Division 64.3% 35.7% 100.0% 1980 2165 (96.2%) 86 (3.8%) 2251 (100%) 1977 14,664 670" 4.6% Share of Total Court 27.6% 25.3% 26.7% 1978 ,13,817 710 Ii:: 5.1% Division III (Spokane) 1979 12,956 1~ ~ 739 5.7% Appeals Filed in 1980 Appeals filed during 1980 in each division of the Court \ 1980 321 104 425 15,220 863 5.7% Proportion Within Division of Appeals were either direct filings in that division '.~ 75.5% 24.5% 100.0% (96.2%) or were transferred from the Supreme Court or *"New" criminal appeals does not include those appeals Share of Total Court 22.9% 12.2% 18.9% another division (3.8%). transferred to a division of the Court of Appeals from Total Court of Appeals Figure 8 another division or the Supreme Court. Appeals Filed in 1980 1401 850 2251 Proportion Within Court 62.2% 37.8% 100.0% Table 26 The number of appeals filed in Division III (Spokane) decreased 9.0% from 1979 so that the portion of the New Appeals Filed* vs Superior Court Cases Tried appeals filed in the eastern half of the state was reduced Civil Cases Criminal Cas.."S from 22.9% in 1979 to 18.9% in 1980. That portion of the Appeals Superior Ct. Appeals Superim' Ct. appeals filed in Division I (Seattle) increased by five Cases Tried Filed· Itatio Cases Tried Filed· Ratio Year percentage points. 1975 7,433 1,008 13.6% 2,296 491 21.4% 1976 7,662 1,062 13.9% 2,569 507 19.7% 1977 7,957 1,133 14.2% 2,763 670 24.2% 1978 8,446 1,160 13.7% 2,615 710 27.2% 1979 7,384 1,292 17.5% 2,790 739 26.5% 1980 6,658 1,418 21.3% 2,065 863 41.8% *The number of "new appeals" filed refers to those appeals filed direcily in both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals; it does not include appeals that are transferred between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals or between divisions of the Court of Appeals. (While a handful of appeals on probate or juvenile matters are included, their numbers are small and should have no significant impact on the data.)
22 23
1'1 .\' ------~------
THE COURT OF APPEALS - ... Other Matters Filed COURT ACTIVITY Other matters. filed in the Court of Appeals include . For the purpose of this report, COURT ACTIVITY Table 32 Personal Restraint Petitions and Notices of Discretionary Court of Appeals Includes terminations (dispositions), time-in-process for Termination of Appeals Review. Other Matters Filed: 1975--1980 app~als and pending caseload in the Court of Appeals,· W~II~. the Court of Appeals is engaged in far more' % Change Manner of Termination 1978 1979 1980 (79-80) Personal restraint petition filings increased 80% over ,a.CtIvltIes than are referenced by these categories, statis 1979. Dramatic increases occurred in all divisions while Opinion Mandated tics have been collected only in these areas. Published 402 409 379 -3,9% the number filed in Division I more than doubled since the III Personal Restraint Petitions Unpublished -.lli.. --ill... -12lL -13.6% previous year. (See table 30.) A similar increase was Termination of Appeals Total Mandated 948 1108 969 -12.5% experienced by the Supreme Court. kiIiiiiil Notices of Discretionary Review 300 Dismissed 707 -8,2% The C~urt of Appeals terminated 1,741 appeals during 778 714 While the number of notices of discretionary review 1980. ThiS was fewer than the Court disposed of in 1979 Transferred _5_8_ +7.4% filed during 1980 was 27.0% greater than 1979, part of --LLL ~ but was in line with 1978. Fewer appeals were dismissed Total Appeals Disposed 1770 1940 1741 -10,3% this increase can be attributed to an annual fluctuation and fewer opinions were mandated in 1980 than in 1979. that has been common over recent years. The 188 notices of discretionary review that were filed in 1980 were, The number of appeals disposed in each division during however, well above previous years' filings. Over one 1980 was below 1979. Division II showed the greatest third of all notices of discretionary review were filed in decline in appeals disposed and both Divisions I and II Division III (Spokane). were below 1978 in disposition of appeals.
Table 30 Table 33 Personal Restraint Petitions Filed 00 Appeals Terminated by Division 1979 1930 % Change Court of Appeals 1979 1980 % Change Division I 65 137 +114.1% Appeals Filed & Disposed: 1975-1980 Division II 62 III +79.0% Division I 973 886 -8.9% Division III 47 65 +38.3% Division II 522 429 -17.8% Division III 445 426 -4.3% Total Court 174 313 +79.9% Total Court 1940 1741 -10.3%
Of those appeals terminated by opinion, both Divisions Table 31 I and III mandated more published opinions than in 1979 Notices of Discretionary Re'view Filed increasing the proportion of opinions that were published. 1979 1980 % Change Table 34 Division I 61 64 +4.9% Figure 9 Division II 40 58 +45.0% Appeals with Opinions Mandated: Division III 47 66 +40.4% Published vs. Unpublished Total Court 148 188 +27.0% 1979 1980 % Change Division I (Seattle) Published Opinions 167 ( 29%) 170 ( 34%) +1.8% Unpublished Opinions 407 ( 71%) ill ( 66%) -IS.7% Subtotal 574 (100%) 501 (100%) -12.7% Division II (Tacoma) Published Opinions 127 ( 50%) 90 ( 46%) -29.1% Unpublished Opinions 129 ( 50%) 106 ( 54%) -17.S% Subtotal 256 (100%) 196 (100%) -23.4% Division III (Spokane) Published Opinions li5 ( 41%) 119 ( 44%) +3.5% Unpublished Opinions 163 ( 59%) 153 ( 56%) --6.1% Subtotal 27S (100%) 272 (100%) -2.2% Total Court of Appeals Published Opinions 409 ( 37%) 379 ( 39%) -7.3% I\i\itl!\i) Appeals Disposed III Appeals Filed Unpublished Opinions 699l 63%) 590 ( 61%) -15.6% Total IIOS (100%) 969 (100%) -12.5% Figure 10
24 25
.'\.
,1 t THE COURT OF APPEALS . Termination of Other Matters Pending Caseload Table 37 The pending caseload in Divisions I and II increased The Court of Appeals disposed of 244 personal A total of 2,610 matters were left pending in the Court considerably during the year while that for Division III restraint petitions and 166 notices of discretionary review 1980 Pending Caseioad of Appeals at the end of 1980. This was an increase of 557 showed only a moderate increase. during 1980. As in prior years, the number of these cases or 27.1 % from the beginning of the year. Most of Start End of Year matters was commensurate with the numbers filed during this increase can be attributed to the dramatic increase of Year % Change Awaiting Hearing the year except that the Court had not been able to catch in filings during the year. The number of cases for which Set for Hearing 468 485 up with the sudden and substantial increase in personal an opinion or order was in process decreased 10.5% +3.6% Ready for Setting 295 618 +109.5% Table 38 restraint petitions by the end of the year. during the year so that the number actually pending Not Ready to Set 1070 1310 +22.4% 1980 Pending Caseload by Division hearing rose by 31.6% over the twelve month period. Subtotal 1833 2413 +31.6% Start End There were also 299 cases for which opinions had been Opinion/Order of Year of Year % Change Table 35 filed but not yet mandated pending at the end of 1980. in Process 220 197 -10.5% Division I 976 1318 +35.0% Division II Other Matters Terminated This was more than at the start of the year indicating that Total Pending 2053 2610 +27.1% 611 812 +32.9% more opinions had been filed than were mandated during Division III 466 480 +3.0% Personal Notices of the year. Opinion/Order Filed Manner of Restraint Discretionary but not Yet Mandated 240 299 +24.6% Termination Petitions Review Opinion Mandated 12 16 Denied 76 86 Dismissed 133 62 Transferred -1l 2 Total Terminated 244 166 Court of Appeals The number of other matters terminated in each divi Cases Pending: 1975-1980 sion increased substantially over 1979 primarily because of the increased number filed during the year.
3no()or----r---~--~----~--~--~3000
2500~--~---+----+---_r----r_-I.~.!-2~5('O Table 36 I.: Termination of Other Matters by Division j 1979 1980 % Change Division I (Seattle) -t. : ; :: .. Personal Restraint Petn. 55 101 +83.6% Discretionary Review 58 59 +1.7% Total Other Matters 113 160 +41.6% 1500 11;00 .. : Division II (Tacoma)
Personal Restraint Petn. 50 95 +90.0% .:. , Discretionary Review .l.2. 41 +5.1% 1 1OIlO
Total Other Matters 89 136 +52.8% ,': " Division III (Spokane) : : : . :. ::.. ::::. \:.. 500 Personal Restraint Petn. 49 48 -2.0% '. : Discretionary Review 42 --2§. +57.1% ',' . Total Other Matters 91 114 .. .: +25.3% ' ..: ::.:' .; Total Court of Appeals 1975 1971 1 177 f)78 !e Personal Restraint Petn. 154 244 +58.4% Discretionary Review 139 166 +19.4% Cases for which opinions have been filed Total Other Matters 293 410 +39.9% but not yet mandated are not included. Figure I I
26
i 27 \' b ,'\, THE COURT OF APPEALS - L ___ Table 40 COURT OF APPEALS OUTLOOK HISTORY OF FILINGS: 1975-1980 1975 1976 The dramatic increase in the caseload for the Court of Note the number of dispositions per judge has not 1977 1978 1979 1980 Appeals during 1980 raises the question of when the exceeded 140 while it will be necessary for the Court to APPEALS FILED capacity of the Court of Appeals will be reached ... or dispose of cases at a rate exceeding 163 cases per judge to Criminal Appeals whether it has already been met. clear the pending caseload from the end of 1980 by the Division I-Seattle 217 211 308 374 The history of appeals terminated versus caseload and end of 1981. 402 531 Division II-Tacoma 154 163 188 177 the number of judges in the Court of Appeals implies that 176 215 This is a topic of particular concern with the continual Division III-Spokane 122 -ill 144 _145 143 104 there is a limit to the caseload that can be reasonably growth in filings and size of the superior court b~nch. The handled by the Court and that this limit may have been increases in the number of superior court judges are also Total Court of Appeals 493 495 640 696 721 850 reached in 1975/76 with 12judges and again in 1979/80 increasing the productivity of the supreme court and also with 16 judges. the source from which appellate matters arise. The Court Civil Appeals Division I-Seattle 521 A comparison between total cases pending and disposi- of Appeals can expect to experience further increases in 556 482 531 539 693 Division II-Tacoma 239 255 tions shows pending case load passing dispositions in its caseload in the coming years. Whether they will be on 296 320 337 387 Division III-Spokane 214 1975/76 and a resurgence in the productivity of the Court the same scale as in 1980 cannot be determined at this 206 279 271 324' --lli time. in 1978 with the addition of 4 judges. This resurgence Total Court of Appeals 974 1017 1057 1122 1200 1401 appears to have peaked in 1979. Total Appeals Division I-Seattle 738 767 790 905 941 1224 Division II-Tacoma 393 418 484 497 513 602 Table 39 Division III-Spokane 336 327 423 416 467 425 Pending Caseload vs Dispositions Total Court of Appeals 1467 1512 1697 1818 1921 2251 Pending Cases % Pending Disp. per Year Cases Judges Disposed Disposed· Judge OTHER MATTERS FILED 1972 788 12 1,005 127.5% 83.8 1973 1,026 12 1,132 110.3% 94.3 Personal Restraint Petitions 1974 1,138 12 Division I--8eattle 1,250 109.8% 104.2 61* 47 6~1 47 65 137 1975 1,429 12 1,439 100.7% 119.9 Division II-Tacoma 78* 40 53 42 62 111 1976 1,809 12 1,670 92.3% 139.2 Division III-Spokane ---.1§* ~ 1977 1,915 12 1,634 85.3% 136.2 ~ --11 --±I ~ 1978 2,277 16 2,074 91.1% 129.6 Total Court of Appeals 185* 130 143 142 174 313 1979 2,296 16 2,233 97.7% 139.6 1980 2,293 16 2,146 93.1% 134.1 Petitions for Discret. Review • A percentage greater than 100% indicates that the court disposed of more cases than were Division I-Seattle 90 68 80 65 61 pending at the beginning of the year; i.e., some of the current year's cases were disposed. 64 Division 11--Tacoma 26 25 38 25 40 58 Division III-Spokane -.i!. ~ _3~ ~ --±I ~ Total Court of Appeals 167 135 156 133 148 188 Total Other Matters Division I-Seattle 151 115 140 112 126 201 Division II-Tacoma 104 65 91 67 102 169 Division III-Spokane --.21 ~~ ~ ~ 21 -ill Total Court of A?peals 352 265 299 275 322 501 TOTAL FILINGS DIVISiON I-Seattle 889 882 930 1017 1067 1425 DIVISION IJ-Tacoma 497 483 575 564 615 771 DIVISION III-Spokane 433 412 491 -ill 2§l 556 TOTAL COURT OF APPEALS 1819 1777 1996 2093 2243 2752 *Includes petitions filed under erR 7.7 28 29 L.'.~------~.~--- t ------~---- I II ~ I II I The Superipr Courts r ~. -. • 4 ."<, •• _ -.... 32 Preceding page blank ---_._'- --< -- - ~------r r , , t 1 2 The Superior -Courts of the State of VI ashington with Number of Authorized Judges for 1980 * Addi1;ional judges authorized for King, Ki~sap & Pierce Counties effective January 1981. Figure 12 .\. r·~?'· ...... ---...... -- THE SUPERIOR COURTS OVERVIEW Filings in the superior courts increased for the 24th consecutive year in 1980. Dramatic increases occurred in Superior Courts mental illness (+ 30.4%), criminal (+ 17.8%) and juvenile Total Cases Filed: 1975-1980 (+ 10.3%) case filings along with moderate increases in probate (+4.5%) and civil (+3.9%) filings. The number of superior court case filings for both 1979 and 1980 were well above the projected trend established during the ten ~ year period from 1969 to 1978. 1 nO.nnn :~1I':n nnn 1-' : -" ...... Table 45 ,n : : .... , ::i!: New Filings in the Superior Courts " f-m :li!i -"" :~~~: : imi 19.0 nnn 19.0000 1979 1980 % Change -" .-' " Civil 90,689 94,201 +3.9% ~ ~ Criminal 15,224 17,930 +17.8% m: : :!~i~ : 20,836 22,972 +10.3% :ii:: mi illll ,llll'i Juvenile QO.ooo 90,000 Probate* 17,245 18,025 +4.5% [jill: :I, Mental Illness 42386 52720 +30.4% : : illll, :iii; i::: Total Cases Filed 148,380 158,848 +7.1% lill nn, lill lili: ~:~: *IncIudes guardianship and adoption matters 'vvv 60,000 iii; ': ~:~! m: iii! :l:l 1m m1 : 1111 : The growth in criminal caseload~ corr~sponds to a simi il!l, !111 !lll, 111\ ': lll! :i:; : lar increase in misdemeanor fihngs In the courts of v_,·<>n 30,000 :m :~:~ m! ' limited jurisdiction. The number of civil cases fil:d ~a.s ml :::: @i ' also higher than in any previous year. An increase In cml !IUmil :' jurisdiction for the district courts in 197? was expected 11111 to divert some civil matters from the supenor courts to the III ::::: ::::: district courts, however, there is no evidence this oc 177 1979 curred. Both juvenile and mental illness filings have con tinued to follow a trend that has been established over the last ten years. Figure l3 35 .'\0 5' , THE SUPERIOR COURTS Superior Courts Distribution of 1980 Filings Even with the dramatic increases in mental illness and in criminal and juvenile filings, the composition of the superior court caseload did not change significantly com 50 or More pared to 1979 because of the comparatively small propor tion of the total caseload these types of cases represent. D 40 to 49.9 D 30 to 39.9 Superior court case filings did not increase uniformly across the state. Substantial increases were experienced Less than 30 in most Puget Sound counties and in the more urbanized counties around the state. Several of the rural and more Domestic Relations sparsely populated counties saw little change (less than Cases 4%) or experienced decreases in superior court filings in 28% 1980. Figure 14 Administrative Law Review & Civil Appeals 1% Superior Courts Total Filings per 1000 Population Figure 16 1.')'1 +10% or More While population is generally an excellent indicator of high in several diverse areas, including Skamania, Pacif court caseloads, filing rates (filings per 1000 population) ic, Clallam, Franklin, Pierce, Pend OreiIIe and Jefferson. D +4% to +9.9% vary considerably across the state. Filing rates are very D -3.9% to +3.9% -9.9% \;'0 -4% -10% or Less Superior Courts Changes in Total Cases Filed: 1979 to 1980 Figure 15 36 37 L.. J· .\. ~------~-- Superior Courts THE SUPERIOR COURTS Civil Cases Filed: 1975-1980 & iLAJ INTAKE 100,0001------100,000 Cases filed in superior courts fall into five general .... I!!l :~ .. . categories: civil, criminal, juvenile, probate and me~tal ~~e·!:);.·'lA.IoM~Il!::::::1 . m: : illness. In turn each of these can be separated accord~n~ ~. 1I81,(n).0('0------::1I!~rBt:::H--H::::m::J-rm:mmmll 80,000 to the nature of the issue brought before the court. ClVlI _.':'! ~.... caseloads are subdivided into tort, commercial, property Over half the state's counties (21) had a decrease in right, domestic relation, adI?inistrative.l~w review, other civil filings or no growth (less than + 1 %). Eleven of the Superior Courts civil petitions and complamts, and CI~II appeals f:om 19 western counties showed increases of 4% or more while courts of limited jurisdiction. Pro~ate IS also u.sed m a only four of 20 eastern counties had increases of 4% or broad sense to include guardianshIp and adoptlon mat more in civil filings. Ten counties from Eastern Washing ters. Juvenile court caseloads included juvenile offenses ton and two western counties experienced decreases of 4% (either crimes or status offenses) and juvenile dependency or more in 1980 compared to 1979. iSee figure 18.) matters. Counties with the greatest increases in civil caseloads (considering not only rate of increase but also volume of increase) included Spokane, Snohomish, Clark, Island Civil Filings and Skagit. There were 94,201 civil cases filed in superior courts during 1980. This was a 3.9% increase over 1979 a.nd Table 46 Domestic Relations continued the trend set by civil filings over the last fIve Civil Cases Filed 48% years. 1979 1980 % Change 1975 1976 1977 1978 ·197 1980 Torts 6,968 7,141 +2.5% Commercial 22,469 22,397 -0.3% Property Rights 6,984 8,730 +25.0% Domestic Relations Figure 17 42,529 44,938 +5.7% Admin. Law Review 888 792 -10.8% Other Petitions and Complaints 9,979 9,049 -9.3% Civil Appeals _1,154 +"32.3% +10% or More -lli Total Civil Filings 90,689 94,201 +3.9% Distribution of Civil Filings: 1980 D +4% to +9.9% Civil filings did not increase uniformly among all types Figure 19 of civil cases. fwperty rights cases and civil appeals showed dramatic increases while the number of adminis D -3.9% to +3.9% trative law review cases, and other civil petitions and complaints were fewer than in 1979. Fluctuations are not Despite the substantial changes in several case catego unusual and can often be caused by changes in the ries, little change in the proportion of the total caseload '-:. .... :::.... -9.9% to -4% methods to count and compile statistical information in each category represents was experienced with the excep individual courts. tion of property rights cases (9.3% of all civil cases vs 7.7% in 1979). (See figure 16.) -10% or Less Superior Courts Changes in Civil Cases Filed: 1979 to 1980 Figure 18 38 39 " t .\. j, Table 48 Table 50 Commercial Cases Filed Domestic Relations Cases Filed Year Filings 27orMore % Change Year Filings D 1975 17,799 % Change 1976 1975 37,643 18,141 +1.9% 1976 1977 19,779 38,608 +2.6% 22 to 26.9 +9.0% 1977 D 1978 21,679 39,974 +3.5% +9.6% 1978 41,659 1979 22,469 +3.6% +4.2% 1980 1979 42,529 +2.1% 22,397 -0.3% 1980 D 17 to 21.9 44,938 +5.7% Twenty-one counties experienced a decline in commer cial filings"including King (-18.1 % or 1,614 fewer filings Nine counties experienced moderate or substantial de :!: 16.9 or Less reported than in 1979), Chelan, Walla Walla, Mason, creases in the number of domestic relations cases filed in Grant and Franklin Counties. (Major decreases in King 1980 compared to 1979. Pierce (+ 17.2% or 860 cases) and Spokane (+ 16.6% or 604 cases) showed large in and Spokane Counties are due primarily to changes in creases. counting methods that have since stabalized.) Property Rigbts Case Filings Otber Civil Cases Filed Prop~rty rights cases filed in 1980 were 25% greater Other civil cases include Administrative Law Review, than in 1979 and two and a half times greater than those Otber Civil Petitions and Complaints and Civil Appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. filed in 1978. The primary reason for the heavy increase in this type of case is due to a change in counting methods Superior Courts used in King County. This change accounted for 75% of Table 51 the growth in filings from 1979 to 1980. Exclusive of King Civil Filings per 1000 Population County, the state's superior courts experienced a 9.5% in Other Civil Cases Filed Figure 20 crease in the number of property rights cases filed. Admin. Other Appeals Law Petns. & from Year Review Complaints Lwr.Cts. Table 49 1975 * 6,256 502 1976 * The rate at which civil cases are filed with respect to Notable increases in tort filings occurred in Snohomish Property Rights Cases Filed 7,770 520 1977 * the population in each county was ~i¥h in ~he Puget (+45.8% or 211 cases) and Whatcom (+67.6% or 69 Year 9,616 517 Filings % Change 1978 * Sound area and in most counties contaInIng major metro cases) counties. 9,690 549 1975 3,574 1979 888 politan areas. The number of civil .cas~s file~ per 1~?0 9,979 872 1976 3,388 -5.2% 1980 792 population was .highest, h~wever, In FranklIn, PacIfIC, 9,049 1,154 1977 3,819 +12.2% Skamania and PIerce countIes. 1978 3,468 -9.2% *not reported separately prior to 1978 Commerical Cases Filed 1979 6,984 +100.1% Torts Filed 1980 8,730 +25.0% Commercial cases represent the second largest cate Administrative law review cases were first counted as a A total of 7 141 tort actions were filed in superior gory of civil filings with 22,397 filings during 1980. separate category in 1979. During 1980, superior courts courts during 1980. Although this marked an increase of Although figures indicate a decrease of only 0.3% from Substantial increases in property rights case fiJiL.gs reported 792 of these cases filed, a decrease of 10.8% 2.5% over 1979, there appears to be little c~ange in the 1979, the 40 41 " .\. ------~- Superior Courts THE SUPERIOR COURTS Criminal Cases Filed: 1975-1980 = Increases in criminal filings were most common in Pu 16, 'n .16 get Sound counties but big increases were also experi in counting methods in a number of counties, particularly ,'1- Superior Courts enced in the Tri·Cities and Vancouver areas. Ten Eastern Spokane County. With the exclusion of Spokane County, ~!!;n.2 Washington counties and three western counties experi there was a 7.4% increase in the number of cases reported .._...-,., ....-..._Homicide 2% -.~ . .' enced decreases· in criminal filings. (See figure 19.) filed. :m! '. . ill:! iiii: i:i:i :: I i : lmi I::! . . . The greatest portion of the increase in criminal filings A total of 1,154 a ppeals of civil <:ases tried in. courts of 12,000- .. -'2,000 :m occurred in King (+23.8% or 1082 cases), Pierce limited jurisdiction were received In the sup~nor cour.ts .' mi .,':::: .:::: (+32.2% or 600 cases) and Snohomish (+32.6% or 339 during 1980. This was the second cons~cutlve year In ·:1:: im! cases) Counties. D~ Novo Appeals which a substantial increase was expenenced-58.5% :: :: from Lower Courts from 1978 to 1979 and 32.3% from 1979 to 1980. Almost lill; : :1:1 :Iil' .' iJ Increases in filings varied among the different types of 18% all of the increase over the last two years (87%) occur:e? 8,000 :i:i .' 8,000 criJries charged. i,i, :. im: in King and Pierce Counties in which 57% of the clVli i@ : iii: Table 52 appeals were filed during 1980. I: ::::il!li ilili iii! Criminal Cases Filed The advent of electronic recording in the courts of Primary Offense Charged 1979 1980 limited jurisdiction in 1981 should significa~tly ~educe : % Change 4,000- 4,000 Homicide m:: . 254 319 +25.6% the number uf civil case appeals that are flied In the i!l!i: mii .' im! , Sex Crimes 7: 739 784 +6.1% superior courts. Assault iii; :iil 1,285 1,485 +15.6% Robbery/Theft iiiii' i::i: . 2,484 3,214 +29.4% i1 : I:ii:.iliil imi Burglary 2,243 2,575 ,:,:, : iiili.. ",:: ,i1:1: +14.8% Criminal Filings ill Forgery/Fraud 936 1,323 +41.4% 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Controlled Substances 1,606 1,763 +9.8% There were 17 930 criminal cases filed in the superior Other Felonies 2,624 3,280 +25.0% courts during 1980. This represents a 17.8% increase over TOTAL FELONIES 12,171 14,743 +21.1% 1979 , well above the trend set over the. previous five years. Figure 21 Appeals from Lwr. Cts. 3,053 -1J!l +4.5% TOTAL CRIMINAL Distribution of Criminal Filings: 1980 FILINGS 15,224 17,930 +17.8% Figure 23 +15% or More Despite the different changes among crimin.al case cat Criminal filing rates (per 1000 population) varied egories from 1979 to 1980, there was little change in the greatly among the counties and were generally higher in proportions of the total caseload each represented, except. +5% to +14.9% Western Washington counties. Ferry, Clallam, Pf,cific, D that robbery ftheft cases comprised 18% of all criminal and Jefferson Counties showed the highest crimin?.l filing cases in 1980 compared to 16.3% in 1979. rates with respect to population. (See figure 21.) D -4.9% to +4.9% "\ -14.9% to -5% :::.' ,.' -15% or Less Superior Courts Changes in Criminal Cases Filed: 1979 to 1980 Figure 22 42 43 L.J ' .'\, ------ THE SUP}:~RIOR COURTS 1111 particular geographical area or locales with common ! Superior Courts demographic characteristics. Juve}J.ile Cases Filed: 1975-1980 Of those ju.venil: cases filed during 1980, the majority ~81.2%) are Juvemle offense (delinquency) cases which [ •>1 6 or More Increased 13.9% over. the previous year. Juvenile depen ~ency matters cO.mpnse only 18.8% of all juvenile cases filed and actually decreased 3.1 % from 1979. o 5 to 5.9 Table 55 o 4 to 4.9 Juvenile Court Cases 1979 1980 % Change ":, ':::, Juvenile Offenses 16,378 18,650 +13.9% :;:. '.. :\:' Less than 4 Juvenile Dependency 4,458 4,322 -3.1% Total Juvenile 20,836 22,972 +10.3% Superior Courts Criminal Filings per 1 000 Population Figure 24 Table 54 Juvenile Filings Juvenile Cases Filed Figure 25 There were 59,819 juvenile matters referred to the ju- . Filed % Change venile courts during 1980. Comparable data for previous Year 11,929 years are not available. 1975 1976 13,433 +12.6% Only one out of 2.5 to three juvenile referrals result in a 1977 14,824 +10.4% court case. The remainder are generally disposed of infor 1978 17,101 +15.4% mally by juvenile court stafe 1979 20,836 +21.8% 1980 22,972 +10.3% Table 53 1980 Juvenile Referrals Seventeen counties experienced no growth (less than Delinquency jOffenses 52,771 + 1% change) or decreases in juvenile filings, including Traffic 1,535 King County. Considering that King County receives Other Violations 87 28% of all juvenile cases filed in the superior courts and Status Offenses 185 experienced no growth, the state-wide increase appears Non-Offense Referrals 775 even greater-14.5% for the state less King County. Dependency Matters 4,466 Dramatic increases occurred in Pierce (+54.7% or 806 59,819 cases), Clark (+45.6% or 455 cases), Spokane (+17.9% or Total Referrals 267 cases), Snohomish (+ 13.6% or 228 cases), and Yaki ma (+14.7% or 178 cases) Counties. Several counties, A total of 22,972 juvenile cases were filed in superior with smaller caseloads also exhibited rapid growth in ju courts during 1980. This 10.3% increase in filings con venile caseloads. Furthermore, the rise in juvenile case tinues a trend that has seen a near-tripling of juvenile loads does not appear to be localized or concentrated in caseloads since 1973. 45 44 L'!~' ______~~ - . ""------THE SUPERIOR COURTS - a - Probate, Guardianship, Adoption and Mental Illness 'Probate' has been Ilsed to designate a broader class of COURT ACTIVITY Filings cases than the name implies. Included within thi~ bro~d For the purpose of this report, COURT ACTIVITY category are formal llrobate matters plus guardianship While probate, guardianship and adoption filings includes trials, disposition of cases, sentencing of criminal and adoption matters. These three types of matters are showed only moderate increases between 197~ and 198?, offenders and general judicial workload. While the courts Superior Courts combined not because they are similar in the .way ~h~y a:e mental illness case filings increased dramatI~ally. This and court personnel engage in far more activitie~ than are 'Drocessed but because they all require confldentIahty m Trials Held: 1975-1980 rapid rise continues a trend that has resulted m a 363% referenced by these categories, statistics have been col hie handling and may be kept 'open' for protracted increase in filings from 1973 to 1980. lected only in these areas. periods of time. nnI1------..... ::::::I---_IO,000 Table 56 Superior Courts Other Cases Filed Trials Mental Illness Cases Filed: 1975-1980 1979 1980 % Change Although superior courts held fewer jury trials in 1980 Probate 11,516 12,041 +4.6% than in 1979, more non jury trials were held than in any Guardianship 2,020 2,148 +6.3% other year previous to 1979. Of the 11,843 trials held 7,500----_--m!l-----lf:::::I---t::::::t---f::::::t-- 7,500 Adoption 3,709 3,836 +3.4% during 1980, 2,319 or 19.6% were before a jury. (In Mental Illness 4,386 5,720 +304% reporting statistics on proceedings, contested dissolution ITi hearings are not counted as trials.) m:... . bUU' ,,. ",;nnn The number of jury trials held during 1980 was 17.2% Seventeen counties showed no change or a decrease in 5.(],OO·--f::::::I----1r::;:::I---t::::::I---I:::::f-_i:::::II---I::::::J- 5,000 t::. less than in 1979. This continued a trend of decreasing : the number of probate, guardianship ~nd adoption cases numbers of jury trials since 1977. While 9,524 non jury ~"" . filed, most notably Pierce County ~hlch had 32~ fewer 40';v 4000 cases (-20.2%) filed in 1980 than m 1979. Particularly trials were reported in 1980, this does not include juvenile : great increases occurred in King (+ 13. 7~ or 711 cases) trials held in Clark and Yakima which were not reported A~~;' and Benton (+ 32.4% or 107 cases) Counties. (approximately 150-200 more non jury trials). : 2,5 :;.~ .. t::::::: :m ,n nn King, Pierce and Spokan~ Co~nties a<:counted for uvvv 67% !:~: : ti of all mental illness cases filed m supenor courts durmg : Table 57 ..... '''·''m. : 1980. These three counties also accounted for 91 % of the increase experienced in superior courts between 1979 and Trials Held ,nn ..- : : nnn Year 2U I ... vVY 1980. Jury Non-Jury 1975 ml 2,647 7,082 [~~:: @; : ill: 1976 2,745 7,486 ~ . :m: 1977 • Non-Jury TrIals : 3,143 7,577 1v. :t :~w : 00o 1978 2,990 8,071 I::: Figure 27 : tr 1979 2,800 10,718 1980 : . ijjjj '. illl:::l:: 2,319 9,524 ::::: : :~:i: :~i~i 9' 1979 1980 Table 58 Trials for civil actions dt:creased in 1980 compared to Trials Held in 1980 1979. However, there was a reported increase in civil Civil Jury Figure 26 dispositions. Those courts reporting other civil proceed 902 13.5% ings showed a substantial increase compared to 1979, in Civil Non-Jury 5,756 86.5% Total Civii Trials dicating a greater level of activity. 6,658 100.0% 6,658 56.2% Trials for criminal actions decreased in 1980, but again Criminal Jury 1,417 68.6% an increase in dispositions was reported. The number of Criminal Non-Jury 648 31.4% Total Criminal Trials gUilty pleas reported increased 20% from 1979 to 1980 2,065 100.0% 2,065 17.4% accounting for most of the decrease in reported trial activ Juvenile Trials ity. 3,022* 25.5% Other Trials** -2L 0.8% The increases in dispositions combined with a decrease Total 1980 Trials in trials indicates the courts are exercising alternative 11,843 100.0% methods for disposing of disputes. *Does not include Clark and Yakima counties. **Probate, guardianship, adoption & mental illness cases 46 47 !) b ------~------ THE SUPERIOR COURTS ",'w___ _ i&i Disposition of Juvenile Cases Disposition of Civil Cases Superior Courts Judicial Workload Superior courts reported the disposition of 7 5,916 ci~il The superior courts reported the disposition of 18,150 Disposition of Civil Cases juvenile cases during 1980, an increase of 9.0% over 1979. Judicial workload in the superior courts is estimated by cases during 1980; 13,484 more than were reported dIs means of the Washington Weighted Caseload System. posed in 1979. Almost 80% of this increase can be Of those, 15,674 were for juvenile offenses and 2,476 were dependency matters. The Weighted Caseload System provides a means of esti accounted for by (I) the purging of inactive files in King mating the amount of judicial time that will be required County (5 701 civil cases disposed for lack of prosecu to process a given set of cases. This system uses a set of tion) and' (2) the lack of reporting civil dispositions 'weights' for each of 11 different categories of cases. duri~g 1979 by Spokane County (approximately 5,0~0 These weights are applied against the number of cases cases). . Superior Courts filed in each category. The result is a 'weighted caseload' The number of dispositions reported were higher for Default which represents the estimated amount of judicial time each type of case. . Judgment Disposition of Juvenile Offenders (in minutes) to process those cases. By dividing the 35% Increases in the dispositions of property nghts a~d 'weighted caseload' by a 'judge-year value' (which differs commercial cases may be the result of changes ~n according to the size of a court and the number of counting procedures in some courts; Le., the manner In counties served), one derives an estimate of the amount which some cases were classified. of judicial time needed in 'judge-years' or, more simply, the number of judges required to perform the needed Table 59 work in one year. Weighted caseload analyses are per Civil Dispositions by Type of Case formed for individual courts using the historic and pro jected case filings for each court. Type of Case 1979* 1980* % Chanf;e Settled Torts 6,248 6,355 + 1.7% 30% Commercial 16,138 18,744 + 16.1 % Those cases filed in the superior courts during 1980 Property Rights 3,834 5,071 +32.3% represent 156.1 judge-years of work based on a weighted Domestic Relations 31,545 34,341 +8.9% Administrative Law Review 410 515 +25.6% Other Petitions & Complaints 4,054 5,258 +29.7% Civil Appeals from Lwr. Cts. 193 294 +52.3% *Includes Contested Dissolution Hearings Superior Courts Figure 28 *Spokane County not included for lack of data. Distribution of Judicial Workload * from 1980 Filings Superior Courts Civil dispositions generally followed the same pattern as in 1979. A larger number of cases were disposed by Disposition of Criminal Cases dismissal for lack of prosecution (re: King County). The ratio of civil dispositions to filings for 1980 was Figure 30 806/1000 (Le., 806 civil cases were reported disposed for every 1000 that were filed during the year). The conviction rate among juvenile offenders was 72.5%, similar to 1979. The proportion of juvenile offend Disposition of Criminal Cases ers who were acquitted decreased from 1979 to 1980 while those juveniles against whom charges were dis Convicted and Sentenced Superior courts reported the disposition of 15,220 missed increased. 64% criminal cases during 1980. This was 17:5% more. th.an were reported in 1979, however, two-t~lrds. o~ this in The ratio between dispositions and filings for juvenile crease is accounted for by the increase In cnmIn~1 ~ase cases was 840/1000 for delinquency matters and 573/ dispositions reported by King Co~nty (5,239 cnmInal 1000 for dependency matters. cases disposed in 1980 versus 3,793 In 1979). Disposition of Other Cases There was a slight decrease in the proportion .of Dismissed or Prosecution criminal cases disposed by acquittal and .als? by convIc The superior courts reported the disposition of 13,096 Deferred tion/sentenced, while dispositions by dlsmlss~1 or de probate, guardianship, adoption and mental illness cases, 25% ferred prosecution increased. The number of gUilty pleas, 8.5% more than in 1979. The ratio between dispositions however, increased by 20% from 1979 to 1980. reported and filings during 1980 was 552/1000 (Le., 552 cases were disposed during the year for every 1000 that Administrative Law Review The ratio of criminal dispositions to filings for 19~0 were filed.) Disposition of these cases tends to take many & Civil Appeals was 849/ I 000 (i.e., 849 criminal cases were reported diS years. posed for every 1000 that were filed during the year.) * per WashinlTton Weighted Caseload System (1977) Figure 29 Figure 31 48 49 " t .'\. . ------~------ THE SUPERIOR COURTS -. Sentencing Guidelines caseload analysis. This does not take into consideration, Table 60 however, the effect of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1978 on In 1978 the Superior Court Judges' Association initi Of those sentencing guidelines worksheets received the workload associated with juvenile cases. The increase Judicial Workload .in Superior Courts ated a program to develop guidelines for the sentencing 66.4% indicated the sentence given was within the guide~ in the number of cases filed from 1979 to 1980 translates One Year Change . 1979 1980 %. Cbange of felony offenders. These guidelines were voluntarily lines range and 7.5% indicated the sentence given was to a 10.7% increase in judicial workload. Weighted Caseload adopted by superior court judges in 1979. Technical as above guidelines or more strict than called for in the sistance has been provided by the Office of the While felony cases comprise only 9.3% of the total Wtd. Csld. per Judge 81,652 90,415 guidelines. Within each class and type of offense convict Judge Years of Work 141.0 156.1 +10.7% Administrator for the Courts to collect and compile sta number of cases filed during 1980, they are responsible ed, the concurrence between the actual sentence given tistical information on the use of the guidelines. Because for approximately 27% of the judicial work associated Filings per Judge 1267 1358 +7.1% and that recommended by the guidelines varied substan I the use of the sentencing guidelines is optional, statistical tially. with the 1980 cases. Likewise; property rights cases rep data collected does not represent sentencing policies or Ten Year Cbange 1970 ·1980 resented only 5.5% of the total case filings but accounted patterns of all judges but only those who have Table 62 for 12% of the judicial workload, according to these Total Filings 88,627 158,848 +79.2% participated in the program. The foliowing information is Relation of Felony Offender Sentences to Guidelines estimates. Consequently, the dramatic increases in these Authorized Judges 88 117* +33.0% taken from the Report of the Sentencing Guidelines Com (Sentencirigs Reported: Jan.-Sept. 1980) types of case filings have a greater impact on judicial mittee, Washington Superior Court Judges' Association workload than the number of filings ir.rlicates. *Eight additionaIjudges authorized in 1979/1980 will become Below Within Above effective January 1981 resulting in a 42%' increase in autho and the Office of the Administrator for the Courts that Offense Class Guideline Guideline Guideline In December, 1980, the Office of the Administrator for rizedjudges from 1970 to 1980. will be published in January, 1981. Class-A Felonies 30.3% 69.7% 0.0%* the Courts published an analysis of eighteen selected su Class-B Felonies 28.2% 64.8% 7.0% perior courts titled, Need for Additional Judges in the Table 61 Class-C Felonies 23.4% 67.5% 9.1% Superior Courts of Washington. The analysis for each of Sentencing Guidelines Cases: Jan.-Sept. 1980 All Sentences Reported 26.1 % 66.4% 7.5% the selected courts was made using the Weighted Case Another w01;kload indicator is the average number of *It is not possible to go above the guidelines for class-A felony load System. In almost every case, the analysis indicated cases filed per judge. This indicator shows an increase of Class-A Felonies 178 6.6% offenders except to give the death penalty. a workload in excess of the court's current judicial staff 7.1 % from 1979 to 1980 and the continuation of a trend Class-B Felonies 1,285 47.6% ing. dating back more than ten years. (See figure 29.) Class-C Felonies 1,237 45.8% Total 2,700 100.0% NOTE: This data does not represent all sentences for felony offenses but only those for which sentencing guide The sentencing guidelines for the superior courts pro lines worksheets have been submitted for the collection of vide recommended sentence ranges for each class of fel statiGtical information. Because of the voluntary nature of 1450 or More ony (class-A, class-B, and class-C) based on characteris guidelines use, this data does not represent a random sam tics of both the offense and the offender. The Report of the ple. Sentencing Guidelines Committee is based on statistics Modifications to the sentencing guidelines will be made D 1250 to 1449 collected from 2,700 felony offenders who were sentenced following analysis and evaluation of the data that has during the period January 1980 through September 1980. been collected to date. D 1050 to 1249 I:::::::::!:;::':::I 850 to 1049 849 or Less Superior Courts Total Filings per Authorized Judge (1980) This does not include additional judges effective in 1981. Figure 32 50 51 " t .\' THE SUPERIOR COURTS - BE OUTLOOK The rate at which cases have been filed in the superior Because of the relationship between population (and its courts has been increasing faster that the population over growth) and superior court caseloads, future increases in the last ten years. The number of superior court cases court filings will be most strongly felt among those filed per 1000. population has increased 48.1 % (from counties exhibiting high growth rates such as in Puget 25.97 cases per 1000 population in 1970 to 38.46 in Sound (particularly those counties on the west side of the 1980). This implies a substantial growth in superior court sound), in the northeast corner of the sta te, and in the Tri caseloads over the next ten years. Cities and Vancouver areas. (See figure 30.) Rapid popu lation growth may point the way for increases in other o +40% or More Table 63 areas as well. Superior Court Filing~ vs Population: 1970-1980 The elimination of de novo appeals and an additional +20% to +39.9% Total State Superior Ct. Filings per increase in the civil jurisdiction in the courts of limited o Year Population * Cases Filed 1000 Pop. jurisdiction should help to reduce the rate of increase in 1970 3,413,244 88,627 25.97 superior court caseloads. The previous increase in district +10% to +19.9% 1971 3,430,100 92,369 26.93 court jurisdiction to $3,000 in 1979, however, had little o 1972 3,418,800 100,205 29.31 apparent impact on civil filings in the superior courts even 1973 3,424,300 100,135 29.24 though there was a dramatic increase in district court 1974 3,448,100 111,477 32.33 civil caseloads. The impact of an additional increase in +1% to +9.9% 1975 3,493,900 116,505 33.35 district court civil jurisdiction to $5,000 on superior court 1976 3,571,591 121,811 34.11 filing rates will be carefully analyzed. Electronic record Decrease or i977 3,661,975 127,855 34.91 ing of proceedings in the courts of limited jurisdiction, on 1978 3,774,300 135,700 35.95 Increase Less than 1 % 1979 3,911,200 148,380 37.94 the other hand, should nearly eliminate de novo appeals in the superior courts. The number of district and 1980 4,130,163 158,848 38.46 • 10 Largest Cities municipal court cases appealed 'on the record' should rep Projected: resent a small fraction of the number of cases previously 1985 4,476,200 197,000 44.01 appealed 'de novo'. The greatest impact of the 'record on 1990 4,587,100 207,000 45.13 appeal' will be felt in King County in which 63% of the de *Population figures for 1970 and 1980 from Advance Reports, novo appeals were filed during 1980. US Bureau of the Census; population figures for other years Population Growth: 1970 to 1980 and for projections from publications by Population, Enroll ment, & Economic Studies Div. of Office of Financial Mgmt., Source: Advance Reports, Bureau of the Census State of Washington. Relationship between population and Figure 33 superior court filings determined using linear regression with result of R2=0.904. 52 53 " .\' TABLE 64 TABLE 65 WASHINGTO~ SUPERIOR COURTS WASHINGTON SUPERIOR C 0 U R T S 19BO CASELOAD HISTORV OF CIVIL FILINGS ------1980 CASE Fill NGS------1979 1975 - 1980 fUMBER MENTAL 1980 TOTAL PERCENT 1975 COUNTY/DI STRI CT OF JUDGE S CIVIL CRIMINAL JUVENILE PROBATE ILLNESS TOTAL FILINGS CHANGE 1916 1977 1979 1980 ADAMS 194 230 297 212 ADAMS 206 46 41 52 • JUDICIAL DIS7RICT 194 210 207 208 7 354 363 297 212 • JUDI:IAL DISTRICT 206 46 41 52 7 )54 363 207 208 ASOT IN 251 COLUMBIA 288 331 398 ASOT IN 396 70 51 ~8 24 629 9.6; 65' • 69 399 396 514 GARFIELD 68 64 COLUMBIA ~4 19 8 26 10 35 46 99 84 149 181 -17./C 39 26 GARFIELD 46 6 la • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 357, 403 48 46 o 2 72 92 -21.H 43B 486 • JUDICIAL DISIRICT 526 95 59 134 546 526 36 850 847 a ./tt 8ENTON 1169 H04 FRANKL IN 1704 1979 2504 ,~ENION 2433 391 640 431 55 3962 3703 1015 1011 II 91 2433 FRANKL IN IH9 156 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2184 1119 1164 217 92 21 1635 1638 2415 2895 3098 1149 • JUOICI4L 0 I STRICT 35B2 553 857 529 76 5597 5341 3668 3582 CHELAN 853 796 924 DOUGLAS 160 99~ 1076 CHELAN 1123 163 186 238 35 11'05 1793 181 165 2IJ 1123 DOUGLAS 362 74 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1013 301 362 89 83 5 bL3 553 917 1109 1201 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 14B5 231 275 321 40 2358 2346 1377 1485 CLALLAM 827 JEFFERSON 871 870 10J9 CLAllAII 1244 366 238 I11B 1244 794 242 42 2688 2523 226 261 282 JEFFER SON )69 104 • JUOIC IAL DISTRICT 1065 1097 300 369 63 113 4 653 530 1131 1291 • JJDIC IAL 0 lSI RI CT 1613 470 857 355 46 3341 305) 1~18 1613 CLARK 3161 3152 3527 3754 CLARK 4542 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3167 4140 4542 140 1452(21 768 186 7688 6591 16.61 315l 1527 3754 4542 740 4140 4542 • JUDIC IAl D ISTR ICT 1452 766 186 7688 6591 16.6~ COWLITl 1544 1546 1549 1674 CO.Ull • JUDICIAL OlsrRlcr .1544 1786 1786 1766 411 429 257 26 2911 2819 1546 1549 1674 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1786 411 4N 257 26 2911 2679 1788 1186 FERRY 74 OKANOGAN 84 115 90 FERRY 134 42 19 26 o 221 298 -25.U 467 544 156 134 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 616 S88 624 OKANOGAN 5~1 142 356 97 o 1186 1123 5.61 561 628 591 131 678 780 • JUDICIAL DISIRICT 725 184 315 12) o 1407 1421 -1.Qf GRANT 125 846 939 1092 1034 GRANT 956 • JUDICIAL OI,STRICT 646 1111 956 207 321 240 45 1769 1629 -3.3 , n9 1092 1034 • JUDICIAL 01 STR ICI 956 201 321 240 45 1169 1829 -3.H 1117 956 GRAY S HA R8UR I1.J6 1311 1498 1547 ';~AYS HARAJR • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1206 1613 1618 161B '21 4U 304 37 2599 2496 4.1f 1311 1498 1541 1613 1618 • JUDICIAL QISTRICT 1616 221 419 304 J7 2599 2496 4. It I SL AN 0 557 6'5 SAN JUAN 101 163 8111 ISLAND 1045 12 j 84 175 1455 1171 24.3f 121 142 1045 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 107 154 145 SAN JUAN IhO 35 42 42 279 233 19.H 678 147 16.0 808 917 946 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 )5 158 126 211 1734 1404 23.5' 1205 KI NG 26094 263H • JUDICIAL 01 STRIC T 26094 26562 2805() 29585 KING 29159 5621 651-1 5016 41412 4.U 20314 26562 29159 28050 29585 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 341 t I 291 ;9 5621 6519 5916 47412 29159 4.1~ KlTSAP 2J24 2266 2654 llH KIISAP • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2024 2948 2910 2910 495 716 626 129 4901 0.6; 2266 26'54 2Hl .' 2948 2910 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 41 11 2910 495 17~ 626 Il9 4907 J.61 KITT lIAS 431 423 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 431 467 466 558 KITTITAS HI 136 91 84 o 813 423 487 577 466 558 577 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 577 136 91 84 o 813 KL ICK ITA T 281 239 5 KAMANIA 284 339 354 KLICKITAT 336 8) 82 68 5 574 604 146 158 336 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 154 155 207 SKAIIA~ I A 229 53 63 44 16 427 397 228 424 45~ 438 494 561 • JUDICIAL DISIRICI 564 136 165 112 21 998 1062 LEW I S 564 805 ·819 • JUOIC,lAL DISTRICT 911 976 1090 LE HI S 1032 294 466 197 2016 2187 -5.0: 605 819 1032 911 976 1090 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1032 294 466 197 lOlA l1B7 -5 .O~ 1032 LINCOLN 106 138 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 163 In LINCOLN 113 49 34 86 10 352 346 I. II 106 138 181 173 163 127 181 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 173 49 14 ~b 1) 35? 348 1.1: 173 ~ASJN 411 432 THURSTON 496 465 524 ;~A SuN 56 .. 161 2lZ 145 18 1110 1056 5. I; 20bl zn6 2661 564 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2418 1.667 2717 THURST ON 27 .. b 46a 736 507 146 460l 4739 -2.9~ 2158 2146 3157 3132 3241 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 331~ 629 958 652 164 Hil 5795 -1.4; 3310 PACI FIC 347 ~AHK IAKUM 345 342 PACIFIC 48 414 401 513 119 148 73 13 866 731 18.5; 30 46 42 513 MAliK IA~U.~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 395 81 61 22 IJ 13 o 112 129 -13 .2: 315 390 456 67 5AO 488 580 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 141 158 86 13 978 860 13.H P END ORE ILL E IlJ 157 STEVENS 153 109 155 PEND ORFILLE 195 41 73 52 2 363 291 381 ~04 441 195 5 II! VEN; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 504 40 I 488 441 15 119 96 21 752 175 561 594 510 441 643 636 • JUDICIAL UISTRICT 63b 116 192 148 23 1115 1066 P IERC E 8765 9151 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9797 10541 11113 PI ERCE 13116 2461 2219121 1602 1082 20540 11148 19.8 f 6185 9151 9797 13116 10541 III(J 13116 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT III II 13116 l461 2279 160l 1082 20540 11148 19. HI S KAG I T 1117 1139 1311 • JUDICIAL OIST~ICT 1246 1296 SKI.GIT 1444 259 269 329 US 2436 2082 1117 1139 1117 1444 17.0; 1246 1296 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 1444 l59 261 329 135 2436 20a2 11.01 1444 SNOIlOMIS H 5321 5541 5819 5921 SNOHOHISH 1I0~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5321 6579 1105 IH8 19J~ 1!32 311 12J31 10R53 10.H 5547 5819 5921 6579 7105 • JUDICIAL DIST~ICT 7105 IH8 1905 1332 311 12031 108S3 10.9; SPOKANE b419 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6477 6961 827b SPUKAN E 8826 1053 1160 1669 63J 13956 12604 9.0: 6419 8826 6417 6067 H276 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 66Z6 1053 1760 168q 630 13958 12a04 9.0; 8826 WALLA WALLA 137 866 917 823 WALLA WALL~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 737 866' 9J2 845 845 252 229 262 150 1118 1807 911 821 8~5 932 845 • JUDICIAL JISTRICT l5l 219 262 150 1136 1607 WHA TCOM 1555 1548 1793 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1555 1897 2056 WHATCU~ >19 501 4~) 56 3694 3523 1548 1793 2129 1891 2056 2129 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 519 5)1 483 56 3694 3523 HHITHAN 303 316 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 355 J61 385 kHI nolAN 169 69 62 155 24 679 670 303 316 355 369 l61 385 • JUDICIAL DRTRICI 369 69 62 155 l4 679 670 369 YAKIIIA 2555 27.15 3120 YAKIIIA • JUDICIAL JISTRICT 2555 nos 31~7 3180 1000 1391121 966 210 6747 6413 2115 3120 3305 31 80 3157 3180 • JUD IC IAL 0 ISTR IC I Jl80 1000 1191 96b 210 6147 6413 •• TOTAL SUTE 12520 75317 80026 83927 90689 •• TOTAL STATE 111 942JI 11930 22972 18025 5720 148leO 7.U 94201 (11 KIN';, ~(TSA. AND PIE~CE COuNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE 8EE~ AJTHORIlE~ AOO(T IONAL JIJDGES EFFECTIVE JANUUY I, 1981. (21 JUVENILE FILINGS DATA ~ROVIIlED BY JUVIS. 54 55 L.'-"______~~."_____. ______TABLE 61 WASHIIIGTON SUPERIOR COURTS TABLE 66 SUPERIOR COURTS WASHINGTO~ CIVil CASES CIVIL CASE ACTIVITV ------F IL I~GS------DI SPOSI T IONS------DISPI ______D I SPD S IT 10~ BY TVPE------PROCEED INGS BV TV PE------NUMBER PERCENT FIL It!»s PER:!:NT 01 SP. FILING ••• TRIALS.. ..OT~ER HEARINGS •• COUNTYICOURT OF JUDGES 19BD 1919 CHANGE PER JOG 1980 /919 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO UI SM. CHANGE SUMMARY TOTAL N~- ~~ ~" LACK OF OF OEFAUL T JURV JURY DISP. DISP. OISP. ADAMS 208 201 0.5' 169 l32 O.B13 JDG"T TR lEO DISPOSED 2B.0' C UUNTY ICOURT PRuS. VENUE JDGMT SETTLED * JUOICIAL OISTRICT 20B 201 0.5' 208.0 L69 132 28.0' L69.0 0.813 32 3 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 169 ADAMS N/R 169 32 3 ASOT! N 396 399 -0.8' 280 L38 102.9~ 0.701 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT COLUMBIA B4 99 -15.2' 80 58 31.H 0.952 5 GARFIELD 46 48 -4.2' 31 11 4 2BO 22 1 45 6 -41.9* 0.804 34 1 152 83 6 15 9 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 526 546 -3.n 526.0 39"/ 261 391.0 0.755 ASOTIN 3 5 BO 10 L 11 4P~ " COLUMB IA 24 2 J2 13 2 L o 1 2 o 31 1 o GARFIELD o 1 33 2 U8 22 a BENTON 243~ 2504 -2. Bl 2448 /491 63.5' 1.006 91 11 9 391 33 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5~ 4 211 FRANKLI N llH Ll64 -1.3' 802 IU9 -28.n 0.696 23 2203 6U 309 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 4 3582 3668 -2.H 895, ";' 3250 26L6 24.2% 8L2.5 0.901 90/ 63 53 244B 139 BENTON I 10 1414 10 309 459 49 583 9 3 802 110 FRANKLI N 1 9 L95 2512 1106 358 CHELAN 1123 /016 4.41 591 611 -U.8; 0.532 1490 72 56 3250 249 33 • JJDICIAL D~TRICT 4 19 I ~09 DOUGLAS 362 301 20.H 210 210 0.o, 0.580 591 49 16 N/R N/R N/R • JUDICIAl. DISTRICT 1485 1311 1.81 142.5 801 B81 -9.H 403.5 0.543 N/R NIR NI R N/R N/R N/R CIIELAN 210 22 I 6B 67 31 26 6 5/ 106 5 10 DOUGLAS B01 11 11 CLALLAM 121t4 1118 H.lt 1t50 511t -12.51 0.362 • JUDICIAL ilISTRICT JEFFERSON 369 300 23.0' 303 251 20.1' 0.821 L31 8 NIR N/R NIR • JUOICIAL OISTRICT L613 LH8 13.8' 806.5 753 165 -1.6' 316.5 0.461 N/R N/R N/R NIR N/R N/R 450 CLALLAM 303 24 3 NIR N/R N/R l 1 62 18.1 3 20 CLARK 4542 J EFFE RS ON 153 16L Ll 4140 9." 3206 3200 0.2l 0.106 • JUDICIAL DISIRICT • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 4542 ",140 9.n 91lB.4 3206 3200 o.a 641.2 0.106 L611 L501 616 62 178 3206 345 30 4 2382 511 L507 616 COWLI Tl /186 I1BB -O.LI 1491 1496 -0.31 CLARK 62 I1B 3206 345 30 1611 0.835 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 2382 511 • JUO IC IAL 0 ISTR ICT L186 1188 -0. III 595.3 L49L L496 -o.n 491.0 0.835 L491 LOO 20 N/R N/R N/R 28 N/R NIR N/R NIR N/R FErlRY COWL I TL 149 L 1011 20 L34 L56 -14.U 21 63 -51. U 0.201 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2B OKANOGAN 591 624 -5.H 322 3B6 -16.6* 0.545 46 U 3 '. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 125 18J -1.1' 125.0 349 449 -22.3; 349.0 0.481 ] 5 21 6 o o I 18 o 130 5Z 46 FERkY 9 322 42 6 2 4 251 Sb o 116 6B 49 GRANT 956 L1l1 -14.H 814 112 0.851 OKANOGAN Sq 14 o 349 48 6 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 5 26'l • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 956 1111 -14.4t 418.0 814 112 401.0 J.851 110 18 593 315 141 219 39d R 52 814 GRANT 16 15 110 L8 593 315 147 GRAYS HARBOR 161B 1613 o.n LOl6 914 11.2% 0.628 219 398 8 52 814 • JUDICIAL DISTiUCT 16 15 ~ JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16La 1613 O.H 10 L6 914 1l.2~ 508.0 0.b28 L 1 1533 403 612 ]/ 10 o 1016 72 GRAYS HARBU{ 155 o 21B 1533 403 bL2 ISLAND 1045 801 30.5t 652 611 0.624 10 J IOl6 12 11 • J~DICIAL OISTRICT 75; J 31 ~.~ SAN JUAN 160 145 lo.n 151 136 0.944 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1205 946 21.4t 602.5 B03 lH 40L.5 0.666 N/R 652 64 It 607 0 0 N/R N/R N/R "/R N/R 112 65 31 ISLAND 6 26 151 2B 6 4 3 12 1110 KING -1.4~ S AN JUAN 903 92 10 719 65 31 29159 29585 30B55 25466 21.2' L.058 • JUDICIAL JI3TRICT • JUOIC IAL OISTR ICT HI II 29159 2 ~585 -l.H 851.6 30855 254bb H.lt 901.5 L.058 1112 245 11ltBB 12054 3514 5461 840~ 196 10294 30ij55 KING 5'101 203 245 17488 12054 3514 KI TSAP 2910 2948 -1.3t L531 2UI -21. 2~ 0.52B 84J9 196 IJ2B4 30B55 1112 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 510 I 2J3 5461 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 41 II 29LO 294B -I.H 121.5 L531 2UL -21.21 384.3 0.528 26 1101 q93 330 1041 4 12 1531 240 K ITSAP o 29 451 26 1101 993 330 KitTITAS 511 55B 3.4~ 366 52B 0.634 101t1 4 12 1531 240 • JUDICIAL UISTRICT a 29 451 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 511 558 3.4% 517.0 366 528 366.0 0.634 366 5a N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R NI R KLlCKlT AT KITTITAS 366 5B 354 -5. It 215 L9<; 8.H 0.640 • JJDIC IAL 0 IST~ ICT SKAMA~ I A 201 IO.U 125 102 22.51 0.H6 44 27 26 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 561 0.5' 564.0 340 301 13.0' 340.) 0.603 19 2 o 215 20 o KLICKITAT 55 4 135 N/R NIR NIR 19 12 5 125 8 I SKAMAN IA ] L 25 LEWIS 1 03~ 1090 -5.H 845 155 11.9; 0.819 9B 14 5 HO 2a L • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5a ~ 16J • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1032 1090 -5.3' 516.0 845 155 11.9 ; 422.5 0.819 413 441 159 B 23 845 49 6 LE;i!S 111 56 41 5~4 413 441 159 LI NCOLN 113 /81 -4.H 162 201 -19.41 0.936 B 23 B45 49 6 • JJDICIAL DISTRICT 111 56 41 59~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 173 181 -4.4~ 113.0 162 201 -19.U 162.0 0.936 27 86 16 22 5 162 LO o L! NCOLN 9 3 121 21 86 L6 MASUN 564 524 1.6* 555 ~59 20.91 0.984 22 5 L62 10 o • JUDICIAL DIS11\ICT 9 3 /21 THURSTON 2 l~b 2111 L.U 2299 L919 L6.21 0.831 Ll 161 219 48 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3310 324L 2. L~ 66l.0 2854 2438 Ll.U 510.8 0.862 112 25S 11 21 555 31 HASON 14J L6 125 11 B59 L216 111 1256 166 61 IBO 229q THURSTON 4 32 2R 1~2Q L43S 225 PACIFIC 5LJ 401 26.0t 450 L60 181. J' 0.811 l021 12 2 )1 2854 162 • JJDICIAL DISTRICT 144 4S l36d WAHK IAKUM 61 BI -11.J~ 62 55 12.a 0.925 190 18 BO • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 580 4B8 18.9' 58u.0 512 215 138. U 512.0 0.883 BI 19 8 450 BI PACIFIC 4 5 332 59 5B 4l 30 32 l2 9 2 62 WAHK IAK~M 6 I 24B 5B 110 PEND OREILL E 195 155 158 39.8; 0.810 2B 10 512 140 ILl • JUDICIAL DISTRICT Il b 364 93 STEVENS 441 488 353 402 -12.ll 0.800 40 24 • JUDiCIAL DISTRICT 636 643 636.0 511 515 -0.8% 5 II. 0 0.803 6 9 158 ~2 134 PEND UHILL;: 29 13 60 41 193 Bl 2 23 353 LB 22B STEVENS 50 9 2~ 23B 362 233 105 PI ERCE 13116 IL113 IB.OI 8341 7603 9.U 0.636 219 B 32 511 40 • JUDICIAL JIST~ICT 85 22 84 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 11(11 LlI16 11113 18.0* 1192.4 8347 1603 9. 8~ 158.8 0.636 222 :b6 122 190 1066 8341 601 81 PIERCE 291 25 5620 1153 27.2 566 122 SKAGIT 1441t L29b lin 653 U2.4C 0.a25 1153 190 L066 B341 601 81 • JUDICIAL JISTRICT 291 2S 5620 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT IH4 1296 122.0 1191 653 82.4' 595.5 0.825 119 L 222 26 3/0 456 101 N/R N/R N/R NIR N/R NIR SNOHOM ISH SKAGIT 1191 222 26 3LO 456 III 1105 6519 b601 6354 4.0; 0.930 • JUDICIAL UISTRICT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1105 6519 a88.1 6601 6354 4.0' B25 .~ 0.930 421 62 zr91 2136 B15 88 1649 3021 L14 421 6601 SNOHaM ISH 1248 421 62 2791 2136 8L5 SPOKANE B826 8216 5249 N/R 0.595 L~4q 3021 114 421 6601 • J~DICIAL OISTR ICT 124ft 8B • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 8826 8276 S82.6 524q N/R 524.9 0.595 N/R N/R NIR 71 19 5249 B42 116 SPOKANE 485 21 3486 84d WALLA liALLA 845 932 -9.3t 831 629 33.1* 0.991 11 19 5249 B42 116 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4RS 21 34B6 B48 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 845 932 -9.3; 422.5 831 629 33. It 0.991 86 9 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R NlR NIII N/R N/R 831 WALLA WALLA 831 86 9 IotiATCOM 2129 2056 3.6. 1094 732 49.51 0.514 • JJDIClAL DISTRICT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2L29 2056 3.6; 109.1 1090\ 132 49.5; 364.7 0.514 266 27 Blt4 358 20B 32~ 146 L04 461 1094 WHATCO~ 2. 21 844 358 208 WHITMAN J69 385 -4.H 319 33L -1.6~ 0.864 146 104 461 10'14 266 21 • JUD I C I AI. 0 I S n I C T 26 21 326 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 369 385 -4 .2~ .169.0 31q 331 -3.6t 319.0 o. B64 3 N/R NlII NIR 152 99 12 o 319 24 "HITMAN 41 9 3 YAKIMA 318J lISl o.n L235 1355 -8.H o .38B 152 99 12 o JI9 24 • JUDICIA!. JISTKICT 41 9 • JUDICiAL DISTRICT lISO 3151 O.H 636.0 L235 1.lS5 -8. 9~ 241.0 0.38B 1419 /221 25B 62 104 L2lS 10 21 VAKIHA 69 L1 383 598 1419 1217 25B •• TOTAL STATE ILl 94201 90689 3.9; L 159L6 21.b; 64d.9 62 104 1215 10 21 aos. 0.8J6 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 69 l1 383 59B 902 33151 24245 1913 I II KI NIl, KI TSAP AND PI ERC!: COUNTY SU PER 1011 COUkT S HAV E U EE~ AUTHOR I Z EO ADD I nONAL JUDGE S FFFEC T! VE JANUARY 'L, L 981. 2065J 1136 I J066 15916 5156 •• TOTAL S~HE 92S4 622 24530 NOTE: THE B~EAKDUWN OF CIVIL DISPOSITIONS FUR THE STATE DO NOT SJ~ TJ THE TOTAL BE:AUSE DETAIL WAS Nn REPORTED OY ALL COUNTIES. NI R • NUT REPORT EO 57 56 .\' ,1 H8lE b9 TABLE 68 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS CI VI L CASES CIVil CASES COMMERC IAL TCRTS ------F I LI NG 5------015 POS II 10NS------____ ---OISPOSITIONS------DISPI DISPI ------F IL I~GS------NUM8ER PERCENT FIL INGS PERCENT 01 SP. FILl NG 1 PERCENT DISP. r-ILlNG NUMBER PERCENI FIL INGS COUNTY ICDUR T OF JUOGES 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO i 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RAUq COUNTY/COURT OF JUDGES 19BO 1979 CHANGE PER JOG I ADAMS 54 67 58 45 20 -35.0' 0.448 28.9~ 1.014 29 20 105.0' 13 • JUDICIAL DIST~ICT 54 61 54.0 ADAMS 20 -35.0l 13.0 0.448 58 45 28.9* 58.0 1.0H * JUDICIAL DISTRICT 29 20 45.0' 13 ASOT IN 109 83 31.3' 54 35 54.3t 0.495 4 50.0~ 0.300 ASOTIN 20 14 42.9' 6 COLUM81A 38 44 -13.61 25 ·19 2 -100.0' 0.000 31.6' 0.658 CDLUMB IA 2 o o GARFIELD 20 6 233.n 9 12 -25.0t 0.450 1 1~ -90.0t 0.250 GARFIELD 4 4 O.Ol • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 167 133 25.6l 167.0 88 66 .H.lI 88.0 0.527 7.0 D.2~9 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 18 44.4: 26.0 7 16 -56.3' 8ENTON 554 625 -11 .4' 546 620 0.986 93 211.at 1.278 -11.9' BENTON 227 304 -25.H 290 FRANKLIN 199 248 -19.8' 157 313 -49.8 , 0.789 66 , 7.6t 0.&12 FRANKLI N 116 81 43. 2~ 71 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 75J 873 188.3 703 933 -24.71 175.8 0.934 159 90.3 1.052 -13.n • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 343 385 -10.91 85.8 361 127.0' CHELAN 160 338 -52.1* 85 171 -5J.lt a.531 lB 105.6' 0.569 CHELAN .;5 49 32.H 37 DOUGLAS 37 8 .362.5' 33 21 57.U 0.892 63 56 12.5' 1.189 DOUGLAS 53 82 -35.4' • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 197 146 -43.1' 98.5 118 192 - 38. 5. 59.0 • 0.599' 100 74 35.U 50.0 U.847 * JUDIC IAL 0 IST~ ICT 118 131 -9.9' 59.0 CLALLAM 231 184 25. 5~ -9.U 0.423 37 36 2.U 0.160 CLALLAM 71 48 47.9' 30 33 JEFFER SON 101 62 62.9. 0.550 56 56 0.0' 0.554 JEFFER SON 20 16 25.0' 11 25 - 56. 0' • Jun IC IAI. 0 ISTR ICT Hl 246 35.o, 166.0 93 -'29.H 20.5 0.451 92 1.1t 46.5 0.280 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 91 64 42.2' 45.5 41 58 CLARK 667 634 5.a 396 455 -13.0' 0.594 221 11.U 0.633 CLARK 349 316 10.H 661 634 5.2% 133.4 O~ 0.633 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 396 455 -13. 19.2 0.594 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 349 316 10.H 69.8 221 11.U COWLI Tl 299 352 - 15. 250· 0.897 IX -7.1' O.B 36 CDkLl Tl 107 77 39.0' 96 62 54. at • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 299 352 -15.U 252 -7.U 8).3 32.0 0.897 0.836 * JUDICIAL OISTRlr:T 107 77 39.01 35.7 96 62 54.B: FERRV 5J 31 35. U 5 12 -58.H 0.100 1 6 -83.3 , 0.125 FERRY 8 II - 33. 3~ OKANOGAN 7Z 85 -l5. 3~ 19 22 -13.6; 0.264 17 0.308 OKANOGAN 26 56 -53.6' 8 - 52. 9' • JUOICIAL JISTRICT 122 III ~.O, llZ.0 24 3't -29.H 24.0 0.197 9.0 0.26~ * JUDICIAL DISTRICT 34 bB -50. O~ 34.0 9 23 -60.9' GRANT 21) 341 - 21. 3~ 0.500 255 271 -5.9' 0.934 r,RANT 40 40 O.OX 20 28 -28.6' • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 273 341 -21.31 136.5 255 10.0 0.500 271 -5.9' 127.5 0.934 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 40 40 0.0' 20.0 20 28 -28.6' GRAYS HAR8UR 73 801 -8.8' 27 53 -49.1t 0.370 -28. 1.3~3 GRAY S HARBOR 35 100 -65.0' 47 66 a: • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 73 80 -8.8 , 36.5 -28.U 23.5 1.343 27 53 -49. It 13.5 0.370 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 35 100 -65.al 17.5 47 66 ISLAND 224 114 96.5' H9 -15.01 0.773 142 59.b. 0.634 ISLAND 44 46 -4.3t 34 40 SAN JUAN Zd 0.6&7 33 17.H 33 30 10.0' 1.000 SAN JUAN 3 3 0.0' 2 6 - 66. 7t • JUDICIAL 0 ISTR ICT 2 257 142 81.0' 128.5 175 47. U 18.0 0.766 119 87.5 0.681 • JUDICIAL DISIR ICT 47 49 -4.1l 23.5 36 46 -21.n KING 1284 8893 - 18. It 1.196 8453 6279 34.6' 1.160 KI NG H89 2780 o.n 3342 3437 -2.8' • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 34111 7284 8898 -18.U 214.2 at.. 53 6279 248.6 1.160 98.3 1.198 34.6' • JUD ICI AL 0 ISTR ICT 341 11 2789 2780 O.ll 92.0 3342 3437 -2.8' KITS AP 60J 642 252 460 -45.ll 0.420 -29.U 0.455 1<1 TSAP 191 2a3 -5.9' 87 124 • JUUICIAL OISTRICT 4111 600 642 150.0 25., 460 -45.2l 63.0 0.420 -29. 8~ 21.8 0.455 • JUDICIAL UISTRICT 4111 191 203 -5 .9~ 47.8 87 12't , KITTITAS 90 91 -7.2~ -69.0 , 0.564 41 146 -71.9' 0.45b KIT! liAS 39 38 2.6' 22 71 • JUDI CIAL D 1ST R ICT 90 97 90.0 41 22.0 0.564 -7.2' 146 -71.9' 41.0 0.456 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 39 36 2.6X 39.0 22 71 -6Q. OX KL ICK ITAT 76 61 24.61 38 30 26.7:1: 0.500 l 10J.ax 0.800 KLICK ITAT 5 10 -50.0l 4 SKAIIAN I A 12 Z1 - 55.6' 2Z 26 -15.H I.B)) 12 116.7: 0.510 SKAMANIA 51 22 131.8' 26 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 88 8~ o .Ot 88.0 60 56 7.U 60.0 O. bB2 114.3X 30.0 0.536 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 56 3Z 75.0t 56.0 30 14 LE~ IS -5.4t 0.179 243 251 301 &.0'( 1.239 LEW IS 28 47 - 40. 4' 5 10 -50.01 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 24J 251 -5.H 2.5 0.179 121.5 301 6. O~ 150.5 1.239 • JUDICIAL ulSTRICT 2B 47 -4J.H 14.0 5 10 - 50. O~ LI NCOLN 41 23 78. ;;~ -1~ 0.400 38 .5t 0.829 L1NCDLN 5 4 25.0' 2 7 • JUDICIAL IlISTHICT 41 23 78.n -10.5' 2.0 O.GOO 38 0.829 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 4 25.0~ S.O 2 7 MASON 9~ 129 -23.H 128 75 70.n 1.293 -21.1 ~ 0.938 MASUN 32 29 10.H 30 38 THURSTUN 519 514 12.6' 522 377 38.5X 0.902 ~ 08 156 -30.8' 0.777 THURSTON 139 153 -9.2l • JUDICIAL DISTKICT 618 643 5.H 135.6 650 4~2 43.8t 130.0 0.959 -28.9X 27.6 0.807 • JUDIC IAL DISTRICT 171 18Z -6.0' 3'0.2 138 194 PACIFIC 161 106 57.5. 223 37 502.H l.335 51 61 -23.9' 52 35 48.6X 1.020 .AtiKI AKUM 100.0X PACIFIC 0.944 4 2 4 1 30~. 0' 1.000 WAHKI AI 58 59 ...... ------~------~.-,,------TABLE 71 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS TABLE 70 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COli R T S CIVIL CASES CI VI L CASES DO~EST IC RELATlO~S PROPERTY RIGHTS ------FILINGS------DISPOSITIONS------DISPI DISPI NU~BER PERCENT FILINGS PERCENT 01 SP. FILING ------F ILl NGS------DIS PUS IT IONS------COUN TY ICOUR T UF JWGE S 1980 1919 CHANGE PER JOG FILING 1960 1979 CH4NGE PER JOG RATIO NUMBER PERCENT FIL INGS PERCENr DISP. 19BD 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO COUNTY ICOUIH Or JUDGES 1980 1919 CHANGE PER JOG ADAHS 91 90 6d 46 47.6t 0.147 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 91 90 91.0 0.882 66 46 47. 8~ 66.0 0.747 17 15 13. 3~ 15 !5 AOAMS 15 15 15.0 0.882 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 15 13.H 17 .0 ASOT IN 208 212 -23.5l 181 93 ?4.6% 0.870 COLUMBIA 35 41 -25. 5~ 46 36 33.3% 1.371 12 3 3JO.Ot 0.750 16 9 77. Bt GARfIELD 16 31 -56.8t 25 45 -44.H 1.563 ASOT IN 3 o 0.750 COLUMBI A 4 2 100.0t • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 259 356 - 27.2' 259.0 254 174 46.0t 254.0 0.981 2 3 -B.n 0.400 GARF IELD 5 o 25.0 17 6 183.H 17.0 0.680 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 25 11 127. 3~ HENTON 1217 ll33 7.H 1396 68b 103.5* 1.147 FRANKLIN 449 530 -15. 3~ 395 614 -35.1l 115 3, .259.4: 0.467 0.880 BENTON 236 234 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 1666 1663 O.lt 1791 1300 31.8i 447.8 1.075 53 36 41.2t 0.646 FRANKL IN Bl 46 79.5 168 68 IH.lt 42.0 0.526 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 318 262 CHELAN 646 602 7.H 439 413 -7.zt 0.680 DOUGLAS 126 109 15 •.U 59 69 -14.5* .0.46B 1 9 -88.9t. 0.043 CHELAN 23 34 -31.4l • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 772 711 B.6* 386.0 498 542 -8.lt 249.0 0.645 12 12 O.C~ 0.545 DOUGLAS 22 11 100.0~ 21 -36. I~ 6.5 0.289 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 45 45 0.0: 22.5 13 CLALLAM 1\7 642 l1.lt 335 383 -12.5* 0.467 JEFFER SON 203 153 32.7t IB7 139 34.5l 0.921 -22.n 0.283 12J 56 114.3t 34 44 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 920 795 15.7: 460.0 522 522 O.Ol 261.0 0.567 CLALLAM 15 13.3: 0.810 JEFFERSON 21 29 -27.6t 17 Sl 59 -13.6t 25.5 0.362 • JUDICIAL DISTR ICT 141 B5 65.9: 70.5 CLARK 2376 2244 5.9* 1716 1638 -6.6* 0.722 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2370 2244 5.9* 475.2 1716 1838 -6.U 0.722 254 234 B.5t 0.591 CLARK ~30 388 10.8t 86.0 254 234 8. 5~ 50.B 0.591 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 430 3B8 10.6% COWLITZ la61 107B -1.Ot 880 967 -9.01 0.825 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1067 1013 -1.Ot 355.7 BBO 967 -9.0' 293.3 0.825 24 15 60.0t 0.923 COWLI Tl 26 3J 6.7 24 15 60.0: B.O 0.923 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 30 FERRY 5~ 48 14.6t 9 27 -6~. 7* 0.164 CKANOGAN 419 31\ 12.9% 277 -7.1' 0.632 273 1.5t 0.6&1 19 21 -9.5' 12 13 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 474 419 D.lt 474.0 266 300 -4.7t 286.0 0.603 FERRY 25 - 32. ot 0.386 OKANOGAN H 44 O.Ol 17 63.0 29 36 -23.1t 29.0 0.460 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 63 65 -3.U GRANT 576 -11.9t 428 407 5.2* 0.905 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 576 -17.9: 23b.5 426 407 5.2: 214.0 0.905 20 15 B6.n 0.651 GRANT ~3 24 79.21 21.5 28 15 66.n 14.0 0.651 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 43 24 79.2' GRAYS HARBOR 654 606 1.9t 489 397 23.2~ 0.748 • JUOIG1Al 0!51!IIC1 654 606 7.9 327.0 4B9 397 23.2* 244.5 O.HB 141 83 69.9t 0.154 * GRAYS HARBOR un 119 57.U 14! 83 69.9t 70.5 0.754 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT IB7 119 57.lt 93.5 ISLAND 476 478 -u.4% 354 368 -3.B t 0.744 SAN JUAN 66 6J 4. Bt 59 65 -9.2* 0.B94 58 69 -15.H 1.349 ISLAND 43 76 - 43. 4l • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 54I 541 0.2: Z71.0 413 433 -4.6i 206.5 0.762 38 24 5B. H 1.056 SAN JUAN 36 2q 24.1% 96 93 J.2t 48.0 1.215 • JUDICIAL DISTR ICT 2 79 105 -2".81 KING 12546 12063 13556 12302 10.2* 1.081 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 3411) 12546 12063 369.0 \35% 12302 10.2* 398.7 1.081 2590 1567 65.H 0.697 KING 3717 2406 54.5% 109.3 2590 1561 65.H 16.2 0.697 • JUDICIAL ~ISTRICT 34111 3717 2406 54.5% KITS AP 1729 1686 2.6( 10Bb 1252 -\3.3 ~ 0.628 • JUDICIAL OISTHICT 't (1) 1729 16B6 2.6 432.3 108b 1252 -13.31 271.5 0.628 55 105 -47.6( 0.252 * KITHP 216 196 ll.2l 55 105 -47.6' 13.8 0.252 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4111 21B 196 11.2l KITTITAS 241 216 ll.6* 197 223 -11.7t 0.817 • JUDI CI AL 0 1ST R ICT 241 216 241.0 197 223 197.0 61 -36.lt 0.886 11.6* -11.7t 0.817 KITT ITAS 44 36 22.2( J9 39 61 -36. U 39.0 0.886 • JUDICIAL DISTKICT 44 36 22.2( KL ICK IiAT ll9 147 -19.0' 125 130 -3.8t 1.050 SKAHAN I A 113 125 - 9.6: 68 51 19.3~ 20 35.0t 1.421 0.602 !9 16 18.Bl 27 • JUDICIAL OISTHICT 232 212 -14.H 232.0 193 IB7 3.2* 193.0 0.832 KLICK ITAT 3 100.0( 0.300 SKAHAN I A 20 II 61. Bt 6 33 23 43.5( 33.0 0.846 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 39 21 44.4t 39.0 LEWIS 683 699 -2.3% 516 423 22.0t 0.755 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 683 699 -2.1* 341.5 516 423 22.0t 258.0 0.755 5 32 -~4.H 0.185 UWIS 27 51 -47.ll 5 32 -84.4l 2.5 0.IB5 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27 51 -47.U 13.5 LINCOLN 101 54 98 117 -16.2* 0.970 • JUDICIAL )ISTRICr 101 84 101.0 96 117 -16.2t 10 -BO.Ot 2.000 98.0 0.970 LINCOLN 22 -95.H 2 1.0 2 10 -80.0' 2.0 2.000 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT I2 - 95. 5% HASON 295 254 16.U 282 21b 2.2~ 0 .. 956 THuRSTON 1407 1451 -3.0~ 1267 lUO 12.1 , 0.900 41 0.816 MASON BB b8 29.H 72 n.6' • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 1702 1705 -0.2; 340.4 1549 140b ID.2t 0.910 16B 140 2J.0' 0.664 THURSTON 253 24d 2.0t 240 181 J2.6( 48.0 0.104 • JUDICIAL DISTklCT 341 316 7.9t 66.2 PACIFIC UI 179 23.5* 126 71 77.S( 0.570 HAHKI AKUH 26 31 -29.Tt 32 29 10.3t 1.231 II 19J.H a.696 46 34 35.31 32 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 247 216 1~.H 247.0 15H 100 56.0: 158.0 0.640 PA<;I FIC 2 250.0% 2.333 'AHKI AKU/1 3 1 -57.ll 7 39 IJ 200.0~ 3Q.0 0.196 • JUDICIAL DISTKICT 49 41 19.H 49.0 PEND DREI LLE 72 70 63 62 1.6( o .B75 S TE VEN S 26~ 275 232 250 -7.21 0.8hl II 6b.H 0.141 PEND OREILLE 21 23 17.H 20 • JUDIC IAL 0 ISTR ICT 341 345 341.0 295 312 -5.4: 295.0 0.865 25 0.0% 0.862 STEVENS 29 41 -29.H 25 45 31 21.6; J.804 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 56 64 -12.5~ 56.0 P I E~CE 5661 5001 4002 3626 10.U 0.663 • JUUICIAL DISTRICT IIC II 5661 5eO! 532.8 4002 3626 10.U 363.6 0.683 286 -34.3: 0.132 PIERCE 1421 1252 13.5' 188 286 -34.3t 17.! ~.\32 • JUDICIAL lliSTRICT III II !421 1252 13.H 129.2 lBB SKAGI T 763 736 633 379 67.0: 0.830 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 763 736 381.5 633 379 316.5 0.830 17 O.Ol Q ,366 b7.0' SKAGIT 44 65 -32.n 17 17 17 0.0; B.5 00386 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 44 65 -32. 3t 22.0 SNOHOMISH 3510 3384 5.5* 3342 3241 3.lt 0.936 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3570 3384 5.H 446.3 3342 3241 3.U 411.8 0.936 604 1l.H 1.052 SNOHOMISH 640 b78 -5. 6~ 673 673 604 1l.41 84.1 1.052 • JUDICIAL DISTRICr 640 b7B -5.6l 60.0 SPOKANE 4236 3b32 Ib.6* N/R N/R • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 4236 3632 16.6% N/R N/R N/R SPOKANE 233 2u3 14. Bt N/R NfR • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 233 203 14.8% 23.3 N/R WALLA llALlA 493 533 -7.H 445 218 60.U 0.903 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 493 533 -1.5¥ 246.5 445 278 60.U 222.5 0.903 54 -25.9; 0.85! WALLA WALLA 47 43 9.H 40 54 -25.9' 20.0 a .e51 • JUDICI AL DISTRICT 47 43 9.31 23.5 40 WHATCD~ 958 95B 0.0: 609 371 61.5t 0.636 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 958 958 O.Ol 319.3 609 377 61.5% 203.0 0.63b 30 3ln.Ol 0.454 WHATCOM 211 204 32.8t 123 123 3~ 31O.0( 41.0 0.454 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 271 204 32. Bt 90.3 "HI THAN 189 191 -I.O~ 111 212 -19.H 0.905 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 169 191 -I. O~ ,89.0 171 212 -19.3: 0.905 5 -8J .Ol 10 -70.0l 3.000 WHITMAN 10 -70.J< 3.aoa • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 -80.0% 1.0 YAKI MA 1752 1729 146 184 -20. n 0.083 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1752 1729 350.4 146 184 -20.1t 29.2 0.063 157 -8.9l 0.691 YAKIMA 207 206 O.H 143 143 151 -8.H 2B.6 ~.691 • JUDIC IAl (lISTR ICT 207 206 0.5t 41.4 •• TOTAL srAT~ ll1 4493B 42529 5.U 3M. I 34341 )1545 B. 9~ 293.5 0.764 71t.6 5011 1834 32.lt 0.581 $' TOTAL STATE 111 B730 69B4 III KING, KITS4P AND PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAV~ BEE~ AUTHORIZED ADDlf[ONAL JUDGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY I, 19B1. N/R • NUT REPCRTED III ~.ING, KITSAP AND PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE aEE'I AUtHORIZED ADDITIONAL JUDGES EfFECTIVE JANUARY I, 1961. NfR • NOT REPORTED 61 60 .------~~.'\,~----~.--.. - . ... ",.",." TABLE 7Z TABLE 73 C 0 U ~ T S WASHINGTON SUPERIOR WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS C I VI L CASES CIVil CASES AOHINISTRAT IVE LAW REVIEW OTHER CIVIL PETITIONS/CnHPLAINTS III NG ------OISPOS IT IONS------OISPI ------F S------FILING ------FILINGS------_ NUH6ER PERCENT FIL INGS PERCENT OISP. ------0 IS POS I T ION S------01 SPI 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO COUN TY ICOUR T NUMBER PERCENT FILINGS COUNTY ICOUR T OF JUDGES 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG 1980 OF JUDGES 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG PERCEI~T DIS? FIL ING 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIU o 0.500 ADAHS ADAMS 2 2 0.0% H L3 7. n 2 0.01 2.0 o 1.0 0.500 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 14 5 180.0 I • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 14 13 7. n: 14.0 1.000 I~ 5 180.0% 14.0 1.000 0.759 29 I 2800. 01 22 I 2100.01 ASOT IN 9 ASOTIN 0.000 COLUHBIA 20 -55.0% 5 COLUH81 A 1 2 -50.0% o o 3 2 150.0% 0.556 o GARF IELO 2 5~. 0% I I GARFIELD o o a o 1 -100.0% 0.0% 0.333 3 900.0% 30. a 22 1 2100.0S 22.0 0.733 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 30 12 23· -47.81 12.0 6 3 100 .0% 6.0 0.500 5 2 150. 0' 0.294 8ENTON 8ENTON 17 6 lA3.n 164 Iq3 -15.0% 22 5 340.0 I 1.~67 FRANKL IN 87 64 FRANKLIN 15 7 ll~. 3' 268 244 9.n 0.530 13 146.21 8.0 27 7 285. 7S 6.8 0.844 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 98 78 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 32 4 432 ~37 -1.U 108.0 0.366 185 1~2 46.3 CHELAN 0.~28 CHELAN v o o o 178 50 256.0% 5 1 400.01 DOUGLAS 35 5 600. O~ DGUGLAS a 1 - 100.01 118 90 31. U 0.197 I -100.0% 0.0 5 I 400. 0; 2.5 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT 38 51 -25.5% • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o 296 140 1 Ll.4: 1~8.0 0.322 73 56 rD. 4% 36.5 0.247 I 7 -85.ft 0.125 CLALLAM CLALLAM 8 23 -65.2: 77 136 -43.4% 4 -100. O~ 0.000 JEFFERSON 10 JEFFERSON 6 28 -78.6: o 17 Ll 54.5% 7 ~2.9 ~ 0.130 -72.5: 7.0 I LL -90.9~ 0.5 0.011 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3 11 -72.H • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 14 51 94 147 -36.1S 47.0 0.176 L3 18 -27. U 6.5 0.138 1.333 12 4 200.0: CLARK 692 CLARK 1.333 540 28. It 597 1.8 12 4 200. 0; 2.4 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 692 465 28.U 0.863 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 540 2d.U 138.4 597 465 26.4; 1I9.4 0.863 20 6 233.3; 1.333 COWLITZ COWLIT l 15 15 O. 01 269 234 15.0% 15 0.0; 5.0 20 6 233.3: 6.7 1.333 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 219 176 24.4~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3 15 269 23~ 15.0: 89.7 0.814 ZI9 176 24.~" 73.0 0.B14 I -100.0; FERRY FERRY o 7 -100.0; o 2 2l -90.9% 2 -IOO.Ot 0.000 OKANOGAN 4 -IOO.O~ OKANOGAN 1 4 -75. 0: o 2J 54 - 63.0% 0.000 LL -90.9% 1.0 o J - 100. 0' 0.0 0.000 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 47 -97.9: • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1 U 76 -71.n 22.0 0.050 51 -q~. at 1.0 0.045 7 7 O.OS 3.500 GRANT GRANT 2 -60.01 11J Ll4 -3.5% 1.0 7 7 o. at 3.5 3.500 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27 41 -34.U • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 -60.0 " 2 110 114 -3.5; 55.0 0.245 Z7 41 -14. U 13.5 0.245 -8J.6~ 0.750 GRAYS HARBOR GRAYS HARSOR 8 41 -80.51 6 3l 598 %8 -80.5% 4.0 6 31 -80.6% 3.0 0.750 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5.n 257 257 J.O X • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 B 41 598 56B 5.3X 299.0 0.430 257 257 o.Ot 12A.5 0.430 I J.H 0.333 ISLAND ISLAND 3 2 50.0% 1 252 83 203.6X 9 3 200.0' 3.000 SAN JUAN 60 40 50. OX SAN JUAN 3 10 -70. a: 17 12 41.7t 0.238 6 12 -50 .01 3.0 10 4 150. 01 5.0 1.667 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 26y IJ 8 25.0X 0.588 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 95 183.2% 134.5 70 48 45. 8~ 35.0 0.260 299 316 -5.41 145 76 90.81 o .~85 'KING 2250 0.485 2984 -24.6% 2701 DISTRICT 34111 299 316 -5.4; 8.8 145 76 90. AS • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 34lL ) 225U 1793 50.6t 1.200 K!N~UDIClAL 2984 -24.6f 66.2 2701 1793 50.6': 79.4 1.200 4 -75. as a 2 -IOJ.OS O.OUO KITSAP 154 KITS AP 2UJ -24.U 52 4(1) ~ -75.0' 0.3 o 2 -IDa. 0' 0.0 0.000 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 4(1) 152 -65.8 t ~ JUDICIAL DISTRICT 154 203 -2~.U 38.5 0.338 52 152 -65.S: 13.0 0.318 0.125 10 -20.0% 2 -50. 0: KITTITAS 145 KITTITAS 1.0 0.125 158 -9.2% 53 10 - 20. 0: 8.0 2 -50.0" • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 145 22 I~O. 9( 0.366 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 158 - 8. z: 145.0 53 22 14J.9X 53.J o .36b 0.000 KLICKITAT KLICK ITA T 3 0.01 o o lI2 1I5 -2.6; J o 0.000 SKAMAN lA 19 16 18. A: SKAMANIA 2 100. as 28 19 55.6% O. 170 25.0% 5.0 o o 0.0 0.000 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 2 ~.O; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 140 133 5.n 140.0 V.071 21 18 16.11 21.0 0.150 12 4 200.0: 20Q.H 0.250 Lbl/S 35 LEwiS 26 3~.6t 15 12 ~ 200 6.0 200.0% 1.5 0.250 • JUDICIAL OISTR ICT 2 )5 200.0S • JUDICIAL DISTRICT .O, 26 34. 6~ 17.5 0.429 15 200.H 7.5 0.429 -66.7l LlNCULN LINCOLN 7 -IUO.O; 25 41 -39.0; 7 -100.01 0.0 -66.n 1.0 • JUDICIAL DISTR ICT 25 26 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 25 41 -39.0% 25.0 1.000 25 26 25.0 1.000 5 5 0.0% 5.000 HASON HASON 1 10 -90.01 46 32 43.8% L15 b.ll 88 34 158.n 0.721 THURSTUN 34 21 61. q: THURSTON 122 236 194 21.6~ 0.739 123 125 -1.6, 24.6 93 39 138.5¥ 18.h 0.756 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 131 L17 12"H 0.555 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 282 226 24.8X 56. ~ 165 136 19.6: 33.0 0.585 0.167 PACIFIC PACI FIC 6 -25.0% I O.O~ 17 12 .AHK IAKUM 41.H 12 4 kAHKI AKUM o o 13 15 200.0' 0.70b -25.01 6.0 I O. O~ 1.0 0.167 • JUDICIAL OIST~ICT -!J.n I 3 -66.71 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 30 27 1l.U 30.0 0.077 13 7 85. 7S 13.0 0.433 I a.H 0.500 PEND OREILLE PEND OREILLE 2 o 20 12 66.7t 6 -33.3% 0.500 S TE VE NS 17 5 240.J % STEVENS 8 LL -27.n 2 8 -75.0l 0.850 10 -9.U 10.0 7 -28.6¥ 5.0 0.500 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 10 -50.0t • JUDIClI.L OISTRICT LL 22 20 10.01 22.0 2.500 22 15 46.7t 22.0 1.000 57 IDa -~3. 0' 2.591 PIERCE PIERCE 22 92 -76. U 155·) 871 78. OX 92 -76.1: 2.0 57 100 - 43.0' 5.7. 2.591 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 111 Ll 10 31 -61.71 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1111 ) 22 1550 871 78.0% 140.9 0.006 10 31 - 67. I: 0.9 O.OOb 37 7 428.6% 0.925 SKAG IT SKAGIT 40 20 100.0% 61 54 13.0; 100.0% 20.0 37 7 428.6% 18.5 0.925 • JUDICUL DISTRICT 59 33 78.8 ; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 40 20 61 54 13.0t 30.5 0.967 59 33 78.8% 29.5 0.967 53 55 -3.6% 0.639 SNUHUM ISH SNOHOHISH 63 55 50.9% 483 353 36.8; 55 50.n 10.4 53 55 -3.6: 0.639 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 428 408 4.9; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 83 483 353 36.8: 60.4 0.886 428 408 4.9: 53.5 o .a86 Nt R Nt~ SPOKANE SPOKANE 34 44 -22.7% 596 210~ -7l.n NIH NI R • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 34 44 -22.H 3.4 N/R N/R • JUDICIAL DISTRICT Iv 596 2105 -71.71 59.6 I~/R N/K 0.000 o 33 -IOO.O~ wALLA WALLA 86 WALLA WALLA 0.000 89 -3.4t 67 2 1.5 o 33 -100.0% 0.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 40 67. 5~ 0.179 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 86 89 -3.4% 43. J 67 40 67.5t 33.5 ".179 15 23 6 l 200.0% 0.400 <1HA TCOH WHA TCOM 0.400 168 98 71.4% 15 23 5.0 6 2 20J.l% 2.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 168 51 5000.0* 0.304 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 98 7l.4l 56.0 51 5tJO·).ut 17.0 0.30~ o 0.000 _HI THAN WHITMAN 2 o a 53 -1.Q* 2.0 o o 0.0 0.000 • JUOICIAL OISTRICT ~O. O( • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 a .'J -1.9% 53.0 0.057 50.0( 3. a 0.057 0.200 VAKIHA VAKI HA 10 3 233.3% 161 ISQ 233.H 2.0 0.4 0.200 • JUO IC IAL 0 I STRI CT III 101 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 3 161 150 32.2 0.689 L11 101 22.2 0.689 117 792 888 -10.8% 6.8 515 410 4.4 J.650 •• TOTAL STATE 117 ~l49 9919 -9.31 77.3 5258 4054 44.9 0.581 •• TOTAL STATE PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE SEEN AJTHORIZEO ADDlT IONAL JUDGES EFFECTIVE I, 1981. III KING, KI TSAP AND JANUA~Y 11) KING, KI TSAP AND PIE~CE COuNTY SUPERIIJR COURTS HAVE SEEN AJTHllRllEO ADDITIONAL JUOGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY I, 1981 • NI R • NOT REPORT EO NI ~ ~ NOT RE PO~T EO 62 63 t' , .'\, TABLE 74 TABLE 75 WASHINGTO~ SUPERIOR COURTS WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS CIV IL CASES HISTORY OF CRIMINAL FILINGS 1975 - 19S0 CIVIL APPEALS FRDH COURTS OF LIMITED JURI SDICTION 1975 1976 1977 1976 1979 1980 ------DIS POS IT 1O~ S------01 ------FI L1 NGS ------SPI AOA~S 49 72 PERCENT DISP. 67 73 56 46 NUMBER PERCENT FI LINGS FIL ING • JU!!lCIAL DISTRICT 49 7Z COU'lTY ICOUR T OF JUDGES 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO 67 73 56 46 A SOT! N 50 38 73 ADAMS o o -100.0~ 0.000 77 53 7/9 COlJMBIA 25 32 40 33 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT o 1.0 o -100.011 0.0 0.000 GARFI ELD 38 ~.~ 9 14 10 4 6· :,-, II • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 84 84 ASOT IN o o o 0.000 123 114 97 Q.; COLUMB IA I 2 1 o 1.000 ~ 8ENTON 156 217 194 197 GARF IE LD I o o I -IOO.~ 0.000 FRANKLI N 250 397 177 195 138 171 182 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 7 2 7.0 1 I J.Ol 1.0 0.143 .!l • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 333 156 412 332 368 432 553 BENTON 16 9 100.011 9 o 0.500 CHELAN 123 150 136 135 172 163 FRANKL IN 20 6 233.31 6 7 0.300 OOUGLAS 40 69 47 03 65 74 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 38 15 15) .3l IS 7 3.8 0.395 • JUDIC IAL DISTRICT 163 219 183 198 237 237 CHELAN 51 3 1600 .O~ o I -100.0' 0.000 C LALLAH 297 253 248 370 30) DOUGLAS 6 o a o 0.000 JEFFERSON 366 32 42 41 64 91 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 57 3 1800.0l 28.5 a I -100.011 0.0 0.000 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 329 104 295 289 434 394 470 CLALLAM 20 29 -31.0; 3 4 -25.0l 0.150 CLARK 488 536 617 JEFFERSON I 1 0.01 3 1 200.01 3.000 534 518 740 • JUDIC!AL DISTRICT 488 536 617 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 30 -30.011 10.5 6 5 20.0l 3.0 0.286 534 518 740 COWl I Tl 395 295 236 CLARK 19 10 90. Ol 10 5 100.al 0.526 335 369 411 • JIJDICIAL DISTRICT 395 29~ 236 335 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19 10 90.0% 3.8 10 5 100. ~ 2.0 0.526 3b9 411 FERRY 12 19 32 34 COWL IT l 2 50. a; 2 100.0' 0.333 OKANOGAN 84 42 114 133 160 156 199 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 50.0' 1.0 2 100.0' 0.7 0.667 .' JUDICIAL DISTRICT 126 IH 152 192 190 283 184 FERRY o 9 -100.01 a a GRAo~ T 205 169 229 lH CKANOGAN 9 10) -10.011 o 0.000 201 207 v • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 205 169 229 149 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 19 -52.611 9.0 o a 0.0 0.000 201 207 GRAYS HAR8DR 214 203 237 GRANT 15 11 36.4' 3 3 J.Ol 0.200 202 230 221 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 214 203 237 202 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15 11 36.4~ 7.5 3 3 O. all 1.5 0.200 230 Ul ISLAND 115 liB 105 104 90 GRAYS HARBIlR 6J 99 -36.4% 47 27 74. U 0.746 SA~ JUAN 123 31 56 38 Ie 23 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6] 99 -36.4% 31.5 47 27 74.U 0.746 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 154 3~ 174 143 122 113 158 ISLAND 2 50.0' 3 4 -25. 0' 1.000 KING 428a 4567 4493 4432 4539 5621 SAN JUAN a o o 0.000 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4Z8J 4567 4493 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT Z 150.0l 2.5 3 4 -25.0' 1.5 0.600 4432 4539 5621 KITSAP 548 535 486 KING 274 138 98.611 67 12 459.H 0.H5 446 475 495 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 548 535 486 446 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT )4111 274 138 98.6' B. I 67 12 458.n 2.0 0.245 475 495 KI TTl TAS 101 65 91 K ITSAP 17 14 21.4: 5 16 -68.8' 84 80 136 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 101 65 91 B4 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4111 17 14 21.411 4.3 5 16 -68.8' 1.3 80 136 KLICKITAT 07 50 41 59 102 KITTITAS 10 3 233.3~ 13 3 333.3' 1.300 SKA~ANIA 83 41 59 H 34 66 • JUDICIAL DIST~ICT 10 3 233. 3' 10.0 13 3 333.H 13.0 1.300 • JUDIC IAL DISTRICT 108 53 109 B5 93 168 136 KLICKITAT 2 2 0.011 1 100.0t 1.000 LE~I S 345 345 319 SKAMAN IA 2 3 -33.3% 2 -50 .Ot 0.500 273 328 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 345 345 319 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 5 - 20.0* 4.0 3 o.O.t 3.0 0.750 273 328 II NCDL~ 41 64 44 LEW I S /) -33.H 0.000 30 41 49 o a • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 41 64 44 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 - 33.3' 2.0 a o 0.0 0.000 30 41 49 ~ASON 116 148 147 102 153 161 LINCOLN o D o a THURSTo~ 456 382 339 .114 445 468 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o C 0.0 o a 0.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 572 530 486 416 598 6Z9 MASON 3 2 50.0% 4 3 33.3% 1.333 PACI FIC 108 107 114 99 107 THURSTON 10 42 -76.2' 15 25 -40.0% 1.500 WAHK IA~UH 119 19 15 14 13 15 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 44 - 70.5' 2.6 19 28 -32.U 3.8 1.462 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 121 22 122 128 liZ 122 141 PACIFIC 5 1 400.0' 3 1 200. at 0.600 PEND CREILLE 34 46 46 40 52 41 .AHKIAKUM 3 1 200. all I a 0.333 STEVENS 51 64 52 6) 4~ • JUDICIAL ulSTR1CT o 2 300 .O~ e.o 4 1 300. 0' 4.0 0.500 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 91 75 110 98 100 97 116 PEND OREILU Z 1 100.011 1 -100.0t 0.000 o PIERCE 1883 1821 lB49 2005 STEVENS 1 ) I o 1.000 1861 2461 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1883 1821 1849 2005 18bl • JUDICIAL ulSTRICT 3 1 200.0~ 3.0 1 1 O. 0' 1.0 0.333 H61 SKAG IT 145 12) 133 l66 PIERCE 384 302 27.2l 2 3 -33.3% 0.Ol5 15B 259 -JUOICIAL DISTRICT 145 123 133 266 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11111 )84 302 21.2' 34.9 2 3 -33.3' 0.2 0.005 158 259 SNIH DMI SH 600 558 624 SKAG IT e w.Ot o o 0.000 H7 1039 1378 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 600 558 624 747 1039 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 60.0~ 4.0 o a 0.0 0.000 1378 SPOKANE II)) 1052 986 1012 1105 SNQHOH ISH 47 Z2 113 .6~ 47 1.000 1053 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 1133 1052 988 10 12 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 47 2Z 113.6l 5.9 47 1.000 1105 1053 ~ALLA wALLA B~ 251 303 225 SPOKANE 74 N/R N/R 196 252 • JUDICIAL 01 STRICT 236 251 303 225 196 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 74 7.4 N/R N/R 25l WHATCOH 351 325 344 370 WALLA WALU 9 9 o .Ot 2 2 O. at 0.222 44Z 519 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 351 325 344 170 442 • JUDIC IAL 0 ISTR ICT 9 q 0.0' 4.5 2 2 O.J' 1.0 0.222 5!9 WHITMAN ~4 63 5S 4 -25. Ot 59 64 69 WHATCllH 8 21 -01.9' 3 0.375 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 54 63 55 • JUDICIAL ulSTRICT 8 21 -61.9% 3 4 -25.0' 1.0 0.375 5~ 04 69 YAKIMA 758 802 967 BR9 .HITMAN 0.017 981 1000 13 5 160.0' 0.0' • JUDIC IAL JIST RICT 756 802 967 689 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 5 160.Cl 13.0 O. 0% 1.0 0.077 981 1000 •• TOTAL STATE 13913 \4053 14141 14278 YAKIMA 4J 43 -7. at 40 27 48.U 1.0JO ISlZ4 11930 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 40 43 -7.0t 8.0 40 27 48. n 8. a 1.0(10 •• TOT AL ST ATE 111 1154 8Tl 9.9 294 193 52.n 2.5 0.255 III KING, KITSAP AND PIERCE C()JNTV SUPERIO~ COURTS HAVE BEE~ AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL J!JJGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,1981. ~/R • NOT REPORTEO 64 65 " .'- TABLE 76 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS TABLE 77 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS CRIMINAL FILINGS BY TYPE CR I~ INAL CASES SEX ROBBERY CONTROLLED OTHER LWR.CT. HUMICIDE CRI MES ASSAULT & THEfT BURGLARY FORGERY SUBSTANCES FElONI ES APPEALS TOTAL ADAHS 2 2 8 7 10 I 7 8 I 46 ------F I L I NGS------01 S POS IT IONS------DISPI • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 2 8 7 10 1 7 8 1 46 NUMBER PERCENT FiliNGS PERCENT 01 SP. COU-NTY ICOUR T OF JWGES FILING 1980 1979. CHANGE PER JOG 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO ASOT IN 2 15 1 lB ? 6 11 5 70 ADAMS COLUMBI A 3 5 5 2 a a 3 1 19 46 56 -17.9~ 45 48 0.978 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 46 GARF IELD 1 o 2 a o 1 2 o 6 56 -H.9t 46.0 45 48 45.0 0.978 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 2) 14 20 2 7 16 6 95 ASOT IN 7il 53 32.1; 44 COLUMBIA 15 193.3~ 0.629 BENTON 7 H 30 73 57 25 102 38 51 397 19 36 -50.0; 17 11 54.5: 0.895 GARFIELO 6 6 FRANKliN 4 7 26 17 28 4 12 38 20 156 O.O~ 7 33 -78.6~ 1.167 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 95 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 21 56 90 85 29 114 76 71 553 97 -2.U 95.0 68 59 15.H 66.n 0.716 BENTON CHELAN q 4 9 19 32 6 41 17 26 163 397 250 5a.8~ 198 216 -8.U FRANKL III 0.499 DQUGLAS I 6 5 23 5 4 7 17 6 74 156 18l -14.3: 89 176 -49.H • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 0.571 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 10 14 42 37 10 48 34 3Z 237 553 432 28.0: 138.3 267 392 -26.8: 'i1.8 0.519 CHELAN CLALLAM B 23 4~ 70 47 163 17Z -5.a 123 22 19 78 66 377 DOUGLAS 141 -12.61 lJ.75f. JEFFERSON o 3 7 14 11 4 15 25 15 94 H 65 13.81 77 70 10.0' • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 1.041 • JUDICIAL D ISTR ICT 8 26 51 84 58 26 34 103 81 471 237 237 0.0; 118.5 200 211 -5.2% 100.0 0.844 ClALLAM 366 CLARK 12 57 108 179 100 32 113 102 37 740 303 20,) 229 -12.H 0.546 JEFFER SON 104 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 57 108 179 100 32 113 102 31 740 91 93 54 12.2; 0.694 • JUDIC IAt 0 ISTR ICT 2 470 394 235.0 293 283 3.5~ 146.5 0.623 CCWLlTl 19 32 44 85 18 63 107 36 "11 CLARK 740 • JUDICIAL ~ISTRICT 19 32 44 85 18 63 107 36 411 518 669 431 55. 2~ 0.904 • JI/OICIAL DISTRICT 740 516 148.0 669 431 55. Zl 133.8 0.904 FERRY 2 2 7 7 3 a 2 B 9 40 COWLITl 411 OKANOGAN 4 16 10 15 21 8 26 36 6 142 369 11.4; 370 322 14.9t 0.900 • JUDICIAL ulSTRICT 411 • JUillCIAL DISTRICT 6 18 17 22 24 8 2B 44 15 182 369 II.H 137.0 370 JZ2 14.9' 123.3 0.900 FERRY GRANT 2 14 42 84 - 5u. Ot 2S 17 19 49 12 26 58 10 207 OKANOGAN 8u -68 .8~ o .5g5 • JUDICIAL illSTRICT 2 II 14 19 49 12 26 58 10 207 142 199 -2B.6~ 126 147 -14.31 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0.867 IB4 28.1 -35.0; 184.0 lSI 227 -33.5' 151.0 0.621 GRAYS HARBOR 4 5 18 37 34 11 4il 72 o 221 GRANT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 5 18 37 34 II 40 12 o 221 207 201 3.0; 156 171 -8.8' 0.754 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 207 2ill 3.0: 103.5 156 171 -B.n 78.0 0.754 ISLAND 7 16 24 3 lil 23 2'1 123 GRAYS HARBOR SAN JUAN 3 5 13 2 3 6 2 35 2Z1 230 -3.9( 93 134 -30.6' 0.421 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 221 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 21 37 5 13 29 31 158 230 -3.9 t 110.5 93 134 -30.6; 46.5 0.421 ISLAND 123 KING lu 5 218 286 1222 728 195 289 560 2018 5621 90 71 106 -33.,)t 0.577 SAN JUAN 35 • JUDICIAL illSTRICT 105 218 286 1222 728 195 289 560 2010 5621 23 34 33 3. O~ • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 2 0.971 158 III 19.0 105 139 -24.5' 52.5 0.665 K ITSAP 4 16 46 107 69 40 3B 85 90 495 KING 5621 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT ~ 16 46 107 69 40 38 85 90 495 4539 5239 J793 38.1 , 0.932 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 341 II 5621 4539 165.3 5239 .1793 38. U 154.1 0.932 KITTITAS 6 10 21 23 10 14 30 21 136 KITSAP 495 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 10 21 23 10 14 30 21 136 475 383 -3.H 0.774 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 4111 495 475 123.8 383 -.I.H 95. B 0.774 KLICK ITA T I 10 8 9 24 16 11 83 KITTITAS SKAMANIA 2 6 12 9 6 13 53 136 6J 70.0' 71 -22.U • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0.522 • JUDICIAL 'liSTRICT 3 16 20 18 30 29 15" 136 136 60 70.0' 136.0 71 -22. 8( 71.0 0.522 KLICK ITAT L E~ IS 7 9 23 26 83 102 -18 .6~ 89 78 55 14 29 92 39 294 SKAIIAN IA 14.U 1.072 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 7 9 23 26 55 14 29 92 39 294 5J 66 -19.7% 46 52 -1I.5t • JUOICIAL DISTHICT 0.866 136 168 -19 .O~ 135 110 3.8t 135.0 0.993 LINCOLN o 4 9 4 20 4 49 LEWIS • JUDICIAL QISTRICT o 9 4 20 4 49 294 328 -10.H 301 215 40.0; 1.024 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT Z 294 328 -10. 4~ 147.0 301 215 4) .Ot 150.5 1.024 MASON I 6 16 36 32 9 19 28 14 161 LI NCDlN THURSTUN 7 7 50 109 64 36 87 57 31 468 H 41 19.5t 40 36 11.U • JUDICIAL UISTRICT 0.616 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 13 66 HI 120 45 106 85 45 629 49 41 19.5t 49.0 40 36 ll.lt il.816 MASUN PACIFIC I 21 24 161 153 5.U 120 103 21 4 o 32 13 119 THURSTON 16.5: 0.745 WAHKI AKUM o o I 8 I a o 12 o 22 466 445 5.2~ 439 380 15.5t 0.938 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT I 3 22 32 22 4 o 44 13 141 629 59d 5.2% 125.8 559 483 15.H 111.S 0.869 PACIFIC PEN~ OR E I LLr I 4 7 119 107 1I.2t 139 78 2~ 9 3 5 10 I 41 WAHK IAKUM 78. 1.168 STEVENS I 4 2 14 7 7 38 I 75 22 15 46. 7~ 25 15 66.H • JUDICiAL DISTRICT 1.136 • JUOIC IAL 0 ISTR iCT 2 8 9 23 10 12 46 2 116 141 lZZ 15.6t 141.0 164 93 76.H 164.,) 1.163 P END ORE ILL E PIERCE 29 172 41 52 -21.2~ 46 49 172 84 272 580 186 720 246 2461 STEVENS -6.U 1.122 • JUD!CIAL 01 STR ICT 29 172 172 84 272 580 186 720 246 2461 75 45 6b. It 65 31 75.H • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0.867 116 97 19 .6~ 116.0 111 86 29.ll 111.0 0.957 SKAGI T 22 25 32 45 12 27 74 20 259 PIERCE • JUDICIAL ~ISTRICT 22 25 32 45 12 27 74 20 2461 1661 1691 1614 4.at 259 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0.687 11111 2461 1861 223.7 1691 1614 4.8' 153.7 0.687 SNGHOHISfl Z9 27 191 351 210 77 190 163 140 1378 SKAGIT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 29 27 191 351 210 77 190 163 1 .. 0 1378 259 t~8 63. 9~ 20J 132 53.8' • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 0.784 259 158 63.9& 129.5 203 1J2 53.H 101.5 0.784 SPOKANE 20 54 85 lJ6 215 66 81 251 45 1053 SNOHOMISH • JUDICIAL ulSTRICT 20 54 85 236 215 66 81 251 45 1053 1378 1039 32 .6~ 1088 64~ 28. A; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0.790 1378 1039 32.6' 172.3 lil88 845 28.6' 136.0 O.HO WALLA WALLA 38 28 42 7 30 90 9 252 SPOKANE • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 38 2e 42 7 30 90 9 252 1053 1105 -'<.n 1296 1210 1.231 • JUDiCiAL DISTRICT 10 1053 7. " 1105 -4. 1~ 1,)5.3 1296 121J 7.1~ 129.6 1.231 WHA TCOH 8 16 ~z 96 50 35 75 139 58 519 WALLA WALLA • JUDICIAL DISTRICT S 16 4l 96 50 35 75 139 58 252 196 207 213 -11. 2~ 0.621 519 • JUDIC IAl U ISTR ICT 252 196 126.0 201 233 -ll.lt 103.5 0.821 WHI THAN 4 6 23 4 10 2 8 11 69 hHATCOH • J~DICIAL DISTRICT 4 6 519 442 17.4t 341 344 -0.9' 23 4 10 2 8 11 69 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0.657 519 442 17.H 173.0 341 344 -0.9' IlJ.7 0.b57 YAK I MA 21 21 96 204 149 67 154 191 91 1000 hHITHAN • JUDIC IAL 0 ISTR IC T 27 21 9b 204 69 64 7.8t 69 69 ~.Ot 149 67 154 I'll 91 1000 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1.000 69 64 7.n 69.0 69 69 o.Ot 69.0 1.000 •• TOTAL STATE 319 784 1485 3214 2575 1323 1763 32BD 3187 17930 YAKIMA 10JO 98 I 1.9' 885 768 15.2' • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1000 ~.8B~ 981 1.9' 2UO.0 885 168 15.2t 171.0 0.86~ •• TOTAL STATE 117 11930 15224 17 .6t 153.2 15220 12956 17.5t 13J.l 0.849 III KING, ~IT5AP AND PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE BEE~ AurHORllED ADDITIONAL JUlGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,1961. 66 67 ~------ TABLE 79 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS TABLE 19 CRI~INAL CASE ACTIVITY W A- S H I Ii G TON SUP E RIO R C 0 U R T S HISTORY )F JUVENILE CASE FILIN:;S ------) I SPOSI Tl ONS BY TYPE------ ------PROC EE DINGS 8Y -TYPE------1915 - 1980 CHANGE DISH. CONV. •• TRIALS.. ..OTHER HEARINGS •• 1975 1916 Cf OR DEF. AND TOTAL NON- ARRAIGN- PRE- POST 1971 1978 1979 VENUE PROS ACQUI HED SE NT. 1980 01 SPOSED JURY JURY HENTS 1)( SP OTHER DISP ADAMS 27 11 19 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 48 32 41 ADAHS N/R N/R NIR NIR 45 3 2 N/R N/R -27 11 19 NIR N/R 48 32 41 • JUDICIAL 68 69 '-'--____~ ______~.'\o.~ ____ TA8LE 61 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR TABLE BO COURTS WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS JUVENILE CASES JUVENILE CASES JUVENILE OFFENSES (DELINQUENCY) ------F IL IN GS------01 SPOSI liON S------01 SPI ------01 SPOSI TlONS BY TYPE------ -----PRO CEED INGS BY TYPE----- ••• CONYIC TEO ••• NUMBER PERCENT FILINGS PERCENT DISP. FILlN:; • ••••• HEARINGS •••••• JURI SO. CHHNTY. TOTAL PRE- POST COUNTY ICOURT OF JUDGES 1980 1919 CHANGE PER JOG 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RAT 10 COUNTY/cOURT DECLINED DISH. ACQUIT. SUPVSN. INST. 01 SPOSEO TRIALS OISP OTHER OISP AOAHS 5 1 15 3 24 2 9 0 ADAMS 41 32 2B.1I 27 52 -48. U 0.659 a 5 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 a 15 3 24 5 290 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 41 32 26.1% 41.0 Z7 52 -48.1 , 21.0 0.659 J ASOT!N 6 2 20 6 34 ~ 4 ASOTIN 51 45 13.3% 46 40 15.0$ 0.902 o a o COLUMBIA COLUHBIA 20 -60.0: 4 5 -20.0t 0.5uU o a o 2 o 2 o 9 1 o a GARFIELD GARFIELD o 6 -100.01 1 6 -83.H a o o o 1 1 o o o o • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 6 2 o 22 1 37 o 13 5 • 'JUDICIAL DISTRICT 59 71 -16.9; 59.0 51 51 O.Ot 51.0 0.864 o BENTON 19 142 17 240 42 460 60 BENTON 640 595 7.6l 57e 359 61.0' 0.903 737 33B 130 FRANKLIN 12 30 4 66 13 125 12 9 FRANKLIN 217 166 30.n 153 61 88.9t 0.705 13 o • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 31 172 21 306 55 565 73 749 338 139 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 B57 761 12.6l 214.3 731 '.40 66.it 182.8 0.853 CHELAN N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 118 101 112 14 CHELAN 186 249 -25.31 136 220 -38. 2~ 0.731 DDLCLAS 7 o a 50 10 67 17 46 37 OOUGlAS 89 106 -16.01 97 110 -lL.H 1.090 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 165 116 158 51 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 275 355 - 22.5' 137.5 233 33~ -29.H 116.5 0.847 CLALI.AH 10 13 47 312 32 414 219 451 91 13 CLALLAH 794 836 -5 .O~ 514 61 T -16.n 0.647 JEFFER SON 1 13 6 24 JEFFERSON 63 55 14.5: 30 34 -11.8 , 0.476 o o o o o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 17 41 3Z 5 38 H8 219 451 91 13 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 851 891 -3.81 42B.5 544 651 -16.4' 272.0 0.635 " CLARK N/R NfR N/R N/R ~/R 12121 11 N/R N/R N/R CLARK H52(21 99T 45.6¥ 1376 (21 1362 1.0: 0.94B N/R • JUIlICIAL DISTRICT lZlZ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT H52 991 45.6' Z90.4 1376 1362 1.0l 275.2 0.948 COWLl TZ 52 8 h 202 47 315 34 194 280 7B COWLITZ 429 444 -3.4: 313 373 0.869 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 52 8 6 202 47 315 34 194 280 78 • JUDICIAL DISrRlCT 429 444 -3.4t 143.0 373 373 124.3 o .8b9 FERRY 1 1 15 2 19 1 18 4 FERR Y 19 26 -26.9t 29 33 -12.U 1.526 o 1 OKANOGAN 9 21 25 68 30 153 102 239 51 ZO OKANOGAN 356 192 85.4t 177 161 9.9t U.497 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 21 26 83 32 172 103 257 61 Zl • JUDICI AL DISTRICT 375 218 72.0% 375. CI 206 194 6.21 206.) 0.549 GflANT 20 26 3 132 55 236 30 3H 217 87 GRANT 321 Z51 27.9t 268 3B 1 -29.H 0.835 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20 26 3 132 55 236 30 341 217 87 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 321 251 27.9' 160.5 268 381 -29.U 0.835 GRAY S HARBOR 9 76 93 84 13 275 23 368 138 24 GRAYS HARBJR 419 346 21.U Z94 404 - 2T. 2' 0.702 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 9 76 93 64 13 275 23 388 138 24 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 419 346 21.U Z09.5 Z94 4J4 -27.2t 147.0 J.702 ISLAND N/R N/R N/R N/R lHR 61 3 146 ISLAND 84 102 -l7.6t 70 9ij -28. 6~ 0.833 a o SAN JUAN 5 Z3 29 2 SAN JUAN 42 32 31.n 37 23 6u.9t 0.8B I a 1 o 39 25 2 • JUiDICIAL OISTRICT 90 5 IB5 25 2 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 126 134 -6.0' 63.0 107 121 -lL.6t 53.5 0.849 KING 55 1620 181 2288 408 4552 1837 3498 3135 1684 KING 6519 6466 0.8: 5143 4690 0.789 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 55 1620 181 2288 408 4552 1837 3496 3135 1694 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 341 II 6519 6466 u.81 191.1 5143 46~0 151.3 0.789 KITSAP 10 7 3 337 55 412 53 706 357 118 KI TSAP 776 749 3.6t 450 452 -0.41 0.580 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 7 3 337 55 412 53 706 357 178 • JUI)ICIAL DISTRICT 4( II 77" 749 3.6l 194.0 450 452 -O.4~ 112.5 J.580 KITTITAS N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 55 8 N/R N/R N/R KITTITAS 91 92 -1.U 59 18 - 24. 4l 0.648 • JUDICIAL 01STRICT 55 8 • JUDICIAL DISTR ICT 91 92 -1.U 91.0 59 18 -24.4t 59.0 0.64B KL ICK IT AT 2 9 1 14 4 3J 2 Z9 B 3 KLICKI TAT 82 92 -10.9t 49 46 6.5' 0.59b SKAHANI A o 3 5 13 6 27 10 2B 15 3 SKAMA~IA 83 97 -14.4l 56 72 -22.2' 0.675 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 12 6 27 10 57 12 57 23 6 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16~ la9 -12. 7t 165.0 1 J5 118 -l1.J" 105.0 0.636 LEWIS H 87 16 147 107 371 235 239 9 466 429 8.6S 422 368 14.7t 0.906 26 LE"I S • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 14 87 16 147 101 371 235 239 9 26 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 466 429 8.6l 233.0 422 368 14.H 211.0 0.906 1I NeOLN 7 10 22 40 2 37 25 LI NCOLN 34 39 -12.8' 46 52 -11.5t 1.353 o 11 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 7 10 a 22 40 2 37 25 11 • JUOICIAL OISTRICT 34 39 -12.U 34.0 46 52 -11.5' 46.0 1.353 HASDN 11 10 18 136 d 198 127 HASON 222 217 166 239 -30.5l 0.H8 3 74 2~ 2.3' THURSTON 3 16 26 231 95 371 44 418 443 92 THURSTON 736 880 -16.4' 372 544 -31.6t 0.505 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 14 26 29 305 113 501 52 616 570 117 • JUIHr.IAL DISTRICT 958 1097 -12. n 191.6 538 783 -31.3t 107.6 0.562 PACI FI C 13 20 6 42 B 114 30 184 2 14 PACIFIC 14B 140 5.n 149 164 -9.U 1.007 WAHKI AKUH 3 2 a 2 1 8 ij 8 2 3 ~AHK IAKUH 10 18 -44.4t 14 28 -5J.Ot 1.400 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16 22 6 44 34 122 38 192 4 17 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15B 158 O.Ot 1~8. a 163 192 -15.1: 163.0 1.032 PEND ORE I LLE 4 1 2 16 6 35 2 62 9 7 PEND OREILLE 73 54 35.H 50 41 22.0t 0.685 STEVENS 12 6 2 57 .I AO 4 39 77 6 STEVENS 119 123 -3.3l IJ4 112 -7.U 0.874 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16 13 4 73 9 11, 6 101 86 13 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 192 171 8.5t 192.0 154 15) D.n 154.0 0.802 PIERCE 14 2 7 871 129 168ZC 21 42 199 33 257 PIERCE 2279( 21 1473 1682(31 1069 57.ll 0.738 54.7' 14 871 129 1682 42 199 33 257 .. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11111 2279 1413 54.n 201.2 168Z 1069 57.3t 152.9 0.738 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 7 SKAG IT N/R NlR N/R N/R ~/R 211 234 8 20 SKAGIT 269 254 264 226 Ih.6' 0.981 • JUDICIAL U1STRICT 211 234 8 20 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 269 254 134.5 264 22b 16.61 0.961 SNDHOHISH 11 126 46 913 A6 1182 119 11 2 I 693 347 SNOHOHI SH 1905 1677 13 .6t 1361 1161 17. Zt 0.714 • JUOICIAl DISTRICT 11 126 46 913 d6 1162 119 1121 693 347 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1905 1617 n. tt l38.1 1361 1161 11.2: 170.1 0.71~ SPOKANE 65 168 13 670 65 1172 51 3204 766 78 SPOKANE 1760 1493 17 .91 1633 1237 32. O~ 0.928 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 65 168 13 670 65 1172 51 3204 766 78 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 1760 1493 17.9t 176.0 1033 12J7 32.H 163.3 0.926 WALLA WALLA N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 114 N/R N/R N/R N/R WALLA WALLA 229 218 5.0$ 116 147 -21. It 0.507 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT IH • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 229 21B s.Ot 114.5 116 147 -21.U 58.0 0.507 WHATCOH 30 25 262 37 357 71 133 20 116 ~ATCUH 501 551 -9.01 395 470 -16.0t 0.779 • JUDICIAL DISTR ICT )0 25 262 37 357 71 133 ZO 116 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 507 557 -9.0' 169.0 H5 470 -16.0' 131.7 0.779 WHITHAN o 5 3 28 17 B N/R N/R N/R N/R .HITHAN 62 55 12. ~I 76 61 24.6t 1.226 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT a 5 3 28 17 53 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 62 55 12.U 62.0 76 61 21t.6t 76.0 1.226 YAKIHA 140 3 617 116 11031 ZI N/R N/R N/R N/R YAKIHA 139U 21 1213 14.1t 1333 1030 U.956 • JUOIC UL 0 ISTR ICT 140 3 617 116 1103 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1391 1213 14.71 278.2 1333 1030 Z66.6 0.958 •• TOTAL STATE 385 539 7846 1467 15674 3022 13035 7051 1Z95 •• TOTAL STATE 111 229T2 20836 10.3' 196.3 18150 16646 155.1 0.790 NOTC; TliE BREAKODWN OF JUVENILE DISPOSITIONS FOR THo STATE 00 NOT SUH TU THE TOTAl 6ECAUSE DETAIL (II KING, ~ITSAP ANU PIERC~ COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE 6EFN AUTHORIZEO AOOITIONAL JLOGES EFFECTIVE JANU~.RV 1,1981. WAS NOT REPCRTED BY ALL COUNT I ES. (21 JUVENILE fiLINGS DATA PROVIDED BY JUVIS. (31 OATA ON DISPOSITION OF JUVElULE UFF~USE CASES P~DVIDED 8Y JUVIS; ilATA ON DISPOSITION OF OEP~NDENCY HATTERS NOT REPORTED. (11 TOTAL JUVENILE CASB 01 SPOSEO PROVIOED BY JUYIS. 121 TOTAL JJVENILE CASES OISPOSED PROVIDED 8Y JUYIS; DETAIL PROYIJEO BY SCOHIS. N/R • NOT REPORTED 71 70 L,l~ __~ ______~ ______~.~~ ______TABLE 83 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR TABLE B2 COURTS SUPERIOR COURTS WASHINGTON HISTO~Y Of PROBATE, GUARDIANSHIP AND ADOPTION fiLINGS JJVENILE CASES 1975 - 1980 1915 1976 1917 JUVENILE DEPENDENCY 1979 1980 ADA~S 53 73 60 ------DISPOS ITIDNS BY TYPE------PROCEEO I NGS BY TY PE------51 60 52 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 53 13 60 51 bO 52 CHANGE HI THDUT AFT ER SHELTER fACT POST OF fACT fACT TOTAL A SOTI N 86 94 74 101 VENUE fiNDING fiNDING DISPOSED CARE flNOING OTHER 01 SP. b4 88 CULUMBIA za 33 33 21 22 28 GARF I ELD 28 o 2 3 3 o o 27 29 19 32 18 ADAMS 3 o o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 142 154 136 141 1t8 134 * JJDICIAL DISTRICT il 2 3 BENTON 286 275 268 312 4 12 o 4 o 33J 437 ASOTIN I 7 l fRANKLIN 109 136 118 123 114 2 o 2 3 4 92 CDLUMUIA o o o o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 395 411 386 435 444 529 GARfl HD o o o o 4 14 3 8 3 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT I 9 CHELAh 222 235 234 21H 270 238 106 128 219 OOUGLAS 14 106 82 19 81 83 3 36 79 tl8 51 BENTON 28 5 25 12 o • JUOICI4L DISTRICT 296 341 316 291 351 321 fRANUIN 14 o 14 93 146 56 131 200 219 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT 17 36 C LALLAH 213 204 181 186 235 242 80 JEffERSON 56 84 68 66 78 1t3 NIH NlR 18 21 5 58 CHELAN NIR 23 11 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26~ 288 249 252 313 355 i) 18 12 30 J I OUUGLAS II 6 81 91 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT CLARK 516 497 575 541 746 766 18 til • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 516 497 575 541 146 168 NIR NIR NIR 100 28 57 CLALLAM 6 o o o o JeffERSON NIR N/R NIR CDWLI TZ 225 240 106 28 57 78 til 251 248 241 257 • JUtllCIAL DISTRICT • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 225 240 251 248 241 257 N/R tb41t1 u o o o NIR H/R FERR':J I~ CLARK 164 o o o o 27 26 26 32 20 • JUulCIAL DISTRICT OKANOGAN 96 103 1t5 133 108 97 26 21 59 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 110 130 141 159 140 123 1 11 58 22 COWL! Tl 58 22 26 21 59 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 7 17 GRANT 207 21b 224 231 218 240 207 10 4 7 3 o • JUDICIAL OISTRICT ll6 224 231 218 240 FERRY 2 6 2 25 14 24 13 48 50 Cr.ANOGAN 1 3 25 GRAY S HA RBOR lit 28l 291 281 250 304 16 34 17 55 53 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 9 • JUOICIAL OISTRICT 31t 283 291 281 250 304 21 tl4 52 2 15 15 32 19 GRANT 21 tl4 52 ISlANO 139 218 192 198 164 175 2 15 15 32 19 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT SAN JUAN 24 31 33 26 33 ~2 • JUOICIAl DISTRICT 1~3 255 225 ,24 197 15 19 27 19 15 59 211 GR"YS HARBOR 2 59 15 19 21 19 15 • JJDICIAL DISTRICT 2 KIN:; 5178 5464 5475 5569 5205 5916 9 60 o o o • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 5178 5464 5475 5569 52J5 5916 ISLAND N/R N/R NlR 8 l 5 7 9 SAN JJ AN o I 7 KI TSAP 541 510 53;: 542 17 63 5 7 9 605 626 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 547 570 532 ~42 605 626 591 1114 105 365 651 KING 22 531 38 KITTITAS 1B 38 591 1114 105 365 651 91 96 101 83 84 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22 531 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT 76 91 96 101 83 84 216 16 22 38 160 31 52 KITSAP o 52 216 KLICK ITAT 56 57 41 54 68 16 22 38 160 31 • J~DICIAL DISTRICT o SKAMANIA 31 39 44 60 44 4 o o o o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT B1 96 91 1t4 112 KI TTl TAS h/R N/R NI R 4 o o o o • JJillCIAL DISTRICT LEWIS 23b 238 226 243 197 17 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 236 238 226 243 197 lJ 8 19 9 2 41 KLI CKI TAT 2q 14 16 5 19 SKAHAN IA 7 22 LI NCOLI< 100 17 102 62 )0 48 2l 18 46 36 86 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 • JUOICIAL 01 STRICT 100 17 102 82 8b 15 27 51 26 20 LEWI S 23 75 HASON 141 150 133 141 11 51 26 20 144 145 • JJDICIAL DISTRICT B THURS TON 38 I 336 405 451 537 507 o 2 5 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 528 486 538 592 681 652 LI NeOLN o 5 6 6 o 2 5 • JUDICIAL UISTRICT o 5 PACifIC 81 1t2 86 92 77 73 It WAHKI AKUM 14 10 14 15 15 o 25 JO 24 15 31 13 MASUN 30 93 95 61 • JUDIC IAl 0 ISTR ICT 101 122 100 101 92 86 THURS TilN o o I 25 31 54 108 126 72 • JJOICIAL DISTRICT o PEND ORE I lLE 44 36 26 38 30 52 STEVEN S 105 95 115 100 25 35 16 14 14 54 llH 96 PACifiC o 10 6 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 149 III 141 156 130 148 6 6 3 I I WAHKIAKUH o o 60 31 41 19 15 15 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o 10 P I E~CE 1560 1583 1546 17t4 1925 '·1602 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 156J 1583 1548 Iq 25 10 15 13 8 50 43 1714 1602 PEND IlREILlE 4 47 18 24 2 14 15 STEVENS 6 S/,A~: T 315 279 290 319 296 28 39 15 22 65 90 329 • JUtllCIAL DISTRICT 10 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 315 279 290 31,9 296 n9 116 510 NIR N/R NIR N/R 91 443 PIERCE 91 443 Ilb 510 ShOHDMISH 934 994 959 1030 1285 1332 • JUUICIAL DISTRICT • J UO IC IAL 0 IS TRtC T 934 994 959 ,0)0 1285 1332 o NIR NIH NIH 53 129 o SKAGIT 53 129 o o SPDKAhE 1672 1635 1643 1119 1687 1689 • JJOICIAl DISTRICT • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1612 1635 1643 17L9 1687 1689 29 t19 39 29 221 193 SNOHJ~ I SII 20 130 193 WALLA wALLA 243 292 293 244 291 262 29 119 39 29 227 • JJOICIAL DISTRICT 20 130 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT l4J 292 293 244 291 262 163 461 31 320 319 816 SPOKA'IE tI 184 WHAT CO~ 408 445 421 429 411 163 461 31 320 319 876 483 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT II 184 • JUOICIAL PiST~ICT 406 445 421 429 41t ',83 N/R 2 o 2 o o WALLA .ALLA NlR NlR WHITMAN 168 169 129 Ib~ 2 o 2 o o 153 155 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT • JUDIC IAl D 1ST RICT 166 169 129 165 153 155 191 15 38 !il 45 53 .HATCUH 23 YAKIMA 112 157 734 1t~ 38 51 45 53 191 884 966 • JUtllCIAL 01 STRICT 23 I~ • JUOICIAL OISTRICT 112 151 734 7t9 884 966 20 23 o o o o WHITHAN 2 o o o o •• TOTAL STATE 15611 16329 16164 16685 17H5 l8025 • JUOIClAl DISTRICT 2 20 23 N/R NIR 230«1 ) u o o o YAKI~A NIR o a o o • JuDICIAL (lISTRICT 230 2019 1487 1991 3606 •• TIlTAL STATE 95 1065 621 2476 ~OTE: THe BREAKDOWN OF JUVENIL~ OISPUSlThlNS fJR THE STAlE OU NOT SOH TO !HE TOTAL BECAUSE DETAIL WAS ~OT REPURTED BY ALL COUNTIES. U I ruTAl JU~ EN U. E OEP ENOENCY CA SES D I SPUSED PRDY IDEO BY JUVI S. 73 72 NIR • NOT RE PORTED UBLE B5 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR C 0 U R T S TABLE B4 OTHER CASES WASHINGTU~ SUPERIOR COURTS PROBATE, GUARDIANSHIP, ADOPTION AND HENTAL ILLNESS HISTORY OF MENTAL IllNESS FILINGS 1915 - 1980 ------FILINGS------OISPOS IT /ONS------OISPI 1979 1980 1975 1976 1977 1978 NUMBER PERCENT FIL I~GS PERCENT DISP. FILING COUNTY ICOUR T ilF JUDGES 1980 1979 CH~NGE PER JOG 1980 1979 CHANGE PER JOG RATIO 7 6 7 5 ADAMS 5 7 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 7 ADAMS 59 68 36.8; 23 24 -4.2t 0.390 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 59 68 36.8' 59.0 23 2'0 -4.2' 23.0 0.390 14 13 24 ASOTIN 14 2 7 2 10 ASOT IN 45.5; CDLUMB IA 2 o 1 o 112 71 '08 36 33.n 0.429 1 o 2 COLUMBIA GARFIELD 2 o 1 38 l4 58.n 20 12 o6.n 0.526 15 15 36 GARFIELD • JUDICIAL DISTRICT lB 2 9 20 JZ -37 .5' LJ 11 18.2' 0.650 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 170 133 27.8~ 170.0 81 S9 81.0 0.476 55 37.3' 62 59 47 BENTO~ 57 21 9 17 16 19 BENTON 492 354 39.0' 228 121 88. 4~ 0.463 FRANKL IN 66 76 • JUDIC IAL DISTRICT 66 79 75 FRANKLIN 113 126 -10.3t 66 06 J.H 0.584 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 605 460 26.0; 151.3 294 187 57.2% 73.5 0.486 21 34 26 35 CHELAN 3Z 36 5 o o o o CHELAN 273 296 20 53 -62.H 0.073 DOJGL AS o 26 ~o 36 21 34 OO~GLAS 88 81 65 * JUDIC IAL Ol~l RICT 32 51 -21.5' o .5BO • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 361 371 180.5 71 118 -39.8; 35.5 0.197 42 2 II 33 31 CLALLAM 1 6 4 1 1 1 1 CLALLAM 284 266 6.8t 29 23 26.1~ 0.102 JEFFERSUN 34 37 ~6 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 3 12 JHFERSON 117 84 39.n 57 50 14. O~ 0.487 • JUO IC IAL D ISTR ICT 401 350 14.6' 200'.5 86 73 17.8t 43.0 0.214 209 190 IB6 CLARK 79 141 153 153 209 190 186 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 79 141 CLAI\K 95'0 936 234 267 -12.4; 0.245 • JIJDICIAL DISTRICT 954 936 190.B 234 267 -12.4~ 46.8 0.245 34 37 28 COWL I Tl 32 34 51 51 34 37 28 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 32 34 COoLlH 285 218 197 220 -IO.Sf 0.691 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 285 27B 95.0 197 220 -10.5' 65.1 0.691 o o o o FERRY o o o o OKANOGAN o o o o fERRY 26 32 -18. 8~ Q 5 -100.0; 0.000 o o o OKANOGAN 97 • JUDICIAL DIST>lICT o o o 108 -IO.H 38 56 -32. U 0.392 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 123 140 -12.U 123.0 38 61 -37.H 38.0 0.309 19 46 42 45 GRA'lT 29 29 45 19 46 42 GRANT 285 6~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 29 29 260 9. 134 103 30.n 0.470 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 285 260 9.6: 142.5 134 103 30. U 67.0 0. .70 41 57 37 ' a.AYS HARBOR N 79 61 41 57 37 • JUDIC IAL DISTRICT 7J 79 61 GRAY S HARBOR 341 307 H.U 86 50 72.0' 0.252 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 341 307 H.l ~ 170.5 86 50 72.0t 0.252 5 13 1~ 28 ISLAND 2 2 o o o S AN JUAN o 2 o ISLANO 203 178 14.0t 138 157 -12.H 0.680 13 II, 28 SAN JUAN • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 4 5 42 33 27.n 20 28 -28.0; 0.476 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 245 211 16.U 122.5 158 IB 5 -14.6l 79.0 0.H5 713 1006 1617 21'04 KING 444 611 1006 1617 2H4 KING B060 6822 IB.U 535B 4.0; • JUDie IAL DIST RICT 444 611 713 5154 0.665 • JUOICIAL DISTR.ICT 34( 11 8060 6822 18.U 237.1 535B 5154 4.0% 157.6 0.665 BO 130 129 KITSAP 85 67 69 69 BO 130 129 KITSAP 755 73!: 2.1t • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 85 67 407 455 -D.5l 0.539 • JUOICIAL OISTRICT 4 (11 755 735 2.U 188.8 407 455 -10.5' 101.8 0.539 D o o KI TTl lAS o o o o o o KITTITAS 84 B3 56 -16.n • JUDICIAL DISTRIC~ o o o 1.2' 47 0.560 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8'0 83 1.• 2l 84.0 '07 56 -16.n 47.0 0.560 2 2 2 5 KLICKITAT 5 16 1 10 9 28 KL ICK nAT 73 56 30.4; 38 34 0.52! SK4~ANIA 11 30 21 • JUDIC IAL DISTftlCT 6 12 SKAHAN I A 6J B8 - 31. 8~ 9 7 0.150 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 133 144 -7.6' 133.0 47 41 0.353 63 72 97 B9 LEhl S 28 13 89 72 97 LEIIIS 28b -15. ~l • JUDICIAL D1.HRICT 28 13 63 340 131 143 -8.4' 0.458 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 266 3~O -15.9' 143.0 131 143 -8.4t 65.5 0.458 5 10 6 2 3 o LI NCOLN o 5 10 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 2 3 LINCOLN 96 B7 10.3t 75 90 -16.H 0.781 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 96 B7 10.3; 96.0 75 90 -16.n 75.0 0.781 12 IS IB 18 ~ASON 33 12 158 129 119 160 a6 MASON 163 162 0.6: 122 108 13.0' 0.748 THURSTC'l 118 164 134 178 THURSTUN 653 ~Iq • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 151 170 141 697 -6.3' 475 9.3~ 0.195 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT BI6 859 -5 .O~ 163.2 641 583 9.9, 128.2 0.786 14 o 13 PACIFIC 3 9 o o PAC I FIC rihHK IAKUM o o o 86 77 11.7t 3B 37 z.n 0.'042 14 o 13 WAHKI AKUM • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 IJ 15 -13.n 14 7 100.0t 1.071 • JUOICIAL DISTRICT 99 92 7.6~ 99.0 52 44 18.2' 52.0 0.525 o o 1 o 2 PEND OREILLE o 19 21 B 4 9 7 PEND ORE I LLE 5'0 30 B~. 0' 35 25 40.0t 0.608 STEV~NS 8 19 23 STEVEN S • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 4 9 117 119 -1.7: 68 99 - 31. 3~ 0.581 • JUIJICIAL DISTRICT 111 149 14.8~ 171.0 103 12'0 -16.9t l03.0 .1.602 678 776 1082 PIERCE 593 592 593 t 678 776 1082 PI ERCE • JUD:CIAL D1STRICT 593 592 593 2684 2701 964 808 1 q. 3' 0.359 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT III 11 l68~ 2701 244.0 96'0 808 19.]; 87.6 0.359 8 13 78 135 SKAG iT 1 13 78 135 SKAGIT 374 • JUDICIAL DISTRlcr 1 8 464 24.lt '006 211 0.875 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 464 374 24ol¥ 212.0 406 211 203.0 O. e75 208 273 311 SNlJrlOMI SH 273 262 269 269 2il8 215 311 :\ SNOHOMISH 164J 1558 1003 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 273 262 5.4' !.H 0.610 '. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1643 15;8 5·.4' 205.4 1003 1.9' 125.4 0.610 271 243 no SPUKANE 33B 306 205 205 271 243 630 5 PDKANE 2J.2l • JUDIClAL DISTRICT 338 106 1930 1272 32.H 0.549 • JUDICIAL DI~TRICT 10 193J 20.2l 1272 32. 4~ 127.2 0.549 85 170 ISO .ALLA hALLA 51 62 91 91 8S 170 150 WALLA HALLA (9).1 , • JUDIC!AL DISTRIC T 51 62 'oIl 461 J51 121 0.852 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4,2 461 206.0 351 121 175.5 0.852 57 50. 190. " 10 27 54 I ~HATCCH 54 57 S6 IIHATCDM • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 27 539 '068 175 247 -29. U 0.325 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 539 468 IH.1 175 247 -29.1 , 58.3 0.325 '.2 9 11 24 WhJTI1AN 11 18 [2 9 13 24 WHITMAN 179 166 • JUDIC IAL DISTRICT U 18 112 89 25.8' 0.626 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 179 166 179.0 112 89 25.6 X I1l.l) 0.626 175 194 238 210 YAKIMA 132 102 210 I" 194 238 , YAKI MA 1176 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13Z 102 175 , 1122 550 610 0.468 ,1 • JUDICIAL 0 ISTR ICT 1176 1122 235.2 550 610 0.468 Io3B6 5720 •• TO TAL STA TE 2472 2679 2810 I I .. TOTAL STATE 111 23745 21631 202.9 13096 12066 8.5t 0.552 , I (11 KING, KITSAP AND PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL JUOGES EFfECTIVE JANUARY I, 1981. If I 75 74 i.J\ .'\. l' ~--- TABLE 86 WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURTS TABLE B7 PRDBATE, GUARD[ANSHIP, ADOPT ION & HENTAL ILLNESS CASES WASH[NGTON SUPER[O C 0 U R T S PROCEEDINGS BY TYPE 1980 TRIAL ACTIVITY ------TRIALS HELD------______------TR I ALS ------HEAR [NGS------NUMBER •• C[ V[ L.. CRIHINAL TRIALS PROBATE GUARD. ADOPT. H.I. PROBATE GUARD ADOPT H.I. TRUL/D[ SP Of NON- NON- OTHER PER JUlGE ADAHS 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 COUNT~/COUR T RAT [D JUDGES JURY JURY JURY JURY JUVEN[LE CASES TDUL NON- • JUD[CIAL OISTR[CT 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 CIVIL CR[M. JURY JURY ADAMS 3 32 3 ASOT[N ) o o o 10 5 o o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3 0.207 0.111 3 32 3 3 COLUMB[A o o o o 3 1 3 o 0.207 0.111 5.0 H.O GARf[ELD o o o o 2 I 1 a ASOT IN I 22 • JUD[C[AL D[STR[CT J I o a a 24 o o o 15 7 4 a COLUHBIA 1 Iv 0.OB2 0.023 o 1 o o 12 GARF [ELD o 1 0.137 0.059 BENTON o 4 63 44 o o o o 1 0.027 o 168 36 • JUDICIAL O[STR[CT 2 33 I 0.000 fRANKLlI~ I o o 37 o o o 14 6 o 11 0.OB9 0.029 3.0 34. a • JUDIC IAL l [STR[CT o 4 77 50 168 47 BENTON o 23 139 15 I FRANKL [N 60 5 2H 0.066 0.OR1 10 110 10 2 13 CHELAN o o a o 213 96 29 o • JUD[C[AL D[STR[CT 4 o 145 0.150 0.135 33 249 25 3 73 5 DOUGLAS 1 o o o 59 16 15 o 388 0.087 0.098 14.5 82.5 • JUD[C[AL D[STRICT 1 272 CHELAN o o o 112 44 o 16 49 20 DOUGLAS 3 o B9 0.059 1 22 7 2 0.187 CLALLAH 2 o o 2 o o o o • JUDIC[AL DISTR[CT I 34 0.110 0.117 17 71 27 5 1 JEffERSON il o o 1 o o o o 123 0.109 0.160 22.0 39.5 • JUD[C [AL 0 [STR [CT 2 o 3 CLALLAH o o o o o B 137 16 5 JEFFERSDN 219 4 389 0.322 0.105 3 24 6 4 o I CLARK J o o o 344 125 233 18 • JUD[CIAL O[STR[CT 161 38 0.039 0.108 11 22 9 219 5 427 • JUD[C IAL 0 [STR [CT o o o o 344 125 233 IB 0.228 0.106 16.5 197.0 CLARK 30 345 53 4 NIR o COWL! Tl 2 o o o o o • JUD[CIAL DISTRICT 30 345 432 0.117 0.OB5 53 4 N/~ o • JUD[CIAL JISTRICT 2 o o o o o 432 0.117 0.OB5 16.6 69.8 CDWLIT Z 20 100 28 B fERRY o o o o 3 4 6 • JUDIC[AL OISTR[CT 34 193 0.080 0.097 o 20 100 29 8 34 OKANOGAN v o o o 45 25 11 o 193 0.080 0.097 16.0 48.3 feRRY • JUDIC14L DISTRICT o o o o 48 29 17 o o 6 5 OKANOGAN 6 I o 18 0.222 6 42 9 5 0.440 GRANT o o 94 40 • JUD[CIAL :JISTK[CT 102 o 164 0.149 0.111 o 30 o 6 48 14 11 10] • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o o 9'> 40 30 o o 182 0.155 0.166 20.0 162.0 GRANT IB 17U 29 11 GRAYS HARBOR o o 153 47 67 o • JUD[C[AL D[STRICT 30 259 0.231 0.256 18 170 29 11 30 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o 153 47 67 o 259 0.231 0.256 23.5 106.0 GRA YS HAR BOR 17 72 57 12 ISLAND 1 o o o 124 46 41 9 • JUD[CIAL O[STR[Cr 23 182 0.088 0.742 17 7Z 57 12 23 SAN JUAN o o o o 12 10 7 o H2 0.088 0.742 37.) 54.0 • JUDICIAL iliSTRICT 1 o o o 136 56 4B 9 [ SLAND 4 64 5 7 SAN JUAN 3 I 84 0.104 0.169 6 2B I o 2 KIN\; 25 o 12 o 51H 2632 1365 2178 • JUD[CIAL DISTRICT 10 a 37 0.225 0.029 92 6 7 5 I • JUDICIAL ~ISTRICT 25 o 12 o 5143 2632 1365 217B 121 0.127 0.124 8.0 52.5 K[NG 245 1112 536 H8 IB37 KITS AP o o o 138 60 154 17 • JUD[CIAL D[STRICT 34111 37 4105 0.044 0.167 245 1112 536 336 1831 37 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o o 138 60 154 17 4105 0.044 0.167 B.O 97.8 K [TSAP 26 240 73 62 53 KITTITAS o o o o o o o • JUD[CIAL O[STR[CT 4( 11 455 O.1H 0.35< 26 240 73 62 53 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o o o o o o 455 0.173 0.352 24.B 89.0 K ITTITA S 1 5B 10 o 8 KLICK ITA T o o a o 52 11 14 4 • JUD[CIAL DISTR[CT o 77 0015B 00141 1 58 10 o 9 SKAMANIA o o a a o o o o o 77 0.158 0.141 11.0 66.0 • JUD[CIAL JISTRICT o KLICKI TA T o o o 52 11 14 4 o 20 11 SKAHAN [A 2 2 o 35 0.093 I 8 2 o 0.146 LEW IS o o o o 14 5 6 4 • JUD[C[AL D[STR[CT 10 o 21 0.072 0.043 I 28 13 2 12 o • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o o o 14 5 6 56 0.OB5 0.111 14.0 42.0 " LEW [S 6 49 22 9 235 LINCOLN o o o 33 10 10 o • JUD[CIAL D[STR[CT a 321 0.~65 0.103 6 H 22 9 235 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT J 0. o l3 10 10 o o 321 0.065 0.103 14.0 146.5 L [NCDLN o 10 3 o HASDN o o 58 lO 30 3 • JUD[CIAL DISTR[CT 2 o 15 0.062 0.075 o 10 3 o 2 T HU RST Otl o o 227 61 106 53 o 15 0.062 0.075 3.0 12.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o 285 HI 136 56 HASON 11 37 5 3 THURSTDN 8 2 66 0.086 0.067 17 125 36 6 PACIF[C o o o o 56 9 o o • JUD[C.AL D[STR[CT 44 I 229 0.062 0.096 28 162 41 9 52 3 WAHKI AKJ/I o o o o 22 I 6 o 295 0.067 0.OB9 13.8 45.2 • JUDICIAL ~ISTRICT o 78 10 PAC[FIC o o o 6 o 4 81 16 25 WAHK IAKUH 3~ o 156 0.189 0.295 4 Sq o 1B PEND DREILLE 1 o o 3 51 29 16 • JUDICIAL D[STRICT B o B9 2.387 2.360 o 8 140 16 43 39 STEVENS o o o o 40 15 20 o o 245 0.290 0.360 24.0 221.0 • JUDIC[AL oliSTRICT 1 o o 3 91 H 36 PEND URE[LLE o 2 2l 4 o l STE ve NS 4 34 0.152 ~ .uB7 7 IB 6 1 PIERCE 5 a o 909 o Le5 lB51 • JUD[CIAL QISTR[CT 4 o 36 0.071 0.10B 9 40 10 I 6 4 • JUDICIAL dISTRICT 5 o o 909 o 2b~ i851 70 0.096 0.099 19.0 51.0 PIERCE 81 6~ 1 lui 28 SKAGIT 6 o 2 o 213 49 30 31 • JUD[C[AL DISTR[CT 11111 42 867 0.083 0.076 91 607 101 28 42 • JUDICIAL JISTR[CT 6 o 2 o 213 49 30 31 867 0.OB3 0.076 16.5 62.3 SKAGIT 26 222 Il 6 SNDHuHISH 4 o o 125 504 63 • JUD[CIAL D[STR[CT 2 276 0.20B 0.089 26 222 12 6 2 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 o o 125 504 63 276 0.208 0.OB9 19.0 119.0 SNDHOH ISH 62 421 132 3<; 119 9 SPOKANE o o o o o o 313 • JUD[C[AL D[STR[CT 62 788 0.074 0.157 427 132 39 119 9 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT o o o o o o 313 7BB 0.074 0.157 24.3 74.3 SPOKANE 176 842 103 10 WALLA WALLA o o o o o • JUD[CIAL D[STR[CT 10 51 o 1182 0.194 0.vR7 o 176 842 103 10 51 • JUDICIAL DISTR[CT ~ a o o o o o 1182 0.194 0.JH7 27.9 90.3 WALLA WALLA 9 86 12 WHA TCOH 2 2 o 129 58 65 • JUD[C[AL DISTRICT o 109 0.114 0.063 9 86 12 a • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 2 o 129 58 65 109 0.114 0.063 10.5 44.0 kHATCDH 27 266 41 8 WHI THAN o o o o o o o o • JUD[C[AL O[STR[CT 3 71 5 41B 0.267 0.144 27 266 41 9 71 5 41d • JUDIC IAL 0 ISTR ICT o o o o o o o o 0.267 0.144 22.7 116.7 WHITMAN .l 24 2 9 YAKIMA o o o 2 195 57 158 62 o o 38 0.085 0.159 • JUDICIAL O[STRICT 3 24 2 9 o o • JUD[CIAL DISTRICT n o o 2 195 57 158 62 H 0.085 0.159 5.0 .13.0 YAK[MA 27 70 26 9 .. TOTAL SlATE 30 8606 3608 33B2 4658 • JUD[CIAL UISTR[CT NIR 2 134 V.079 0.040 27 70 26 9 N/R 2 114 0.079 0.040 10.6 •• TOTAL STATE 117 902 5756 1417 648 302l 98 11843 0.088 0.136 19.8 N/R111 •K[NG, NDT REPORTEDK[ TSAP AND P[ERCE CCUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE BEEN AUTHOR[ZED ADDITIONAL JUDGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY I, 19RI. 76 77 I' .... i-- TABLE BB WASHII~GTO~ SUPERIOR COURTS JUDIC IAL WORKLOAD ------~EIGHTED CASELOAD------FlllNGS PER JUDGE---- NUM8ER WEIGHTED CASELOAO PER JUDGE WORKLOAD OF PERCENT I N JUDGE PERCENT COUNTY ICOURT JUDGES 1980 1979 CHANGE YEARS 1980 1979 CHANGE ADAMS 2573l 25779 -o.2t 354.0 363.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 25732 25779 -~.z, 10.47 I 354.0 363.0 ASOTIN 42899 31567 35.9~ 629.0 574.0 9.U COLU,~8IA 9424 13885 -32.1~ 149.0 IB 1.0 -l7.n GARF IELD 4592 3991 15. U 72.0 92.0 -ZI.7~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 56917 49444 15.U ( 1.04) 850.0 BH.O 0.4; BENTON 65696 60643 990.5 925.8 FRANKLIN 29628 27662 408.8 409.5 • JUDICIAl DISTRICT 95324 8B305 15.95 I 1399.3 1335.3 CHELAN 52707 49228 7. It 872.5 B96.5 -Z.H DOUGLAS 22501 Z1011 loU 306.5 276.5 10. Bt • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 75209 70239 7.U 12.741 1179.0 1173.0 0.5; CLALLAM 90295 8365B 7.9% 1344.0 1261.5 6.5; JEFFERSON 21533 21146 1. 8~ 326.5 265.0 23.2~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11IS28 104805 6.7t 14.071 1670.5 1526.5 9.4% CLARK 100862 B1790 23.H 1537.6 131B.2 16.6t • JUDICIAL DISTRICT IJOB62 B1790 23.3' 17. BBI 1537 .6 131B .2 16.6; COwL I TZ 63333 60253 5.1t 970.3 • JUCICIAL DISTRICT 63333 60253 5.1l 12.971 970.3 FE~R Y 16591 Z9352 -43.5; 221.0 298.0 -Z 5. Bt OKANuGA~ 16540 84955 -9.9t llB6.0 1123.0 5.6t • JUDIC IAL DIST RICT 93131 114308 -18.5t 11.691 1407.0 1421.0 -1.0; GRA~ T 5636Z 55538 1.5; B84.5 914.5 -3.3; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 56362 5553B 1.5; 12.05 I 884.5 914.5 -3.H GRA Y S HA RBOR 90723 94690 12'19.5 124B.0 4.1; • JuDICIAL DISTRICT 90723 9469) 13.3J I 1299.5 124B.0 4.U ISLAND 42308 34067 24.2~ 727.5 585.5 2"4.H 5A:~ J UA~ 10489 B590 2Z.U 139.5 116.5 19.7% • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 52797 42658 23.8t 11.921 867.0 102.0 23.H KING 96867 87373 10.9t 1451.7 1394.5 • JelDICIAL DISTRICT 34111 96867 87373 10. 9~ 144.531 1451.7 1394.5 KI TSAP 73758 72695 1.5t 1234.0 1226.8 • JUDIC /AL 11iSTRICT 4111 73758 72695 1.5f 14.61 I 1234.0 1226.B KI TTl TAS 66611 54413 22.U 888.0 813.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 66611 54413 22.4t 11.211. 888.0 813.0 KLICKITAT 39639 43951 574.0 604.0 SKAMANIA 32120 31610 424.0 458.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 71160 75561 11.311 998.0 1062.0 LE ~I S 64786 70714 -B.41 1039.0 1093.5 -5.0t • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 64786 70714 -8.4; 12.36 I 1039.0 1093.5 -5.01 LINCCLN l0124 22721 -11.4' 352.0 348.0 I.U • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20124 22721 -11.4= 10.37 I 352.0 348.0 1.1; HASaN 15831 15031 222.0 211.2 5 .1~ THUR STON 62445 63221 920.6 947.8 -Z.9~ • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 78276 78253 16.11 I 1142.6 1159.0 "1.4; PACI FIC 63536 56104 866.0 731.0 , B.5' WAHKIAKUH 10392 10000 112.0 129.0 -13.Zt • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 73928 66104 11.341 978.0 B60.0 13.71 PE~D ORE I LLE 252~4 22678 363.0 291.0 24.n SHV.NS 46242 43991 752.0 775.0 -].01 • JUDICIAL OISTRICT 715.6 66669 11.301 1115.0 1066.0 4.6l PIERCE 135190 1l043B 1867.3 155B.9 19.B; • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11111 13519a 1I043B IZO.1I1 1867.3 155B.9 19.U SKAG 11 17216 61265 26.0t 121B.0 1041.0 • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 77216 61265 26.0¥ 12. BII 1218.0 1041.0 SNOHOMI SH 102590 B6907 18.0 t 1503.9 1356.6 10.9l • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 102590 86907 18. at 111.101 1503.9 1356.6 10.9; SPOKANE 80J64 76168 5.1t 1 )95.8 . 1280.4 9.0t • JUDICIAL OJSTRICT 10 B0264 76368 5.U 110.65 I 1395. B 1280.4 9.0t .ALLA .. ALLA 57254 54180 5.7t 869.0 903.5 -3.Bl • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 57254 54180 5.H 12.0B I 869.0 903.5 - 3. 8~ WHAT COM 88560 75959 Ib.6' 1231.3 1144.3 7.H • JUOICI.AL DISTRICT BB560 75959 16 .6~ 14.151 1231.3 1144.3 7.61 WHIT MAN H873 37436 6. 5~ 679.0 670.0 l.n • JUDJ'.IAL DISTRICT 39873 31436 6.5: 10.731 679.0 670.0 l.n YMIMA 90987 67070 4.5~ 1349.4 1294.6 4.2l • JUDICIAL DISTRICT 90967 87070 4.5¥ 17.101 1349.4 lZ94.6 4.2t •• TOTAL STA IE 117 90415 B1652 IJ.H 1156.131 1357.7 1267.4 7.1t III KIN~. KITSAP AND PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR CDURTS HAVE 8EEN AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL ,JUDGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. !0;81. 78 ~------~------.------.------.------~~~-. - ~ ~------..---- r r o00 • District Court * Municipal Court The 80 Largest Courts of Limited Jurisdiction based on total filings for 1980 (of 72 District & 149 Municipal Courts reporting) Figure 34 \.~------THE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION OVERVIEW The courts of limited jurisdiction experienced an in ies with which they contracted. Consequently, district crease in caseloads or new case filings during 1980, courts received 72.4% of all cases filed in the courts of predominantly in criminal misdemeanor, civil and small limited jurisdiction during 1980. claims matters. Although traffic filings also exceeded 1979 figures, there appears to be a slackening in the rate at which traffic citations are being received in district and municipal courts. Among the reasons given for these changes in case filings are (1), the increases in civil and Courts of Limited Jurisdiction small claims jurisdictions implemented in 1979, and, (2) a shift in emphasis by law enforcement from traffic to criminal investigation and enforcement. Table 89 New Filings in the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 1979 1980 % Change Criminal Misdemeanor 119,991 141,429 +17.9% Traffic 835,000* 851,163 +1.9% Felony Preliminary 9,876 10,324 +4.5% 601,503 Civil 69,115 82,632 +19.6% State/County Small Claims 25,339 30,422 +20.1 % Matters TOTAL CASES FILED 1,059,321 * 1,115,970 +5.3% *Adjusted for estimated under-reporting by courts. The volume of cases filed by state and county law enforcement (criminal and traffic) increased less than 0.3% while those cases filed by city law enforcement increased by almost 6%. Distribution of 1980 Filings by Table 90 Source & Court of Filing Criminal & Traffic Filings by Jurisdiction Figure 35 1979 1980 % Change STATE/COUNTY Criminal Misd./Felony 57,399 65,600 +14.3% Traffic 433,000* 426,052 -1.6% A one-day mandatory jail sentence for DWr (driving Total State/County 490,399 491,652 +0.3% while intoxicated) conviction was enacted in 1979 ar.d MUNICIPAL implemented in January 1980. Although data is not avail Criminal Misdemeanor 72,468 86,153 +18.9% able to indicate the impact of this provision, jury trials Traffic 412,000* 425, III +3.2% and de novo appeals did not increase beyond that Total Municipal 484,468 511,264 +5.5% expected from the general increase in criminal and civil *Adjusted for estimated under-reporting by courts. caseloads. The courts of limited jurisdiction conducted more trials in 1980 than in any previous year. However, a smaller District courts handled all cases filed by state and proportion of civil and small claims cases were decided county law enforcement, almost all civil and small claim:> by trial than in 1979. Little change occurred in the matters filed in the courts of limited jurisdiction, plus manner by which criminal and traffic cases were disposed 206,394 cases filed by municipal law enforcement for cit- compared to 1979. 81 I' ! ------ ~,______=== __ =m______am ______.. ______ THE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION Misdemeanor filings increased both from state/county law enforcement (+16.3%) and from municipal law en Courts of Limited Jurisdiction forcement (+ 18.9%). Possible reasons may include, (1) a Traffic Cases Filed: 1975-1980 INTAKE from municipal law enforcement. I?is~rict courts al~o re general emphasis on criminal investigation and crack The courts of Iimitl~d jurisdiction proces.s ~ive distinct ceived 10,324 felony filings for prehmmary proceedmgs. downs by law ~nforcement throughtout the state, and, types of cases: Criminal Misdemea.nor, ~r~mmal Felony (2), a general rise in crime. (FBI early release data shows (for preliminary matters), TraffIc, CJVlI and Small The misdemeanors filed during 1980 were well above a 15% increase in reported crimes in' Seattle and Tacoma Claims Criminal and traffic cases are filed by state a~d the trend established over the previo.us. five. years. (See and a 5% increase in Spokane.) county 'law enforcement personnel in district courts whIle figure 33). This corresp?nds to a SImilar mcrease for felony filings in the superIor courts. The major portion of the 1980 increase in misdemeanor those initiated by municipal law enfo.rcemen.t p~rsonnel filings was in King, Spokane and Yakima Counties. There are filed either in a municipal court or m the ~Istnct court were slight decreases in Pierce, Thurston and eight other with whom tneir city contracts for court servlc:s. F~ctors Table 91 counties. considered to influence the volume of cases [lied m the Criminal Cases Filed 600,000 -f::;:;:;:;:;::,:;f- courts of limited jurisdiction include: law en Felony complaints were filed in 23 district courts for pop~latIon; Misdemeanor Felony forcement staff levels, allocation and pol~cy; traffic p~~ Year preliminary hearings or other proceedings. Two-thirds of 97,350 7,642 terns and changes in traffic an~ crimmal laws; CJVlI 1975 9,083 +18.9% all felony matters filed in the district courts were in 1976 102,981 +5.8% jurisdictions and economic and socIal patterns. +7.4% 6,731 -25.9% Seattle District Court. Excluding those filed in Seattle 1977 110,643 +11.8% District Court, there was an 8.3% increase in filings which .n,)ooo 117,471 +6.2% 7,524 1978 9,876 +31.3% continues the increasing trend over the previous two 1979 119,991 +2.2% 10,324 +4.5% years. In spite of the increase in felony matters filed in the 1980 141,429 +17.9% district courts, no correlation with the far greater increase Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in felony filings in the superior courts can be identified. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Misdemeanor Cases Filed: 1975-1980 Table 92 Felony FHings: District Courts vs Superior Courts .1979 1980 % Change King County Superior Court 2,659 3,603 +35.5% 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 King County District Courts 6,402 6,566 +2.6% State Less King County* 19h1)OO.______~~W~:I-~,uu,vOO Superior Courts 11,140 +17.1% . Figure 38 District Courts 3,762 +8.3% *This includes those counties in which felony preliminary mat ters are not filed in the district courts. (Minor 69%) Table 93 Traffic Cases Filed Traffi~ Filings Year Filings % Change There were 851,163 traffic cases filed in the courts of Traffic 1975 715,447 limited jurisdiction during 1980 including 426,052 origi 76% 1976 746,510 +4.3% nating from state/county law enforcement and 425,111 1977 820,030 +9,9% from municipal law enforcement. 1978 855,726 +4.4% The traffic cases filed during 1980 were below the trend 1979 833,000* -2.7% established over the previous five years. (See figure 34.) 1980 851,163 +2.2% * Adjusted for estimated under-reporting by courts. Traffic filings from state and county law enforcement Distribution of 1980 Filings decreased slightly in 1980 from 1979 while traffic filings Figure 36 by municipal law enforcement increased 5.5%. (See table The increas~~ in traffic filings from 1979 to 1980 was 90.) This fluctuation supports the hypothesis regarding a primarily in minor traffic offenses. Major traffic offenses shift in emphasis by law enforcement towards criminal in include those violations for which a court appearance is Criminal Filings vestigation and enforcement and away from traffic activi statutorily mandated, such as driving while intoxicated, There were 97,350 criminal misdem.eanor cas:s file~ in ty. reckless driving, driving while license suspended, etc. the courts of limited jurisdiction dUrIng 1980 I~c~~d~~~ 39,035 from state/county law enforcement an , Figure 37 83 82 - -_. -' \. _ .. I_~ "~ ___ ~J.l, ..._ ~_~_'~. -~-~ ...... -.:.~--,- r r , I .to ------~ ! THE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION ------COURT ACTIVITY Table 94 Filings: Major Traffic vs Minor Traffic Courts of Limited Jurisdiction . For the purposes of this report, COURT ACTIVITY Table 98 1979 1980 % Change Civil & Small Claims Cases Filed: 1975-1980 In~ludes trials, disposition of cases, sentencing of criminal Disposition of Criminal Misdemeanors Major Traffic Cases Filed 83,650* 82,296 -1.6% mls?emeanants .and traffic offenders and the levying/ col lectIOn of fees, fines and bail forfeitures. While the courts (1979 proportions are shown in parentheses) Minor Traffic Cases Filed 751,350* 768,867 +2.3% and court personnel engage in far more activities than are Manner of Disposition Disposed 1980* (1979) *Adjusted for estimated under-reporting by courts. 100nnn referenced by these categories, statistics have been col Change of Venue 305 0.3% '" lected only in these areas. Bail Forfeiture 29,188 33.1% (33.3%) Dismissed or Prosecution Trials Decriminaliza tion of minor traffic offenses was enacted Deferred 10,300 11.7% ( 9.5%) in 1979. Implementing legislation passed in 1980. Begin Courts of limited jurisdiction held more trials in 1980 Acquitted 10,181 11.6% (15.4%) ning in 1981, minor traffic violations will no longer be than in any previous year. Of the 138,815 trials held, Convicted by Plea or Trial 38,184 43.3% (41.8%) considered as 'criminal' offenses but 'infractions'. Wheth 1,724 or 1.2% were before a jury. Total Reported Disposed* 88,158 100.0% (100.0%) er or not this will have an effect on driving behavior and/ Although there were more jury trials reported in 1980 *The total.reported disposed does NOT represent all misde- or law enforcement policies cannot be determined at this ~eanors disposed by the courts of limited jurisdiction. Disposi time. The impact of traffic decriminalization is a subject t~an previ?usly, the ratio between jury trials and cases tIOn data was not reported by some courts. that will require the collection of substantial data and a filed remained the same as in 1979. The number of non great deal of investigation during the coming year. jury.trials reported was considerably higher than in any prevIOus year and much higher than would have been Disposition of Traffic Cases expected given the number of cases filed in 1980. CiviA and Small Claims Filings mt ::i~ ~here appeared to be little change in the manner in which traffic ~as~s were disposed during 1980 compared There were 82,632 civil cases filed 1n 1980 along with iiil : 1: mi to 1979. ConvictIOn rates were practically identical with 30,422 small claims actions. These case volumes were far I:!i; ml .' those of 1979, except that fewer major traffic cases above trends established during the period 1971 through i:it 1978. The increases in filings for both types of cases i:i:l :i:i:l re~ulted in .forfeiture of bail while a larger proportion of :1:: mmor traffic cases were reported disposed by bail forfeit coincide with the 1979 increase in civil and small claims :' Table 97 Ilil!I::: ure. jurisdictions. (See figure 35.) ll:~:::; :: ll!) Trials vs Cases Filed 19 '5 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Cases Jury Trials Non~Jury Trials Table 99 Year Filed Trials Ratio* Trials Ratio* Disposition of Traffic Cases Jurisdictions+ Table 95 Increased 1975 889,288 1,223 1.38 84,103 94.6 (1979 proportions are shown in parentheses) 1976 926,235 1,355 1.46 Civil & Small Claims Cases Filed 89,087 96.2 Manner of Disposition Major Traffic Minor Traffic Figure 39 1977 1,009,159 1,657 1.64 102,397 101.5 Year Civil Small Claims 1978 1,055,125 1,555 1.47 109,286 101.4 Change of Venue 383 1,801 1975 48,070 20,779 1979 1,059,321** 1,636 1.54 105,000** 99.1 0.9% 0.3% 1976 46,750 -2.8% 20,911 +0.6% 1980 1,115,970 1,724 1.54 137,091 122.8 Bail Forfeiture 3,731 473,425 1977 50,681 +8.4% 21,074 +0.8% *Trials per 1000 cases filed 8.6% (12.8%) 80.1% (78.8%) 1978 52,948 +4.5% 21,456 +1.8% ** Adjusted for estimated under-reporting by courts Dismissed or Prose 1979 69,115 +30.5% 25,339 +18.1% cution Deferred 3,103 6,738 1980 82,632 +19.6% 30,422 +20.1% 7.2% ( 6.5%) 1.1% ( 1.3%) Table 96 Acquitted 3,403 9,334 7.9% ( 9.8%) 1.6% ( 1.9%) Civil Filings: Superior and District Courts Convicted by Plea When civil jurisdiction for district courts was increased Superior District or Trial 32,517 99,654 from $1,000 to $3,000, a diversion of civil cases from Year Courts* Courts Total % Cbange Disposition of Criminal Cases 75.4% (70.9%) 16.9% (18.0%) Total Reported superior courts to district courts was expected. While civil 1975 28,119 48,070 76,189 .T~ere w,as little change in the manner by which filings in the district courts have increased dramatically 1976 28,419 46,750 75,169 -1.3% crImmal misdemeanor cases were disposed in 1980 com Disposed* 43,137 590,952 100.0% 100.0% since then, there has not been a proportionate decrease 1977 30,919 50,681 81;600 4-8.6% pared to 1979, although a larger proportion of cases was in the number of tort, commercial and property rights 1978 32,029 52,948 84,977 +4.1% dismissed (or prosecution was deferred) and tewer re *The to~a1 reported disposed does NOT represent all traffic cases disposed by the courts of limited jurisdiction. Disposition cases filed in the superior courts. The civil jurisdiction of 1979 36,421 69,115 105,536 +24.2% sulted in acquittal. The conviction rate increased by 1.6%. district courts is scheduk-d to be further increased to 1980 38,268 82,632 120,900 +14.6% data was not reported by some courts. $5,000 in July, 1981. While civil filings in district courts *IncIudes only tort, commercial and property rights can be expected to increase still further, the impact on the cases. superior courts, if any, cannot be predicted. 84 85 ~.-, THE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION Disposition of Civil Cases Table 103 Revenue Resulting from Court Activity Relation of Misdemeanor Sentences to Guidelines Nearly two-thirds of all civil dispositions reported were by the Washington State Magistrates Association i~ 1978 (Sentencings Reported: July, 1979-July, 1980) A total of $38 million was received in the courts of default judgments while one-fourth were settlements. ~e to develop and adopt guidelines for the senten~m~ of limited jurisdiction during 1980 from fees, fines and bail Below Within Above forfeitures. This figure was 10.3% more than in 1979, an cause there is no data on civil dispositions available pnor selected traffic and misdemeanor offenses. GUidelines Offense to 1979 no conclusions can be drawn regarding trends. Guideline Guideline Guideline increase greater than demonstrated by the caseloads of were voluntarily adopted by the judges of the district and Simple Assault Howeve'r, a comparison of 1980 with 1979 data indicates municipal courts in 1979. Technical assistance has been 34.2% 51.3% 14.5% the district and municipal courts. an effort to dispose of civil matters by some means other Theft, Third Degree 9.5% 65.2% 25.3% provided by the Office of the Administrator for the Receipts for civil and small claims filing fees almost than by trial. Courts to collect and compile statistical information on Shoplifting 3.1% 84.4% 12.5% Unlawful Issuance doubled from 1979 to 1980 and reflected not only the the use of the guidelines. Because the use of the increase case filings but also an increase in filing fees for Table 100 of Bank Check 19.0% 66.7% 14.3% sentencing guidelines is optional, statistical data collected both civil ($6 to $12) and small claims ($1 to $5) during Disposition of Civil Cases All Misdemeanors Reported 13.8% 68.4% 17.8% does not represent sentencing policies or patterns of all the year. Receipts from fines and bail forfeitures for (1979 proportions are shown in parentheses) judges but only those who have participated in !he NOTE: This data does not represent all misdemeanants sen traffic cases increased by 7.5%, even though the number Manner of Disposition Disposed 1980 (1979) program and have submitted worksheets. The follow~ng tenced in the courts of limited jurisdiction but only those for whom sentencing guidelines worksheets were of cases filed increased only 1.9% and the conviction rate Dismissed 3,103 7.1% (11.3%) information is taken from the Report of the Sentencmg for traffic cases did not change. Guidelines Committee, Washington State Magistrates submitted for the collection of statistical information. Default Judgment 28,061 64.2% (65.3%) Because of the voluntary nature of guidelines use, this Association and the Office of the Administrator for the Settlement 10,361 23.7% (14.2%) does not represent a random sample. Courts that will be published in January, 1981. Table 105 Tried 2,172 5.0% (9.2%) Receipts from Fees, Fines & Forfeitures Total Reported Disposed* 43,797 100.0% The sentencing guidelines for the courts of limited ju Concurrence with the sentencing guidelines for offend *The total reported disposed does NOT represent all civil cases risdiction provide recommended sentence ranges for se ers convicted of driving while intoxicated was compli 1979 1980 % Change disposed by the courts of limited jurisdiction. Disposition data lected offenses (DWI, Reckless Driving, Driving While Criminal Mis cated with the enactment and implementation of the one demeanors was not rp,ported by some courts. Change of venue dispositions Licei1s~ Suspended, Simple Assault, Third Degree Theft, day mandatory jail sentence for conviction of DWI in $ 4,198,961 $ 5,102,585 +21.5% (100) not included. Shoplifting and Unlawful Issuance of Bank Check), Traffic Cases 29,975,563 32,210,720 +7.5% January, 1980. Sentencing guidelines worksheets submit Civil/Small Claims based on characteristics of both the offense and the ted after the implementation of the one day jail sentence Disposition of Small Claims Cases Filings 433,559 855,254 +97.3% offender. The Report of the Sentencing Guidelines Com reveal a much lower compliance with the guidelines in Total Receipts* $34,608,083 $38,168,559* + 10.3% A much greater proportion of small claims cases were mittee is based on statistics collected from 1,846 traffic those instances where the guidelines indicate a sentence tried than civil cases, but the proportion of small claims offenders and 456 misdemeanor offenders who were sen without jail. *Does not include $5,080,076 reported received in 1980 for park tenced during the period July, 1979 through July, 1980. ing citations. (909,614 parking citations were reported as filed cases tried in 1980 was much less than in 1979. A larger in the cO\lrts of limited jurisdiction during 1980.) proportion of small claims resulted in a default judgment Table 104 in 1980 than in 1979. As with civil cases, an absence of Table 102 Relation of Traffic Offender Sentences to Guidelines comparable data prior to 1979 precludes drawing any Sentencing Guidelines Case1i:: July, 1979-July, 1980 (Sentencings Reported: July, 1979-July, 1980) conclusions regarding trends in the disposition of small TRAFFIC Below Within Above claims. Offense Guideline Driving While Intoxicated 1,310 Guideline Guideline 71.0% DWI (Prior to Jan. I, 1980) Reckless Driving 121 6.5% 14.9% 59.5% 25.6% Table 101 DWI (Jan. 1,1980, and after) 17.6% Driving While License Suspended 22.5% 33.9% 48.5% Disposition of Small Claims ~ Reckless Driving 13.2% TOTAL TRAFFIC 70.2% 16.5% (1979 proportions are shown in parentheses) 1,846 100.0% Driving While License Sus- Manner of Disposition Disposed 1980 (1979) MISDEMEANOR pended 15.2% 61.9% 22.9% Dismissed 2,007 13.9% (16.0%) Simple Assault 117 25.7% All Traffic Offenses Reported 15.7% 53.0% 31.3% DefaultJudgment 4,485 31.0% (27.7%) Theft, Third Degree 158 34.6% NOTE: This data does not represent all sentences for the indi- Shoplifting cated traffic offenses but only those for whom sentenc Settlement 3,840 26.6% (27.9%) 160 35.1% Unlawful Issuance of Bank Check 21 4.6% ing guidelines worksheets were submitted for the collec Tried 3,207 22.2% (28.4%) TOTAL MISDEMEANOR 456 100.0% tion of statistical information; because of the voluntary Transferred to Civil ---.2..!..§. 6.3% (N/R) nature of guidelines use, this data does not represent a Total Reported Disposed* 14,797 100.0% random sample. Of those misdemeanor offenders for whom sentencing *The total reported disposed does NOT represent all small guidelines worksheets were received, 68% of the sentences claims cases disposed by the courts of limited jurisdiction; dis Modifications to the sentencing guidelines will be made position data was not reported by some courts. Change of venue were within the guideline range and 18% exceeded or following analysis and evaluation of the data that has dispositions (340) not included. were more strict than called for in the guidelines. The been collected to date. highest concurrence with the guidelines occurred with of Sentencing Guidelines fenders convicted of shoplifting while sentences given to offenders convicted of simple assault diverged from the As with the superior courts, a program was initiated guidelines in almost half the cases reported. 86 87 .1 t .'\. ------~------:""'''''.- THE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION Table 106 COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION CASELOAD HISTORY District Courts 1976 1977 1978 1979 OUTLOOK STATE/COUNTY MATTERS 1980 Criminal Misdemeanor 42,776 43,073 The greatest changes anticipated by courts of limited Major Traffic 44,280 47,523 55,276 On July 1, 1981, the civil jurisdiction of the district 377,344 412,419 jurisdiction during 1981 are the decriminalization of traf courts will be increased from $3,000 to $5,000. Based on Minor Traffic 448,477 41,500* 38,346 fic offenses and the implementation of electronic record Civil 391,500* 387,706 the increase in civil caseloads coincident with the last 46,750 50,681 ing of courtroom proceedings. Small Claims 51,023 67,106 79,429 increase in civil jurisdiction, a further increase in civil 20,911 21,074 Felony Preliminary 21,456 25,339 30,422 case filings can be expected. 6 731 7 524 Decriminalization creates an entirely new type of case ~ 2 2 92876 10,324 TOTAL STATE/COUNTY MATTERS 496,864 for the district and municipal courts-the TRAFFIC IN The advent of electronic recording in most limited ju 533,978 572,760 582,844 601,503 FRACTION. Preliminary data indicates that (1), filings risdiction courts will result in the near elimination of de MUNICIPAL MATTERS will increase, and, (2) revenue generated from penalties novo appeals to superior courts. A few de novo a.ppeals Criminal Misdemeanor 30,176 24,191 imposed for traffic infractions will also increase over cur will still be received from small municipal courts where Major Traffic 26,031 23,230 28,472 rent revenue levels for traffic bail forfeitures. Concurrent proceedings are not recorded. Appeals of most cases Minor Traffic 16,650* 16,114 147,035 147P7 155,407 154,550* with the implementation of traffic infractions is the im TOTAL MUNICIPAL MATTERS 161,808 heard in the courts of limited jurisdiction will be 'on the 177,211 171,368 plementation of a new uniform penalty schedule. The new record' and a very substantial reduction in cases appealed 181,438 194,430 206,394 penalty schedule calls for monetary penalties that, in is expected. The effect of this change will be most strongly Total District Court Caseloads --- most cases, are higher than set by bail schedules in the felt in King County Superior Court in which almost two 674,075 705,346 754,198 777,274 past. 807,897 thirds of the state's de novo appeals have been filed. Municipal Courts 1976 1977 1978 1979 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 1~80 Criminal Misdemeanor 30,029 43,379 Major Traffic 47,160 49,238 57,681 222,131 260,434 Minor Traffic 251,842 25,500* 27,836 Civil 205,300* 219,353 ~ ~ 1,925** 2,009** 3,203** TOTAL MUNICIPAL MATTERS 252,160 303,813 300,927 282,047 308,073 = Total Municipal Court Caseloads 252,160 303,813 300,927 282,047 308,073 All Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 1976 1977 1978 1979 CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR 1980 State/County 42,776 43,073 44,280 47,523 55,276 Municipal 60 205 2 67,570 73,191 72,468 86,153 TOTAL CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR 102,981 110,643 117,471 119,991 141,429 TRAFFIC State/County 377,344 412,419 448,477 433,000* 426,052 Municipal 369,166 407,61 I 407,249 402,000* 425,111 TOTAL TRAFFIC 746,510 820,030 855,726 835,000 851,163 CIVIL 46,750 50,681 52,948 69,115 82,632 SMALL CLAIMS 20,91 I 21,074 21,456 25,339 30,422 FELONY PRELIMINARY 9,083 6,731 7,524 9,876 10,324 --- Total Caseloads 926,235 1,009,159 1,055,125 1,059,321 1,115,970 * Adjusted for estimated under-reporting by courts. **Seattle Municipal Court 88 89 'j .3. TABLE 107 TABLE lOB WASHINGTON COURTS OF LIHITEO J URI 5 0 I C TID N WASH[NGTCN CCURTS OF LI,~ITEO URISDICTION CAS ES FILED IN 1980 BAIL fORFEITURES, TRIALS AND RECEIPTS ------5 TA TE/COUNTY HA TTERS------HUNIC IPAL HATT ERS------TOTAL .... TR[ALS ... CRI H. MAJOR HINOR SMA'_L CRIH. MAJOR HINOR AU BAIL FORFEI TURE 5 ------R ECE I P TS------______COUNTV/COURT HISO. TRAF. TRAF. FELONY CIVIL CLAIHS TOUL iilso. TRAF. TRAF. TOTAL HA HERS COUNTY/COURT NUN- CRIM. TRAFF[C JUR'( JURY CIV IL & CRHIINAL TRAFFIC SH.eLAI MS AOAKS COUNTY A OAKS COUNTY TOTAL OTHEllO O[ST.CT. OTHELLO OIST.CT. 143 106 2056 1 141 38 2485 o o o o 24B" 20 1162 OTHELLO o o o o o a o 239 146 131 1116 OTHELLO 3 101 Sl,5ll Sl 06 ,960 111~ 21 340 14 120 Sl,463 Slll,934 RITlVILLE OIST.CT. 7B 100 H95 o 41 35 4055 o o 4055 RITZV[LLE bIST.CT. 45 3,595 35,533 o o 3391 3 52 o 39.126 RITZVILLE o o o a o o o 10 1 25 42 42 RITZVILLE 4,265 1J9,B35 1 21 1 508 114,608 TOT AL AOAHS COUNTY 221 206 5B51 1 18B 73 6540 249 153 756 ll58 1698 TOTAL ADAMS COUNTY 93 a 15 1,130 4946 20 214 o 1,805 Sll,~~6 $254,058 5 I, 911 ASOTIN COUNTY ASOT[N COUNTY $261,415 ASOI IN OIST .CT. 201 100 700 o 14 131 1212 a o o 1212 ASOTIN O[SI.CT. 71 403 1 85 A son N HUNI. CT. o a a o o o a 2 4 159 165 165 ASOT IN HUNI.CT. 59,610 $28,810 o 113 0 $I ,24B 539,668 CLARKSTON HUNI.CT. o 0, a o o a o 133 44 474 651 651 CLARKSTON HUNI.cr. 9 o 1JJ B ,250 78 o 20 o 8,]!iO TOTAL ASOTIN COUNTY 201 100 1CO a 14 131 1212 135 48 633 816 2026 TOTAL ASOTIN COUNTY 80 2,369 10,700 594 1 105 o 13,069 HZ,019 $41,760 $I,24B BENTON COUNIY BENTCN COUNTY H1,081 8ENTON OIST.CT. U 724 3B6 4050 166 BB3 170 6379 o o o 6379 BENTONOIST.CT. Ml o 142 1949 o 860 BENTON CITY a o o o o o o 41 16 411 414 474 BENTON CITY 531,916 $119,413 6 220 o 42 5~,604 $220,993 RICHLAND a a a o a o o 719 112 4341 5172 5172 RICHLAND 41 1,015 1.612 20]4 2 1311 o 8.627 w. RICr1lANO a o a o a J o B3 14R 561 192 192 W. RICtl.AND 25,629 162,202 4 lI7 o 196 o 1 B7 ,831 BENTON OIST.CT. ~2 743 511 5464 330 2051 305 9410 o a o o 9410 BENTON O[ST.CT. M2 9J 10786 35,903 KENNEWICK 2154 2 1365 o 31,689 KENNEWICK a a a o o o o 2314 113 4115 1202 1202 231 [410 3601 07 290,928 PROSS ER HUNI. CT. I 1613 23,903 350.938 PReSSER HUI/I.CT. a ~ o o a o a 212 112 592 916 916 11 B6,796 192,556 TOTAL BENTON COUNTY 321 o 15 o 219,354 lOTA;. BENTON CUUNTY 1467 891 9514 496 2940 415 15169 3429 1101 10086 15216 31005 543 99[[ 9,839 34,061 o 5 546B H93,148 43,900 5902,677 533 ,501 H,I 29 ,332 CHELAN COUNIY CHelAN COUNTY CHELAN OIST .CT. CHELAN OIST.CT. 1 lit;: 4! Bll 190 1 204 BB2 236 11456 o o o o 11456 170 5896 WENATCHEE a WENA TCHEE 14 628 580,509 o a o o o o 980 255 1556 2191 2791 152 850 $343,398 SlO ,401 5434,308 CHELAN HUNI.CT. a a 483 CHELAN HUNI.CT. 4 lB3 19,254 o a o o o 215 365 106] 1063 92 17 41,843 o 61,097 ENTIAT HUNI.CT. a a a o o o o o 1 12 13 13 ENTIAT MUN[.CT. a 103 19,945 46,419 o 2 9 a 66,364 LEAVENWORTH IIUNI.CT. o a a o o o o 11 o 60 71 71 LEAVENWORTH HU~I.CT. 5 o 50 435 45 4 21 o 485 TOTAL CHELAN C~UNIY 1422 811 1901 204 882 236 11456 1414 471 1993 393B 15394 10TAL CHELAN COUNTY 1019 614 1,304 6810 22 944 o 1,9[B $120,372 $439,399 SlO,401 CLALLAH COUNTY CLALlAH COUNTY $5100112 CLALLAM OIST.CT. 481 433 3714 o 433 465 5526 o o 5526 CLALLAH OIST .CT. 133 o o 3031 5 322 SEQUI H o o a o o o 84 III 435 630 630 SEQUIM 15 531,339 5244,657 o 350 9 25 '6,048 5282, 044 FO,RKS OIST.CT. 416 169 6B1 o o o 1266 1286 FORKS OIST.CI. 129 4,160 31,939 a o o o 395 o 3B9 o 36,699 FORKS MUNI.CT. o J a o o o o 279 119 416 814 874 fORKS HUN[ .CT. 27,864 59,232 13 151 o 362 o 81,096 PORT ANGELES HUNI.CT. o o a o o o o 552 2B1 2309 3149 3148 POR I ANGELES HUNI. C I. 14 27,346 44,136 10TAL CLALLAH COUNTY 1458 o 112 o 72, OB2 TUT AL CLALLAM COUNT Y B97 622 4H5 o 433 465 6B12 915 577 3160 4652 11464 384 5391 26,416 109,011 14 1210 Sl17,185 o 135,5H HB9,635 $6, 048 $613,468 CLARK COUNTY CLARK COUNTY CLARK )IST.CT. 330B 1BBO 28213 o 207B 3095 38574 CLARK) I ST.C T. 243 o o o o 3B514 CAHAS 11041 46 2042 CAMAS o o a 39) 124 548 H05,158 Sl, 388, 604 a o o o 1062 1062 118 249 39 no.166 $[,524,528 LA CENTER o o a o 40 13 LA CENTER o 10,639 29,216 o o o 143 196 196 1 63 1 1 o 39,855 VANCOUVER o a a o o 1362 645 6437 VANCOUVER o 6,616 o a 8444 8444 92 25 B5 4 151 o 6,616 YACOLT o o o o o J 3 29 YACOLT 38,062 116,292 o J 32 32 a 11 1 o 214,354 BATTLE GROU~O HUNI.CT. o a o o o o 151 61 430 668 666 BATTLE GROUND HUNI.CT. 3 o J 1,241 o 51 14 o 1,241 WASH:JUGAL HUN I.CT. o a a o o o a 89 61 854 1010 1010 WASIfJUGAL MUN I.C T. 20 o 3,256 140185 TOTAL CLARK COUNTY 378 o 40 o t1,H1 TOTAL CLARK COUNTY 3308 188) 2B213 .) 2018 3095 36574 203B 933 8441 11412 49986 411 20)9') 4,312 38,856 51 l494 5161,481 o 43,228 $1,655,010 $30,766 $[,847,263 COLUMBIA COUNTY COLUHBIA COUNTY COLUMB[A OIST.CT. COLUMB IA OIST. CT. H3 25 349 a 38 66 671 ., o o 671 68 o OA YTON HUNI. CT. 179 o 0 UAYTON HUNI.CT. o o o o o o o 41 5 265 317 311 15 58,361 Sl~.132 TOTAL COLUHB IA WUN TY 116 o 0 S532 523,025 TOT AL COLUMB IA COUN TY 193 25 349 o 38 66 611 47 5 265 317 988 B3 195 1,910 9,539 o 0 SlO,331 o 11,509 $23,611 5532 04,534 COkLlTZ COUNTY CC~l1TZ COUNTY COWLITl OISI.CT. COWLITZ 015T.CT. 1394 511 9457 o 851 190 13009 13009 491 o o o o K ALAliA 1633 18 969 KALAMA o o a o o o o 16 22 120 158 SO 5529,411 158 KELSO o 55 o 6 511,318 S540,649 X~LSO o o a o o a o 517 351 2365 3293 3293 85 620 5,821 LUNGVIEW 1533 o 523 o 6,441 LONGVIEW o o a o o o o 922 569 4080 5571 5571 151 2466 8,001 125,936 ~OOOLANO 9 690 a 133 ,937 WOOOLANO a J ~ o a a J o 36 22 148 206 206 3 61 ,) 19 284,489 a l84,489 CASTLE ROCK HUNI.CT. o a a o B7 71 262 CASTLE ROCK HUNI.CT. 1,624 8,562 o o o 420 420 5 121 1 79 o 10,186 TOTAL COWLITZ COUNTY 1394 511 9451 o B51 190 13009 1638 1035 6975 964H TOT AL COWLl TZ COUN IY 3,883 11,927 22651 741 11869 2B 2506 o 21 ,Bl 0 Sl4012B 5972,206 S[ I, 318 JOUGLAS COUNTY DOUGLAS COUNTY 5997,112 DOUGLAS OIST.CT. 400 251 2893 47 424 106 4121 4121 DOUGLAS OIST.CT. 140 o o o o 1693 5 161 WArERV ILLE o o o .) () Q WAT ERV [LLE $I3,311 $123,038 o a b o 6 6 o 2 o a $141,303 BRIOGPORT HUNI.CT. o a a o a a 24 18 51 99 BRIOGPORT HUNI.CT. 190 10 a 99 o 36 o 0 260 E. WENATCHEE HUNI.CT. o o a o a o o 118 87 BB9 ll54 1154 E. WENATCHEE .IUNI.CT. 13 1,021 3,528 TOTAL UOU GL AS COUNIY 382 6 37 4.555 TOTAL DOUGLAS COUNTY 4~0 251 2893 41 424 106 4121 2<)8 105 946 1259 5380 153 2113 4,771 41,689 11 198 $[9,305 52,466 $174,325 5198,5B4 FERR Y COUNTY FERR Y COUNTY FERRY OIST .cr • 122 6B 525 2 45 171 939 FERRY OIST .CT. a o o 939 14 I e5 15 32 REPUBLl C HUNI. CT. o o o o a o o 83 32 110 310 REPUBLIC HUNI.CT. 3 $[O,BB1 $3[,400 TOTAL FERR Y CJUN TY 62 1 18 5919 $43,200 T LIT AL FERR Y COUN TY 122 68 525 2 45 117 939 83 32 3[0 1249 17 241 5,319 B,667 o 16 50 Sl6,200 13,986 $40,067 $919 $570186 FRAhKLIN COUNTY F RANKlI N COUNTY FRANKL[N OIST.CT. FRANKLIN OIST.Cr. 140 152 3115 5 1200 171 6043 o o o a 6043 252 1808 CONNELL HUNI.cr. o a CO~NELL HUNI.CT. I B99 $510 $[52,8,5 o o a o o 28 60 74 162 162 6 36 1 $13,968 $[67,363 KAHLorus HUNI. CT. o o o o a o o KAHLOTUS HUNI. CT. o 5ZB 6,401 o o o a a HESSA HUNI.C T. o o o 0 o 6,9Z9 HESSA HUNI.C T. a o o o a o 2 2 o o o o o 2 PASCO HUN[ .CT. a a o 0 o o PASCO HUN I .CT • o o o J a o J 699 393 1567 2659 2659 o 65 TOTAL FRANKLIN CCUNTY o a a 0 o 65 rOTAL FRANKLIN COUNTY 14? 152 3715 5 1200 111 6043 121 453 1643 2623 8066 256 1B44 J 128,a3l a 1 900 $1,098 128,832 52880121 $lJ,968 $303,189 GARFIELD COUNTY GAR F I EL 0 COUNTY OARF[ELJ OIST.CT. GARFIELO OIST.CT. 17 20 3ll o 1 55 470 o a o a 470 51 139 POHEROY HU~I.C T. o 63 POHEROY HUNI.CT. o a II o a a o o 6 116 122 122 o $ 3, 656 59,613 $[11 TOTAL GARFIELD COUNIY 40 o 0 513,500 TOTAL GARFIEL~ COUNTY 77 2J HI o 1 55 410 J 6 116 122 592 51 119 o 3,619 o a 6] $J ,656 3.619 H3,352 Sll1 $11,119 GRANT COUNTY GRANT COUNtv GRANT OIST.CT. GRANT 0 1ST .CT • 1624 813 ~631 8B 764 452 13378 J 366 o o J 1337B EPHRATA 5268 3680 EPIiRATA o .~ o a a 209 86 60 $47,136 $354.216 o o 335 630 630 HA TTAWA 95 37 59,219 5411,231 MATTA HA o o o o o 2 18 I 3,418 11,632 a o 6 26 26 HOSES LAKE 15 o 0 o 21,050 HOSES LAKE o o o a o o o 45·) 488 1H1 2215 2215 63 441 54 802 SOAP lAK~ 1 171 o 856 SOAP LAKE a o o o a o o 56 30 84 110 110 o 17 14,133 61,651 J o 0 B49 76,384 2,071 a 2,920 90 91 \' T ABL E 108 - PAGE 2 WASHINGTCN C CUR T S o F LIM I T E 0 U R ISOICTIO~ T AaLE 107 - PAGE 2 WAS H I N G TON C 0 U R 5 o F L I HIT E 0 JURISOICTIO~ BA!L FORFElTlRES, TRIALS AND RECEIPTS CASES FILED IN 1980 •••• TRIALS ••• ------RECE I PT S------8AIL FORFEITURES NoN- CIV IL & ------STA TEICOUNTV HATTERS------HUN IC IPAL MA TTERS------TOTAL COUNTY /COUR T CRIM. TRAFFIC JURV JURV CRIMINAL TRAFFI C SH. CLAI MS TOTAL CRIM. KAJOR HINOR SHALL CRIH. MAJOR MINOR ALL COUNTV/COUR T HI SO. TRAF. TRAF. FELONV elv IL CLA IHS TOTAL HI SO. TRAF. TRAF. TOTAL HATTERS COULEE CITV MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 $0 SO SO SO ELECTRI C CITV IIJNI .CT • 1 47 0 3 280 2,261 0 2,5H CCJJLEE C lTV HUNI. CI. a 0 a 0 a a a 0 a a 0 a GEORGE HUNI. CT. a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 7 7 92 106 lOb GRAND COULEE MUNI.CT. 2 92 6 14 90 5,585 0 5,675 ELECIRIC CITV IIJNI.CI. 0 GEORGE HUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 QUINCY HUNt.CT. 60 147 0 415 12,736 31,491 0 44,227 GRAND COULEE HUNI.CI. 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 8 7 192 207 207 WARDEN HUN I.C T. 4 109 0 0 516 4,593 0 5,1J9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 54 376 711 711 TOT AL GRANT COUNTY 557 6231 14 ~320 $80,412 $480,302 S9,279 $569,993 QUI NC Y HUNI. C I. 288 WAROEN HUN I.C I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 35 224 28B 2b58 4413 17791 GRAVS HAR80R COUNT TOTAL GRA~T C 93 92 .le ------.------ TABlE 108 - PAGE 3 TABlE 107 - PAGE 3 WASHINGTCN C 0 U R T S o F LIM I T E 0 VRISOlcrlON C 0 U R S o F L I II I T E 0 JURISOIC T ION WASHING T C N BAIL FORFElTlRES, TRIALS AND RECEIPTS CASES FILED IN 1980 •••• TRIALS ••• ------R ECE I PT S------8A IL FORFE ITURE 5 NUN- IIA T T ERS ------.. ------··!1UN IC IPAL HAT TERS------TOTAL CIV IL £ ------S fA TE/CLJUNTY CUUNTY/COURT CRIH. TRAFFIC JURY JURY CRIMINAL TRAFFIC CR IH. MAJOR HINOR SMALL CRIM. ~AJOR HINOR ALL SH. CLAI MS TOTAL TRAF. TKAF. FELONY CIV IL CLAlHS roTAL 141 SO. TRAF. TRAF. rOrAL IIATTERS C UUNTY/COURT 11150. KJ,ICKIrAT COUNTY EAST KLICKITAT OIST.CT. 55 1545 3 107 $14,191 $87,936 $832 $102,959 KLICKITAT COUNTY WEST KLICKITAT 01 ST.CT. 52 553 0 Z05 9,781 H,269 l.ll2 59,162 EAST KLICKITAT OIST.CT. Z6b 175 2148 0 30 156 2775 0 0 0 0 2775 () 1742 BINGEN I 5( 3 Z3 984 11,897 12,88 I WEST KLICKITAT OIST.CT. 250 83 1029 0 39 HI 1142 0 0 0 a 3(1 217 217 loti I TE SALMON 1 60 3 31 2.429 ! 1,530 0 13,959 81NGEN 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 31 156 333 333 GOLO£NOAL E "UN I.C T. 11 50 0 39 Z,559 10,~l3 0 12,897 IoIlI TE SAlMON 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 47 19 267 t.4 116 ZI1 211 TOTAL KLICKITAT COUNTY 120 2259 9 405 $29,944 $169,970 $l,9H $201,858 GOLOENoALE ~UNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 3177 0 69 4511 141 81 539 761 5218 TOTAL KLICKITAT COUNTY 516 258 "97 LEHIS COUNTY LEW IS 0 1ST .CT. 207 1614 36 604 $11,842 $238,199 $6, l77 $256,218 LEW IS COUNTY 12061 HORTON 3 41 I 12 942 3, "68 4,HO LEI/IS 0lS1 .CT. 993 8Z9 9306 56 501 310 12061 a ~ a a a lSI NAPAVINE 1 7 a j 87 452 a 539 HORTON 0 a 0 0 a a 0 39 22 90 151 44 PE Ell 2 5 a 1 85 243 a 328 NAPAVINE a a a 0 a a a 5 15 24 44 69 69 TOLEOO 2 6 I 10 90 449 0 539 PE ELL a a a a a a a 3Z 15 22 7~ 16 CENTRALIA HUN I.CT. 151 1668 0 159 24,090 119,410 0 143,500 TOLEDO a 0 0 0 0 '0 0 32 30 14 255 2214 2950 2950 CHEHALIS MUNI.CT. 35 449 a 57 13,304 33,682 0 46,986 CENTRALI~ MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Z1 995 VADER HUNI.C T. 3 67 0 23 605 3,242 0 3,841 CHEHALI S MUN I. CT • 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 213 89 693 995 III WINLOCK IIUN I.C1 • 6 50 0 18 2,340 6,456 0 8,796 VADER HUNI.C T. 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 90 III 141 TOTAL LE WI S CUUNTY 410 9913 38 1553 $ 53,385 $405,601 $6,171 $465,163 WINLOCK HUNI.CT. 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 38 19 B4 141 9306 56 507 310 12061 196 450 3291 4531 1659B TOTAL lEWIS CUUNTY 993 829 LINCOLN COUN TY LINCOLN OIST.CT. 16 155Z 4 294 $10,298 $99,131 $856 $110,285 LINCOLN COUNTY ALMIRA 1 0 0 Z 185 0 0 185 113 121 1169 0 30 42 2135 0 0 0 0 2135 LINCOLN OIST.CT. CRESTON 0 21 0 0 0 153 0 753 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 a 0 2 2 ALHI RA DAVENPORT 9 59 0 33 749 5,702 0 6,451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 21 21 21 CRESTON HARRI NG TON 14 0 0 0 577 0 517 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 21 20 75 116 116 a DAVENPORT OOESS A 1 16 1 2 25 1.590 0 1,615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 14 14 HARRI NG TON 0 REARDAN 5 .111 3 22 270 10,256 10,526 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 19 27 21 a OOES~A 0 SPRAGuE 2 4 0 I 69 21Z 0 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 30 256 302 302 REARDAN ~IL8JR 0 10 0 5 105 \ ,027 0 1,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 9 9 SPRAGUE TOTAL LI NCOLN COUNTY 94 1841 8 359 Sl1,701 $l19,-~8 $856 $131,805 WIL8UR 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 5 5 9 19 19 30 42 Z13!1 55 62 399 516 2651 TOTAL II NeOLN COUNTY 173 121 1769 0 MAS CN COUNTY MASON OIST.CT. 268 2200 9 583 $39,404 $238,531 $3 ,074 $281,009 MASON COUNTY SHEL TON HUNI. C T. 54 735 1 2Z8 9,459 79,488 0 88,941 J53 2110 0 250 161 4206 0 0 0 0 4206 HASON OIST.CT. 122 TOT AL HAS ON CUUNTY 322 2935 10 811 $48,863 5318,019 $ 3, 014 $369,956 SHELTON MUNI.C T. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 222 1133 1585 1585 0 250 101 4206 230 222 1133 1585 5791 TOTAL HASON CJUNTV 722 J53 2120 OKANOGAN COUNTY OKANOGAN 0 1ST .CT. 461 28~8 14 :'52 SIS ,031 Sl06,3H $3,708 Sl 25, 084 OK_~OGAN COUNTY 8REWSTER MUNI.CT. 115 139 0 135 1,280 2,505 0 3,785 374 3827 0 297 304 5482 0 a 0 0 5482 OKANUGAN OIST.CT. 680 COULEE OAH MUNI.C T. 12 155 0 0 1,836 H,350 0 26,186 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 44 104 249 249 8RE.STER HUNI.CT. 0 ELHER CITY MUNI.CT. 19 0 0 61iJ 0 610 0 0 0 0 65 59 426 552 552 a a COULEE DAM HUNI.C T. 0 0 0 NESPelEM MUNI.CT. 0 I. 0 0 346 0 H6 0 0 0 0 a 17 17 17 a ELHER CITY :~UNI.CT. a 0 c a UKANUGAN MINI.CT. 3 61 11 48 1,115 18,288 0 19,403 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 1 21 21 49 49 NESPELEM MUNI.CT. a O~AK MUNI.CT. 55 75 v 256 6,651 16,488 0 23,139 0 0 0 a 0 0 17 102 166 345 345 OKANOGAN HU~I.CT. 0 OROVillE HUNI.C T. 63 187 0 105 16,006 51,262 0 61,268 0 0 0 0 0 249 10 129 448 448 OHAK HUN I .CT • 0 a PAT EROS HUN I.c T. 0 28 0 ZO 260 2,113 0 2,373 0 0 0 0 0 32A 204 361 893 893 OROVILLE HUNI.CT. 0 a TONASKET MUNI.CT. 1 44 0 0 610 5,102 0 5,712 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 0 47 48 48 PATEROS MUNI.CT. 0 Twl SP HUNI.C T. 0 19 0 J 0 426 426 0 0 0 J 6 12 66 84 84 0 TONASKET HUNI.CT. 0 0 0 WINTHROP MUNI.CT. a 173 0 1 iJ 6,829 0 6,829 TWI SP MUNI.CT. 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 5 2 137 144 144 113 173 TOTAL OKANOGAN COUNTY 716 3810 25 1120 542,789 5234,724 $3,708 n81,221 WINTHROP HU~I.CT. 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 6 161 0 297 304 5482 839 681 1482 3002 8484 TOTAL OKANOGAN COUNTY 680 314 3821 0 PACIFIC COUNTY S. PACIFIC OIST.CT. 153 390 2 14 $11,160 $31,686 $1,525 $50,371 PACIFIC COUNTY N. PACIFIC OIST.CT. 103 465 1 371 15,332 38,879 1,751 5:' ,962 84 731 0 91 278 1596 J a J J 1596 S. PACifiC OIST.CT. H2 ILWACO IIUNI.CT. 2 75 I 18 940 5,912 0 6,912 87 858 226 93 1625 0 0 0 0 1625 N. PACIFIC OIST.CT. 361 a LONG BEACH HUNI.Ct .• 14 139 0 20 1,902 15,019 0 16,921 0 0 0 0 0 11 15 140 166 166 ILWACO MUNI.CT. 0 a RAYMONU MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 1,831 11,521 0 19,352 1 0 J 0 0 0 58 21 296 381 381 lCNG BEACH ~UN I.CT. 0 TOTAL PACIFIC COUNTY 212 1069 10 489 537 .L65 SliJ9,011 sJ,216 Sl49,518 RAYHONo MUNI.CT. D a II 0 0 0 0 117 25 449 591 591 1589 0 317 HI 3221 186 61 885 1138 H59 TOTAL PACIFIC COUNTY 713 111 PEND OREILLE CO~NT PEND OREILLE UIST.CT. 115 4C2 2 146 $12,690 $26,354 $8~1 $39,881 PE NO ORE I LLE COUNT CUSICK 0 1 0 2 0 344 0 344 54 582 1 41 130 1143 0 0 0 0 1143 PEND OREILLE OIST.CT. 329 NEHPOR T 0 112 0 26 125 7,400 0 7,525 0 0 0 0 a 2 9 11 11 CUS ICK 0 0 0 N. PEND OREILlE OIST.C 0 6 0 10 15 411 0 486 0 0 0 3 20 256 219 219 NEWPORT 0 a 0 0 IUNE 1 16 0 16 1,278 0 1,620 22 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 342 N. PEND OREILLE OIST.CT. I 0 IIETALINE 0 3 0 1 0 124 0 124 0 0 0 19 2 45 66 66 lONE 0 0 0 a METAL I NE FALLS 0 0 0 iJ 0 0 0 0 a 4 4 4 a 0 0 0 METAU NE 0 0 0 0 TUTAL PEND UREILLE CCUNTY 116 546 2 201 Sl3,l12 $35,971 S8H $49,990 METAL INE FALLS 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iJ 0 49 130 1168 22 24 314 360 15Z8 TOTAL PENU OREI LIE CCUNTY 330 54 604 1 PIERCE COUNTY PIERCE ~IST.CT. U 281 26121 150 8137 $142,931 Sl,885,519 $68,800 H ,097,250 PIERCE COUNTY PIERCE oIST.C T. .2 43 854 L 264 6,207 67,338 l,lZI 75,266 31923 5860 2.191 46454 0 0 iJ 0 46454 PIERCE OIST .CT. H 32n 3066 a PIERCE OIST .CT. M3 749 1293 8 611 41,574 14,992 33Z 122,898 123 125 2276 0 0 0 0 2276 PIERCE 01 ST.C T. '2 226 150 1652 0 PIERCE OIST.CT. 60 396 2 205 8,726 34,145 387 43,258 23 36 3083 U 0 a 0 3083 '4 PIERCE OIST .CT. .3 981 246 1191 0 8uCKLEY MUIH. CT. 87 385 2 124 6,569 29,835 0 36,4a4 PIERCE OIST.CT. 251 91 502 0 23 32 905 0 () 0 0 905 '4 CAR~ONA DO MUNI.C T. 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 17 574 864 864 BUCKLEY MUNI. CT. BONNEY LAKE ~UNI.CT. 23 223 0 110 2.114 15,882 0 18,196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CAR80N400 MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 DUPONT MUNI.CT. 3 184 0 7 382 14,686 0 15,068 0 0 0 141 83 H2 566 566 BONNEY LAKE MUNI.CT. V 0 0 0 EATONVILLE MUNI.eT. 81 732 0 124 5,100 24,401 0 29,501 0 0 0 0 10 14 259 283 28J DUPONT MUNI. CT • J 0 a FIFE IlUNI.CT. I 154 1 62 2,180 88,236 0 90,416 0 0 0 0 131 53 171 961 961 EATONVILLE ~UNI.C T. 0 0 a FIRCREST MUNI.C~ 0 0 0 156 IJ 26,736 0 26,736 0 0 0 0 0 90 231 1411 1744 17H FIFE HUNI.CT. a 0 GIG HA~BOR ~U~I.CT. 4 812 1 29Z 11 .. 85 85,811 87,298 0 0 0 112 17 836 1025 1025 0 FI RtREST MU.il.CT. 0 0 0 0 MILTON HUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 33,269 0 33,269 0 0 0 63 89 1379 1531 1531 GIG HAR8DR ~UN I.C T. a 0 0 0 ORTING MUNI.CT. 41 61 1 35 3,483 7,606 0 11 ,089 0 J 0 0 J J 98 )96 494 494 ~ILTON MUNI.CT. a J PUYAllUP MUNI.CT. 222 1531 0 649 62,617 80,380 0 142,997 0 0 0 112 17 102 231 HI ORTING MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 ROY MUNI.CT. 0 455 0 3,091 16,660 19,757 0 0 0 0 0 1110 360 209~ 3569 3569 a a PUYAllUP HUNI.CT. 0 0 RUHUN HUNI.C T. 16 523 0 59 1,414 11,351 0 18,825 0 0 0 0 ~ 182 6Z2 810 810 RO~ MUN1.CT. 0 iJ 0 S. PRAnlE MUNI.CT. 0 67 0 12 1,834 7,660 9,494 0 0 0 0 0 41 31 584 662 662 a R U£~ON ",unl.C T. 0 a STEILACOOM MUNI.CT. 3 1358 1 173 310 72,731 0 73,041 0 0 0 21 12 122 155 IH S. PRARIE MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 SUHNER MUNI.C T. 37 313 0 48 0 9,C01 0 9,001 0 0 0 0 a 20 45 1120 11 85 1185 STEILACOUH 14UNI.CT. 0 a TACOMA ~UNI.CT. 1904 145el 0 19J36 5~2 ,583 651,171 J 1,153,754 0 0 0 142 18 421 501 567 SUMNER ~UNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 WILKESON MUNI.CT. 0 55 0 2 0 hB60 0 1,860 0 0 0 5198 H68 28891 31163 37163 TACOMA HUNI.CT. 0 0 a a TOTAL PIERCE COUNTY 3555 51310 .61 30186 $198,866 $3, Z45, 212 $11,240 $4,115,318 WILKESON MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 66 69 69 TOTAL PIERCE CUUNn' 4672 ]s59 35868 0 6029 2590 52118 ao 12 3868 40019 51899 104617 95 94 ." ------~------'------=, TABLE lOB - PAGE" WASHINGTON C 0 U R T S a F L I HIT E 0 URI SOl C TID N TABLE 101 - PAGE ~ BAIL FORFEITURES, TRIALS AND RECEIPTS J URI SOl C TID N ~ASHINGTON COUR S OF LIHITED •••• TRIALS ••• ------RECE ~ PTS------CASES FILED IN 1980 BAIL FORFEITURES NON- CI VIL & COUNTY/COURT CRIM. TRAFFIC JURY JURY CRIMINAL TRAFFIC SH.CLAIHS TOTAL ______STA TE/W UN TY HA TTE~ S------MUNICIPAl HATTERS------TOTAL ALL CRI~. HAJOR HINOR SMALL CR IH. HAJOR HINOR SAN JUAN COUNTY HISO. TRAF. TRAF. TOTAL HATTERS SAN JUAN OIST.CT. 6q 446 63 510,479 COUNTY I COURT HISD. TRAF. TRAF. FELONy CI VIL CLAIHS TOTAL $34, ZH S5H '45,287 FRIDAY HARBOR MUNI.CT. 20 33 I, 87 5,q57 6,aol o lZ,8H TOTAl SAN JUAN COUNTY 8q 52q q 170 Sl6,436 HI, t24 $571 S56,IH SAN JUAN COUNTY o o 1017 SAN JUAN DIST.CT. 202 78 623 10 40 b4 1017 o o 5q 16 128 203 203 S KAG IT COUNTY FRIDAY HARBOR MUll I.CT. o J o o o o o 1017 5q 16 128 203 1220 SKAGIT OIST.CT. II 23q 1824 6 32q TOTAL SAN JUAN COUNTY 202 78 623 10 40 6~ S L'!. 9'59 S9Z,040 SI ,151 $I 06,750 SKAGIT DIST.CT. 12 q4 1"645 a 132 16,138 10li,682 3,477 120,4q7 SKAGIT OIST.CT. M3 III 1356 22 H8 31,~73 110,602 2,892 150,q67 SKAGIT COUNTY 311q o o o 3119 ANACOR TE S HUNI.C T. 1·21 1673 22q SKAGIT OIST.CT. H 377 206 2l~ 65 152 85 o I 6,·263 f/4,979 o 91,242 o o o 3402 BURLINGTON MUNI.CT. 38 SKAGIT DIST.CT. M2 372 250 2113 236 32q 102 3402 o 740 o 35 7,656 !l1l,5S3 o 58,209 o o o 3329 CONCRETE MUNI.CT. SKAGIT OIST .CT. 13 421 206 2266 87 208 141 3329 a 1 188 o o 2, q65 10,712 o D,61l 261 2q6 lq88 2565 2565 LA CONNER HU~ I.CT. ANACORTES HUN!.CT. o o o o o a o o 12 o o 1,368 1,633 o 3,001 145 162 855 1162 1162 MT. VERNON HUNI.CT. 8URLINGTON HUNI.CT. o o o o o o a 193 2412 o 231 32,431 157,506 o 18q,nq 38 23 219 280 260 SEDRO WOOLLE Y ~UNI.C T. 7,7'ql CONCHETE HUNI.CT. o a o o o o a 17 Joi6 o 252 26, 81~ o 34,611 o o () o o o 14 20 60 q4 9~ TOTAL SKAGIT COUNTY 620 10256 lq 1586 HI9,O:,0 '041,723 SB,I20 S768,8q3 LA CONNER HUNI.CT. o 663 336 3082 ~081 ~083 HT. VERNON HUNI.CT. Q o J o o o o 270 112 674 1056 1056 SKAMANIA CCUNTY SEORU WOOLLEY HUN!.CT. o o o o o o o q850 1411 q51 6878 n40 lq090 SKAHANIA DIST.CT. 91 625 460 $17018,1 TOTAL SKAGIT COUNIY 1170 662 6613 388 6Bq 328 I 153,588 $1,415 $72,lql N. BO~NEV ILL E ,~UN I.CI • q ~6 o I Ill; 1,46~ o 1,579 STEVENSON MUNI.CT. 5 21 o 34 729 3, 30~ a 4,035 SKAHANI A CGUNTY 2412 387 102 ISH q 53 322 2412 o a o o rOT Al SKAHAN IA CUl.I'/ TV III 8n I 4'/5 Sl6,032 H8,356 $1,415 517 ,80S SKAHANIA DIST.CT. 1 76 qO qL\ N. BONNEV ILU: HUN I.CT. a a o o o o 13 37 37 73 147 147 SNOHOHISH COUNTV STEveNSON HIJNI.CT. a o o o o o o 50 36 149 237 264q CASCADE OISI.CT. T UT AL SKAItAN IA COl.l'/ T Y 361 102 1539 q 53 322 2~12 161 6323 35 513 533,162 5316,566 Sl3.214 $424,962 ARliNGTON Y2 456 o 67 8,OJ6 35,84'! o 43,848 DARRINGTON 36 SNUHOMI SH COU."Y 260 2 25 40195 45,623 o 49,816 o o o 10600 GRANITE FALLS B 287 I 31 2,62q 20,20q CASCADE DIST.CT. 80~ 610 7865 o 1191 330 lOb~"'f o o 22,838 216 130 725 1071 1071 STANo 97 96 .\' \' ------ TABLE 101 - P~GE 5 WAS H 1 N GTe N C 1 U R 5 o F L I HIT e 0 JURISDICTION TABLE lOB - PAGE 5 WASHINGTCN C 0 U R T S o F L I HIT E 0 CASES FILED IN 19BO U R ISDICTION BA IL FORFE ITIRES, TRIALS AND RECEIPTS ------S TA T E/COUNTY HA TT ERS------HUN I C IPAL MA TTER 5------lOYAL CRIM. MAJOR MINllR SHALL CRIH. HAJOR MINOR ALL •••• TRIALS ••• ------R ECE I PTS------______COUNTY/COURT IUSD. TRAF. THAF. FELONY CIVIL CLA I~S BAIL FORFEITUR~S TOTAL HI SO. TRAF. TRAF. TOTAL HATTERS COUNTY/COURT NON- CRIH. TRAFFIC JURY JURY CIVIL & LYNOEN HUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 CRIMINAL TRAFFI C SM.CLAI MS a 0 43 31 263 337 337 LYNDEN HUNI.CT. 10TAL NOOKSACK MUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 112 2 12 193 201 201 NOOKSAC K CT • 0 0 SUMAS HUNl.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 MUI~I. 0 97 SO Sl7,997 fO 0 H 30 110B 1162 1162 SUHAS T. 0 10 $17,997 FERNDALE HUNI.CT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,~UNI.C 10 876 0 10,Hl 0 H4 99 1154 1397 1397 FERNOAL E HUN I .cr • 0 0 10,341 TOTAL WHA TeOH COUNTY 1258 0 8241 0 2080 13H 12953 28 0 0 0 2238 931 10599 13768 26721 TOTAl WHA TCOM COUNTY 367 0 80 0 244 10659 ",285 58,487 0 109 1891 S90,189 62,172 WHITMAN CIJUNTY S916,401 SO Sl,OOb,590 I 98 99 .l. ------~---- TABLE III TABLE 112 WAS H I N G TON C 0 U R T S OF LIM TEO JUklSOICTION WA~HINGTON COURT OF LIHITEO JUR[SOICTION CIVIL CASES 5 HALL CLA 1M S CA SES ------01 SPOSITI ONS BY TYPE------ --PROC EEO INGS 8Y TVP E------OISPOSITIONS BY TYPE------ 1'101'1- DEFAULT SETTLE- PROCEEDINGS BY TYPE DEFAULT SETTLE- COURT JURY JURY M[SC. DISM. JGGMT. MENT TRIED TOTAL HI SC. COURT 01 SM. JOGMT. MENT TRI EO TOTAL TRIALS TRIALS ~RGS. APPEALS HIALS HRGS. APPEAL 5 SEA TTLE HUNI. CT • SEATTLE MUNI.CT. 264 809 560 3034 2344 o 30 SPOKANE JIST.C T. o 618 SPOKANE J I ST.C T. 4389 o CLARK OIST .CT. 461 28 1114 780 o 191 4686 630 2 51 22 7]9 422 33 14 CLAkK OlST .CT. 27 22 PIERCE OIST.CT. ~I o 1201 1022 494 1544 311 2 255 o o 712 30 PIERCE OIST.CT. III o 7 SEATTLE 01 ST.C I. o o o 1841 o o o o 1004 4 o 1076 538 641 o SEATTLE oIST.CT. 2036 8198 o TAceMA HUN[.CT. 1449 4075 1183 o 2186 14120 749 11 126~ 51 TACCMA MUNI.CT. 99 YAKIMA 01 ST.CT. 10 YAKIMA 01 ST.CT. o 125 160 o 340 1 3695 1594 a 5292 315 4 FEDERAL WAY 0 [5 T .cr. 91 51 317 o FEDERAL WAY olST .CT. 367 o 11 WHAICUM OIST.CT. 74 148 414 o 530 221 146 1271 128 o 62 o I3B I Q WHITCOM 01 ST.CT. o 5 NOR THEAST 01 ST.C T. o o o o o o o o o o o 69 141 348 o o o NORTHEAST 01 ST.C T. 244 1130 7A7 o EVERETT OIST .CT. o 562 229 o 2185 163 o 103 29 o 190 366 2]6 9 6 EVERETT 0 1ST .CT. o 1205 825 AUKEEN OIST.CT. 815 249 156 2196 146 ,I 87 17 .J o o 8 10 AUKEEN 01 ST. CT. o 121 o COoLlTlOIST.CT. o o 671 o III 248 7 o o 13 246 165 616 o o COWLITZ oIST.CT. I 290 404 161 856 ISSAQUAH OIST.CT. 1040 329 o ISSAQUAH olST .CT. 54 o 3 o 9 8 5 o 23 o 13 35 ]5 10 114 126 S. SNUiOMI SH 01 ST.CT. 69 o 3 9 2 50 484 477 1 1012 J S. SNOHOIH SH 01 ST.C T. 36 1217 829 21 2108 HENTON 01 ST.CT. _2 271 3 205 o 37 14 127 47 23 105 314 5 BENTON 0 1ST .CT. f2 60 1115 449 165 1190 [63 GRANT OIST.CT. 104 13 GkANT OIST.CT. 2 119 7 34 153 19 6 291 o 22 445 20 I 488 62 q5 THURSTON OIST.C I. 180 9 THURSTON OIST.CT. o 1 15T 206 155 21 602 1 o 75B 356 12 1126 69 2 591 B~LLEVUE DIST.CT. o 124 248 BEllEVUE OIST .CT. 45 3 RtNTON OIST.CT. o o o 5 o 125 87 o 257 440 3 117 J J 657 o RENTON 01 ST.CT. o o 2 KITSAP OIST.CI. Nt o o o 417 o o o o 236 o o 34 27 11 o o KITSAP OIST.CT. U 90 B7 45 o CHELAN O[ST.CT. 92 183 98 70 296 71 I 3 ) 53 71 I 4 CHELAN 0 I ST .CT. o 351 165 04 o BENTON OIST.CI. Nt S9 laR 62 585 68 I 24 2 69 46 22 14 o BENTON oIST.CT. III 14 419 77 B ChSCAoE U 1ST .CI. 3 159 85 520 101 o 18 8 7 73 54 4 I CASCADE 0 IS T .CT • 6 620 SrlURE LI N~ UI ST. CT. o 211 292 1 922 59 o 15 J J 84 o SHORELINE OIST.CT. 4 LEWIS OIST.CT. o o o o o o o o U 102 I 24 34 131 134 40 LEWIS oIST.CT. 24 235 o RCXaURY DIST .CT. 9 59 25a o 14 38 31J 42 O· 98 o a 62 130 2 RCXHURV DIST .CT. o o a o wALLA WALLA OIST.CT. o ~ a 211 v J IJo o o J o 52 o o o .ALLA WALLA oIST.CT. o 149 o o 149 hlRPORT OIST.CT. 2 59 65 AIRPORT oIST.CT. 12 o o I o o o o o o 1 o o o o o 86 I o RENTON ~UNI.CT. 271 o RENTON MUNI.CT. o EVERGREEN OIST.CT. o EVERGREEN 01 ST. C T. o 19 28 o 238 129 3 370 LOWER KITTITAS OIST.CT. o 55 38 36 LOWER KITTITAS OIST.CT. 39 5 In 4 7 20 12 64 104 o o 327 170 ]6 536 ~8 KITSAP DIST.CT. ~7. 11 76 o KITSAP OIST.CT. 112 o 3 I 2) 5 9 52 o 7 211 IJO 2 Jll 39 .HI TMAN 0 I ST.C T. 6 [7 61 2 WHITHAN DIST.CT. o 26 4 II ~ 42 1 o 3 o o 3 I o ell~ONOS HUNI.CT. 98 o EDMONDS MUNI.CT. o o ULYMPIA MUNI. CT. o ULYMPIA HUNI.CT. TllPPENIS~ OIST.CT. o TOPPENISH DIST.CT. o o ABERDEEN MUNI.CT. o o o ABERDEEN MUNI.CT. o o CLALLAM 01 ST.C T. 10 CLALLAM 01 ST.C T. 39 26 84 161 o 90 o 3 91 21 o o F~ANKLIN OIST.CI. o o 130 o o FRANKLIN DIST.CT. o o C o GRAYS HARBOR 0IST.CT.N2 o o o 161 o o 198 J o I S9 83 25 o o GRAYS HARBOR III ST.CT .az o 319 21 346 UPPER KITTITAS GIST.CT. a 184 103 o 180 1 14 o o 17 I 7 2 UPPER KITTITAS O[ST.CT. o 40 7<; o GIIAYS HARBOR JIST.CT.U 19 5 12 2 4 o I I 1 61 14 o o GRAYS HARBOR OIST .CT.Nt 1 13·) O~ANOGAN O[ST. CT. 4 101 55 IJ 6 147 33 I 43 o o 18 0) OKANOGAN OIST.CT. o o o ISLAND OIST.CI. o o o 49 ·0 o o J 37 o 2 2 o a o o ISLINO DIST.CI. o o TUKW ILA M~NI.CT. o o 73 a o J 35 U Q o o o TWKWI LI HUNI. C1. STEVENS III ST.CT. o o o STEVENS 01 ST. CT. o o o ,~ASON U[ST.C T. o o 17 o o 24 o o I o o o o o H~SON OIST .CT. ,J o o V ) OCUGLAS 015T .CT. o o 57 DOUGLAS 01 ST.CT. J7 o o o J ,J o 6 o o o o o 3 J 27 RITZVilLE GISI.CT. 9 11 RITZVILLE OIST.CT. 4 o o o 4 7 I 13 o o o o 2 o 2 I o MT. VERNON HUIH.CT. 5 o MT. VEkNU~ MUNI.CT. o o OTHELLO UIST.CT. o 15 10 14 OTHELLO DIST.CT. o 73 82 PUYALLUP ~UN!.C I. 43 19 PUYALLUP MUN[.CT. 12 0 SKAGIT OIST.CT. f2 J4 SKAGIT OIST.CT ••2 8 IS 36 93 30 131 136 14 315 SKAGIT OIST.CT. OJ 32 35 SKAGIT OIST.CT. N3 15 o 62 o o o o o o o o o o o 31 12 o PORT ANGELES 'WrB.CT. 85 o o PORT ANGELES ·~UN I.CT • SKAGIT 0151 .CT. ill ,J SKAGI T 01 ST.CT. III o o PIERCE oIST.CI. N3 2 2 60 o I .'6 o 2 I 5 J 4 PIERCE OIST.CT ••] 10 2 C~NTRALIA MUNI. CT. 16 14 o 2 17 8 o 6 2 o CENTRAL IA MUN[. CT. o SUNNYSIDE 01 ST.C 1. 4 I I J SUNNYSIDE OIST.CT. o o il EAST KLICKITAT UIST.CT. 6 15 o 6 o 18 57 48 13 o o EAST KLlC~ITAT OIST.CT. 14 2 0) 19 PASCU HUNI.CI. 136 I o PASCO HUNI.CT. ·1 ~ o LINCOLN OIST.CI. 15 LINCOLN OIST.CT. o 0 A,~ACOIlTES ~UNI.CT. 25 22 ANACORT E, MUNI. CT. o rlERCEK ISLANJ JIST.CT. 2 3 2 ~ERCER ISLAND O[ST.CT. 1 110 13 10 SKA·~AN!A OIST.CT. o 7 56 141 47 o 2 7 o J o 2 o SKAMANIA uIST.CT. o o o o o WEST KLICKITAT OIST.CT. o o 121 o WEST KLICKITAT OIST. CT. 5 o o J V J o .J a o o o o o J 1 o PIERCE OIST.CT. #2 32 o J PIERCE 0 I ST.C T. N2 35 o o 20 7 4 79 o 62 17 5 122 23 o 32 OES I~OINES HUNI.CI. 38 20 DES MOINES HUNI.CT. o JEFFERSON GIST.CT. o JEFFERSON III ST.C1. OhK HARBDII MufH.C I. 10 13 o OAK HARBuR MUN I.CT. o HJQUIAM MJNI.CT. HOQUIAM MUNI.CT. PULLMAN HUNI.CT. P ULlHAN HuNI.C T. PIERCE OIST.CT. 44 PIERCE OI$T .CT. ;4 FIFE MUNI.CT. 13 o FIFE MUNI.CT. o TrJPPENI Sri :1UNI.C 1. TOPPENIS~ HUNI.CT. N. PACIFIC 0131.CT. I 23 25 N. PACIFIC OIST.CT. 6 89 13 32 S. PACIFIC oIST.CT. 44 93 43 142 6,) J o o V S) 2 o o o S. PACIFIC OIST.CT. o I I 2 o o SrlELTllN M'JNI.C T. 52 25 o o SHELTON )lUNI.CT. I GIG HhRHOR HtJ'II.CT. GIG HARBOR MUNI.CT. ALL OTHER COUR T 5 25 ALL OTHER COUR T S 93 78 82 284 75 21. III 57 o 16 184 10 T CT AL S T 4T E 20~7 4485 3840 TOTAL STATE 3IJ.l ld)61 10361 3207 14457 IIJ23 2l71; 4)797 6782 T 3 5329 260 729 63 THE DETAIL FOR 01 NOT SUH TO THE TOTAL BECAUSE DETAIL WAS NOT REPORTFD BY SOME COURTS. NOTE: THE DE TA I L fOR DI SPilSI TI O~S OCES NO T SU,~ TO THE TOT AL DECAUS E oeT hlL .AS NflT RFPOR TE,) BY SOME COUR TS. ~IJTE: S?OSITID~S ~aES 102 103 .l. -.-~ r r I fl' ,l.