State Court Caseload Statistics: ANNUALREPORT 1991 A commentary on State Court Caseloads and Trends in 1991 A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts # c NCSC wI80 C'I \I l- 144 I .;rState Court Caseload Statistics:caA ANNUALREPORT / 1991 Court Statistics Project Staff Brian J. Ostrom Steven E. Hairston Director Staff Associate Karen Gillions Way Carol R. Flango Staff Associate Staff Associate Natalie B. Davis Administrative Secretary i A joint Project of the Conference of State Court Adminismators, &e State lustice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics Project February 1993 Library Nationaf Center for State COU~ 300 Newport Ave. Wilfiamsburg, VA 23 1 87-8798 1993 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-123-2 National Center Publication Number R-147 Suggested Citation: Brian J. Ostrom, et al., State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1991 (National Center for State Courts 1993) This Repd was developed under Grant SJI-91-07X-O-B-007-P92-1 from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. Conference of State Court Administrators Court Statistics Committee J. Denis Moran, Chairman (1983 to present) Marc Galanter (1986 to present) Director of State Courts, Wisconsin Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Robert Bamoski (1990 to present) Daniel J. Hall (1990 to present) Manager, Research & Information Services, Office Director of Planning and Analysis, Office of the Administrator for the Courts, Washington of the State Court Administrator, Colorado John A. Clarke (1988 to present) Jane A. Hess (1987 to present) Trial Court Administrator, Essex County, New Jersey State Court Administrator, Missouri Hugh M. Collins (1982 to present) Judge Aaron Ment (1991 to present) Judicial Administrator, Louisiana Chief Court Administrator, Connecticut Howard W. Conyers (1990 to present) John T. Olivier (1991 to present) Administrative Director of the Courts, Oklahoma Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of Louisiana Robert L. Doss, Jr. (1990 to present) Howard P. Schwartz (1992 to present) Administrative Director of the Courts, Georgia Judicial Administrator, Kansas National Center for State Courts Board of Directors Warren E. Burger, Honorary Chairman Presiding Judge Sophia H. Hall Chief Justice of the United States, Retired Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois Chief Justice Robert F. Stephens, Chairperson District Judge Resa L. Harris Supreme Court of Kentucky 26th Judicial District, North Carolina Chief Justice Jean A. Tumage, Chairperson-elect Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Supreme Court of Montana Riker, Danzig, Sherer, Hyland 81 Perretti, New Jersey Howard P. Schwartz, Vice-Chairperson District Judge Charles H. Pelton Judicial Administrator, Kansas 7th Judicial District, Iowa Judith A. Cramer Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters Court Administrator, Montgomery County Court of Supreme Court, Connecticut Common Pleas, Ohio John H. Pickering, Esq. Donald Cullen Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, District of Columbia District Administrator, 3rd Judicial District, Minnesota Judge Floyd E. Propst Sue K. Dosal Probate Court of Futton County, Georgia State Court Administrator, Minnesota Presiding Judge Jesus Rodriguez Associate Justice Christine Meaders Durham San Diego County Superior Court, California Supreme Court, Utah Justice Leander J. Shaw, Jr. Judge Aubrey Ford, Jr. Supreme Court, Florida District Court of Macon County, Alabama Joseph C. Steele Judge Sarah Dickinson Grant State Court Administrator, Nebraska Court of Appeals, Arizona Larry L. Sipes President, National Center for State Courts iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......... he preparationof State Court Caseload Statistics: The Court Statistics Project is funded through the AnnualReport 7997 has benefitedgreatlyfrom the generous support of the State Justice Institute. SJl's T advice and assistance of the 12 members of the commitment to the project is greatly appreciated, as is Conference of State Court Administators' Court Statis- the input from Kathy Schwartz, the project monitor. It tics Committee. The committee members have given should be noted that the points of view stated in this generously of theirtime, talent, and experience, and their Report are those of the authors and do not necessarily participation has been invaluableto the project staff. Two represent the policies of the State Justice Institute. new members-the Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court A special debt is owed to the advice and editorial Administratorof Connecticut,and Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, skillsof ourcolleagues Roger A. Hanson, Sally T. Hillsman, Judicial Administrator of Kansasjoined the Committee and David B. Rottman. Their deep knowledge of the this year. Gaining their services, however, has followed business and structure of the state courts has helped upon the departure of two long-termmembersof COSCA greatly in our efforts to bring context and interpretationto from the Committee. A word of thanks is owed to William a vast array of aggregatecaseloadnumbers. The Report G. Bohn, the past State Court Administrator of North benefited greatly from the careful editing of Bill Fishback Dakota, and Cletus W. McWilliams, the past Executive and Charles Campbell, while the page design and prepa- Secretary of Tennessee. The lure of retirement proved ration for publication was managed skillfully by Hisako too strong for both Bill and Cletus, but this Report bears Sayers. the imprint of the standards they set during their tenure Thanks are also due to the Microsoft Corporation for with the Committee. the donation of Microsoft Word for Windows and Excel. Our debt of gratitude, however, extends well beyond In addition, we want to thank SPSS Corporation for the the support we have received from the COSCA Court donation of SPSS statistical software, which was used for Statistics Committee. We are very appreciative of the all analysis in this Report. assistance and guidance provided by the state court Responsibility for the information reported here and administrators,the appellate court clerks, and their staffs the analysis in Parts I and II nevertheless rests fully with who have providedthe bulk of the information included in the Court Statistics Project staff. The more general this Report. They have been consistently patient and responsibility for the development of the Report series helpful in answering written and telephone inquiries for and promoting improvementsto court statistics is shared more data or for explanations of the data provided. Their with the National Center for State Courts management, continuing support of the development of a national working under the policy direction of the COSCA Court database of state court statistics within the National Statistics Committee. Center for State Courts is the crucial element indetermin- ing the quality of the information being gathered. V CONTENTS......... Acknowledgments ............................................................ V Ovewlew .................................................................... xi What Specific Findings Emerge? ................................................. xi Statetrialcourts .......................................................... xi Stateappellatecourts ...................................................... xii How Are the Report Data Collected? .............................................. xiii How Is Comparability in the Data Encouraged?...................................... xiii What Is Contained in Parts Ill, IV. and V of the Report? ............................... xiii The NCSC Court Statistics Project ............................................... xiv PART I: State Trlal Court Caseloads in 1991 and 1984-91 Trends ........ 3 Annual Volume: How Many Cases Were Filed in the State Trial Courts in 1991? .......... 3 How Is the Caseload Distributed Between General Jurisdiction and Limited Jurisdiction Courts? ................................................. 4 Generaljurisdiction courts .................................................. 4 Limited jurisdiction courts ................................................... 6 Composition of Trial Court Caseloads: 1991 and 1984-91 Trends ...................... 7 Civil Filings in 1991 and 1984-91 Trends ....................................... 7 Criminal Filings in 199 1 and 1984-91 Trends ................................... 23 Traffic Filings in the State Courts and 1989-91 Trends ............................ 36 Workloads of the Federal and State Judiciaries .................................... 40 Summary of Trial Court Activity .................................................. 44 Volume ................................................................. 44 Caseload Adjusted for Population ............................................ 44 ClearanceRates.......................................................... 44 Caseload Composition ..................................................... 44 Trial Court Filing Trends. 1984-91 ............................................ 44 PART II: Appellate Court Filings In 1991 and Caseload Trends: 1984-91 .......... 49 Introduction ................................................................. 49 State Appellate Caseloads in 1991 .............................................. 50 Ove~iew................................................................ 50 How Many Appeals Are Filed Nationwide