Does the California Supreme Court Average More Questions to the Losing Side?

Yesterday, for post no. 1,000 we reviewed the academic literature on question-counting in oral arguments, and began comparing the past year, May 2016-May 2017, at the California and Illinois Supreme Courts.  Every researcher to date – including us in our study of the Illinois Supreme Court 2008-2016 – found that getting more questions than your opponent was generally a sign you were in trouble.  So what did we find in California?

In Table 254, we compare the data for both Courts in affirmances.  We see the two courts are comparable: five of the seven California Supreme Court Justices averaged more questions to the appellant (the losing party) in civil affirmances.  Six of the seven Illinois Supreme Court Justices averaged more questions to the losing party.

Justice Corrigan led the Court in questions to appellants in civil affirmances with 6.06.  Justices Cuellar and Liu were next, averaging 5.6 and 5.11 questions to appellants.  The Chief Justice averaged 5.05 questions to appellants.  Justice Kruger averaged 4.06, Justice Chin 3.94 and Justice Werdegar averaged 3.58 questions to appellants.

Nearly all Illinois Supreme Court Justices averaged substantially fewer questions to appellants in civil affirmances than California Justices.  Justice Theis averaged 6.62.  Justice Garman averaged 2.92.  Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 1.75 and 1.08, respectively.  Justice Burke averaged 1 question to appellants, Justice Freeman 0.54 and Justice Kilbride 0.25.

Justice Liu led the California Justices in questions to respondents (the California term) in civil affirmances.  Justice Werdegar was next at 5.21 questions per argument.  Justice Cuellar averaged 4.25, and the remaining four Justices all averaged between two and three questions to respondents: Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (2.85), Justice Kruger (2.65), Justice Chin (2.5) and Justice Corrigan (2.39).

The Illinois Supreme Court Justices asked virtually nothing of appellees in civil affirmances.  Justice Thomas averaged 1.5 questions.  Justice Theis asked 1.31, Justice Garman averaged 1.08, Justice Kilbride 0.42, Justice Burke 0.36 and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 0.25.

So to summarize: California Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Chin, Cuellar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye averaged more questions to the losing party in the past year in civil affirmances.  Illinois Justices Burke, Garman, Freeman, Thomas, Theis and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged more questions to the losing party in affirmances.

We report the data for civil reversals in Table 255.

Justice Liu led the Court in questions to appellants in civil reversals with 6.41.  Justice Werdegar averaged 5.67. Justice Cuellar was right behind, averaging 5.5.  Justice Kruger averaged 3.93, Justice Chin 3.48, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye 3.39 and Justice Corrigan averaged 2.1.

Once again, the Illinois Supreme Court Justices were less active nearly across the board.  Justice Thomas averaged 3.7 questions to appellants in civil reversals.  Justice Burke and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 1.56 and 1.2 questions to appellants.  Justice Garman averaged 0.8 questions to appellants, Justice Theis averaged 0.4, and Chief Justice Karmeier asked appellants in civil reversals no questions at all.

Justice Liu led the California Justices, averaging 7.45 questions to respondents in civil reversals.  Justice Corrigan averaged 6.48.  Justice Cuellar averaged 5.86 questions.  Justice Werdegar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye were nearly tied – 3.87 questions for Justice Werdegar and 3.86 questions for the Chief Justice.  Justice Kruger averaged 2.71 questions to respondents, and Justice Chin averaged 2.23.

Justice Thomas led the Illinois Justices, averaging 4.8 questions to appellees in civil reversals.  Justice Theis averaged 3.1 questions.  Chief Justice Karmeier and Justice Garman averaged two questions apiece, while Justice Burke averaged 1.67, Justice Kilbride averaged 0.7 and Justice Freeman averaged 0.25.

We summarize again: four of the seven Justices of the California Supreme Court averaged more questions to the losing side in civil reversals: Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Cuellar and Liu.  Six of the seven Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court averaged more questions to the losing party: Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Burke, Garman, Kilbride, Thomas and Theis.

So what’s the bottom line – with only four of the seven Justices of the California Supreme Court averaging more questions to the losing party in reversals, can we say that the California Supreme Court is the first studied at length which didn’t match the same pattern as the others, with the losing party averaging more questions?

The answer is “maybe.”  In both California and Illinois, the majority of the Court fits the pattern: the losing party gets more questions.  The pattern holds with aggregate numbers.  In affirmances, the California Supreme Court averaged 33.4 questions to appellants and 26.8 to respondents.  The Illinois Supreme Court averaged 14.16 questions to appellants and 5.15 to appellees.  Among reversals, the California Supreme Court averaged 32.46 questions to respondents and 30.48 to appellants.  The Illinois Supreme Court averaged 14.52 questions to appellees and 8.04 to appellants.

The California result with reversals is interesting, but also reminiscent of the concept of regression to the mean.  The best description of that statistical concept I’ve ever heard came from the TV series Numb3rs.  Imagine you throw a wadded-up piece of paper at a waste basket.  You make the basket.  Then you do it three more times.  Have you beaten the odds?  Well, no – because as you keep trying, your completion rate will converge on 50%.

So it will be interesting to see where the California data goes in the years to come.  A slight majority of California Justices more heavily question the losing party in reversals, but as the years go by, will the data move towards the trend of every other court researchers have studied, with more and more Justices averaging more question to the losing party?

Image courtesy of Pixabay courtesy of LomeinoAlves.

Blog Post No. 1,000: Comparing Oral Argument in the California and Illinois Supreme Courts

Today marks the milestone of my 1,000th blog post since Appellate Strategist began publishing on February 23, 2010.

I thought we’d do a first today: comparing the two Supreme Courts we study in the same post.  Specifically, since I’ve had the honor of appearing at both the California and Illinois Supreme Courts, I thought we’d compare the data for the past year in each court.

First, a bit of background.  It’s not one of the more well-known areas of data analytics on appellate decision making, but data analysis of oral argument appears to have begun in 2004, with Sarah Levien Shullman’s article for the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process.  Shullman analyzed oral arguments in ten cases at the United States Supreme Court, noting each question asked by the Justices and assigning a score from one to five to each depending on how helpful or hostile she considered the question to be.  Once seven of the ten cases had been decided, she made predictions in the remaining three, based upon the correlations in the first seven.  Shullman concluded that it was possible to predict the result in most cases by a simple measure – the party asked the most questions generally lost.

The year after Shullman’s study appeared, then-Judge John Roberts addressed the same issue in a study of Supreme Court arguments between 1980 and 2003.  Like Shullman, Roberts concluded that the losing side was almost always asked more questions.

Professor Lawrence S. Wrightsman took a detailed look at Supreme Court arguments in a 2008 book.  He chose twenty-four cases from the 2004 term, analyzing the number and tone of the Justices’ questions to each side.  He concluded that although simple questions counts were not a highly accurate predictor of ultimate case results, question counts plus the content score were.

Timothy Johnson and three other professors published their analysis in 2009.  The professors examined every Supreme Court case from 1979 through 1995, isolating both the number of questions per Justice and the number of words used in each question.  Once again, the study concluded that all other factors being equal, the party asked more questions generally lost.

Professors Lee Epstein and William M. Landes and Judge Richard A. Posner published their study in 2010.  Epstein, Landes and Posner used Professor Johnson’s database, tracking the number of questions and average words used by each Justice.  Like nearly every other researcher, they concluded that all else being equal, the more questions a Justice asked a side, the more likely he or she was to vote against the party.   Our own study, which included every civil and criminal oral argument at the Illinois Supreme Court since January 1, 2008, reached the same conclusion – by and large, the side receiving the most questions lost.

We report the average questions per side in civil cases in California and Illinois in Table 250 below, based on all arguments from May 2016 to May 2017.  What we see is that the California Supreme Court is a considerably “hotter” bench than the Illinois Supreme Court is.  In California, appellants received an average of 32.48 questions.  Appellants in Illinois averaged only 11.53.  Respondents in California averaged 30.18 questions in civil cases.  Appellees in Illinois averaged only 9.26.

We report the total number of questions asked by each California Justice, segment by segment, in Table 251 below.  Justice Cuellar led in the opening segment of civil cases, totaling 256 questions.  Justice Liu was next at 225, followed by Justices Kruger (187), Werdegar (184) and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (172).  Justices Chin and Corrigan asked the fewest questions of civil appellants with 151 and 129, respectively.

The order was juggled somewhat for respondents.  Justice Liu led by a substantial margin, asking 381 questions of respondents.  Justice Cuellar was next with 262 questions.  Justice Corrigan was third at 224, followed by Justice Werdegar (215), Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (170), Justice Kruger (130) and Justice Chin (116).

Justice Liu also led during rebuttals, asking 67 questions.  Justice Werdegar was next at 63, followed by Justice Corrigan (51), Justice Chin (45), Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (36), Justice Kruger (23) and Justice Cuellar (21).

In Table 252, we report the average number of questions per segment in civil cases for each California Justice.  Justice Cuellar averaged 5.12 questions during appellants’ opening argument.  Justice Liu was next at 4.5.  Justices Kruger, Werdegar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye were bunched at 3.74, 3.68 and 3.44, respectively.  Justice Chin averaged 3.02 questions during appellants’ opening argument, and Justice Corrigan averaged 2.87.

Justice Liu led during respondents’ arguments, averaging 7.62 questions.  Justice Cuellar averaged 5.24 questions.  Justices Corrigan and Werdegar averaged 4.98 and 4.3, respectively.  Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye was next, averaging 3.4 questions to respondents.  Justices Kruger and Chin averaged the fewest questions to respondents in civil cases at 2.6 and 2.32, respectively.

Justice Liu also led during rebuttals, averaging 1.34 questions.  Justice Werdegar was next at 1.26, followed by Justice Corrigan at 1.13.  The other Justices each averaged less than one question during rebuttals: Justice Chin (0.9), Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (0.72), Justice Kruger (0.46) and Justice Cuellar (0.42).

 

Below, we report the average questions per segment during the same period for the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court.  For appellants’ opening arguments, Justice Thomas averaged 2.91 questions, which would have ranked sixth on the California Supreme Court.  Justice Theis was next, averaging 2.69 questions.  Justice Garman averaged 1.83, Justice Burke 1.17, and Chief Justice Karmeier one question during appellants’ opening.  Justice Kilbride averaged 0.18 questions per opening.

The Court asked even fewer questions during appellees’ arguments.  Justice Thomas led again, averaging 1.55 questions per argument – which would have been seventh in California.  Justice Theis averaged 1.46 questions, Justice Garman 0.58, Justice Kilbride 0.36 and Justice Freeman 0.33.  Neither Chief Justice Karmeier nor Justice Burke asked any questions of appellees in civil cases in the past year.

For rebuttals, Justice Garman led, averaging 1.08 questions.  Justice Theis was next, averaging 0.69 questions.  Justice Thomas averaged 0.45, Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 0.2 questions, Justice Kilbride averaged 0.09, and Justices Burke and Freeman asked no questions during rebuttals.

Join us back here tomorrow as we begin our next 1,000 posts by addressing the question we started out with: will the California Supreme Court be like every other appellate court researchers have studied, on average asking the most questions of the losing side?

Image courtesy of Pixabay by TPSDave (no changes).

Coming Next Week: My 1,000th Blog Post

Last week, I was looking at our archives, pulling up old research, and I stumbled onto this two-year old post – my 500th on Appellate Strategist. Now that our other two blogs, Illinois Supreme Court Review and California Supreme Court Review, have been publishing for a while, I decided to check the dashboards there too. And it turns out that this summer – next week, in fact – I’ll be publishing my 1,000th blog post.

Since I’ve always got data to quote, here are the numbers:

My first post on Appellate Strategist was published February 23, 2010. In all, I’ve published 604 posts there.

My first post on Illinois Supreme Court Review was published January 9, 2015. In all, I’ve published 264 posts on ISCR.

And finally, my first post on California Supreme Court Review was published April 27, 2016. I’ve published 129 posts on CSCR, making my total for the past seven years and five months 997 posts (and no, I’m not counting this simultaneous post on all three blogs – that would be cheating . . .)

So join us next week as we count down towards 1,000 – and if you’ve got a suggestion for what you’d like to see in the 1,000th post – let me know in the comments. And in the meantime, for an ongoing collection of news and analysis from a wide variety of sources, visit our Flipboard curated magazines on the California Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Chad Kainz (no changes).

 

Where Do the California Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 8)?

Today, we conclude our series on the originating jurisdictions, year-by-year, of the Court’s civil docket.

In 2014, as usual, Los Angeles led, originating ten of the Court’s civil cases.  Two cases between in Alameda County and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  One case apiece started in Riverside, Ventura, Tuolumne, Tulare, San Francisco, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, and in the Santa Barbara County Assessment Appeals Board.

In 2015, once again ten of the Court’s civil cases originated in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Four cases began in Orange County.  Two each started in San Diego, San Bernardino and Alameda counties, and before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.  One case each began at the California Franchise Tax Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the Superior Courts for San Francisco, Riverside, Kern, Santa Clara and Sacramento counties.

Finally, we come to 2016.  Last year, nineteen of the Court’s civil cases originated in the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Two cases began in Sacramento County.  One case apiece started in each other jurisdiction – the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles City Council, the Riverside, Alameda, San Mateo, San Francisco, Riverside, San Joaquin, Monterey and San Diego counties, the Commission on State Mandates, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and the Public Utilities Commission.

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to another facet of our ongoing exploration of the decision making of the California Supreme Court between 1994 and 2016.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by Free-Photos (no changes).

Where Do the California Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 7)?

This week, we conclude our series of posts on the originating jurisdictions, year-by-year, of the California Supreme Court’s civil docket – not the first trial court, but the council, agency or department where the case began.  Today, we look at the years 2011 through 2013.

As usual, in 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior Court led the docket, originating fifteen of the Court’s civil cases.  Two cases apiece began in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the San Francisco, San Diego and Orange County Superior Courts, and the State Water Resources Board.  One case apiece originated in the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the Public Employment Relations Board, and the Superior Courts for Ventura, San Bernardino and Alameda counties.

We report the data for 2012 in Table 245 below.  For 2012, nine cases began in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Three each started in the Orange and San Diego County Superior Courts.  Two apiece originated in Santa Clara, Sacramento and Alameda counties.  One each started in San Francisco County, Riverside County, Stanislaus County and San Mateo County.

Finally, in 2013, twelve cases originated in Los Angeles County.  Two cases apiece began in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the San Francisco and Santa Clara County Superior Courts.  One case each began at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Committee, the Santa Cruz, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Orange, Contra Costa, Marin and Fresno County Superior Courts, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the State Board of Equalization, the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority and the Los Angeles County Board of Education.

Join us back here as we conclude our series on the originating jurisdictions of the Court’s civil docket.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by TravelerbyCard (no changes).

Where Do the California Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 6)?

Today, we continue our ongoing series of posts about the originating jurisdictions of the California Supreme Court’s civil docket with the years 2009 and 2010.

The data for 2009 is reported in Table 242 below.  That year, Los Angeles County originated twelve cases.  San Diego originated five.  Orange County produced four, San Francisco County three, and Monterey and Riverside counties two apiece.  The following jurisdictions produced one case each: Yolo, San Luis Obispo, San Joaquin, Marin, Mendocino and Sonoma counties, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the United District Courts for the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California, the Public Employee Relations Board, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the State Personnel Board and the State Water Resources Control Board.

Los Angeles County Superior Court originated eleven civil cases in 2010.  Four cases began in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  Orange, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties produced three cases apiece.  Sacramento and Alameda counties produced two cases apiece.  The following jurisdictions produced one case each: the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the Public Employment Relations Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board, and the following counties: Yolo, Sonoma, Solano, Marin, San Luis Obispo, San Joaquin, San Diego and Monterey.

Join us back here next Thursday as we continue our analysis of the Court’s civil docket.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Moonjazz (no changes).

Where Do the California Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 5)?

For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing the originating jurisdictions – not the first trial court, but the first authority, whether agency, council or board – for the California Supreme Court’s civil docket between 1994 and 2016.  Today, we’ve reached 2006.

Table 239 reports the data for 2006.  The Los Angeles Superior Court originated fifteen cases.  Sacramento County originated five cases, San Francisco County four and Alameda County three.  The Franchise Tax Board and San Bernardino County originated two cases apiece.  The following jurisdictions originated one case each: the Goleta City Council, the San Francisco Civil Service Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Kern County, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the San Diego Civil Service Commission, San Diego, Sierra and Humboldt counties, the Claremont Police Department, Santa Barbara County, the Board of Trustees of the California State University, Inyo, Shasta and San Luis Obispo counties, the Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 for the County of Los Angeles, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the Tulare County Employees Retirement Association and the State Water Resources Control Board.

We report the data for 2007 in Table 240 below.  Seventeen cases originated in Los Angeles County.  Four began in San Diego County, three in San Francisco, San Bernardino, Sacramento and Orange counties, and two each in Santa Clara County and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.  One case apiece originated at the National Labor Relations Board, the City of Oakland Public Records Act Monitor, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Contra Costa, Imperial, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Kings, Merced, Santa Barbara, Kings, Merced, Shasta, Solano, Riverside and Sutter counties, the Tulare County Council, the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Labor Commissioner, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

We report the data for 2008 in Table 241 below.  Thirteen cases originated in Los Angeles County.  Eight began in San Diego.  Three started in Sacramento County and two in San Francisco County.  One case each originated in the Los Angeles Police Department, the West Hollywood City Council, the Circuit Courts of Ventura, Alameda, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Joaquin County, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the California Labor Commissioner.

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the Court’s civil cases for 2009 and 2010.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Bob Dass (no changes).

 

Where Do the California Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 4)?

314115639_622b2ff12c_z

Yesterday, we continued our review of the originating jurisdiction for the California Supreme Court’s civil docket – the original agency, department, council or court.  Today, we continue our review.

In 2003, thirteen cases originated in Los Angeles County.  Five began in San Francisco, three each in Santa Clara, Sacramento and San Bernardino county, and two in San Diego, Orange County and Contra Costa county.  The court heard one case each in Fresno, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Alameda and Kern counties, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the Commission on State Mandates, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and the West Sonoma County Union High School District.

Table 236

In 2004, twenty cases from LA were decided.  The court heard seven cases from San Francisco, four each from San Diego and Orange counties, two from San Francisco,  and one each from Riverside, Contra Costa, Kings, Tulare, Yolo and Shasta counties, and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Commission on State Mandates, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Department of Industrial Relations, the California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority and the County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors.

Table 237

In 2005, the Court heard sixteen cases which originated in LA County Superior Court.  The court heard five cases from San Francisco, four from San Diego and three each from Santa Clara, Sacramento and Riverside counties.  The Court heard one case apiece from Marin, Orange, Santa Barbara, Kern, Stanislaus and El Dorado counties, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the Department of Personnel Administration.

Table 238

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn to the next phase of our analysis.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Tony’s pics (no changes).

Where Do the California Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 3)?

16592344774_e39b5912e8_z

Last week, we reviewed the data on the originating jurisdictions of the California Supreme Court’s civil cases between 1995 and 1999.  This week, we review the data from 2000 through 2005.

The Los Angeles Superior Court originated eighteen cases in 2000.  The court heard six cases which arose from San Francisco, three from Santa Clara and two each from Sacramento County, San Diego and Riverside.  The Court heard one case apiece from Sonoma, Marin, San Bernardino, San Mateo, San Luis Obispo, Tulare and Monterey County, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, the California Medical Board, the California Labor Commissioner, the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, The City of Lodi City Council, the Malibu Municipal Court, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Table 233

Thirteen cases originated in the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2001.  Seven cases came from Orange County.  Four cases came from San Diego County, three each from San Francisco, three from Kern County and the United States District Court from the Central District of California.  Two cases apiece arose from Sacramento and San Bernardino counties and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.  The court heard one case each from the State Board of Equalization, Marin, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Kings and San Joaquin counties, and the State Board of Equalization, the Commission on State Mandates, the Sierra Madre City Council, the Clovis Mobile Home Rent Review Commission and the State Commissioner of Insurance.

Table 234

In 2002, Los Angeles produced a dozen cases.  San Francisco produced five cases, Orange County produced three, and Santa Clara, Sacramento, San Diego, Fresno, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the United States District Court for the Central District of California produced two cases each.  The court heard one case each from Sonoma, Santa Barbara, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and the City of Manhattan Beach.

Table 235

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn to the Court’s record in 2003 and following.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ian D. Keating (no changes).

Where Do the Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 2)?

15765008412_7eb2e25223_z

Yesterday, we began our year-by-year review of where the Court’s civil cases have originated since 1994.  By doing so, we can see trends in the administrative and executive agencies where the Court’s cases come from.  Last time, we reviewed the data for 1994, 1995 and 1996.  Today, we’re looking at the years 1997-1999.

For 1997, the Court heard sixteen civil cases which began in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The Court heard three each from Sacramento and San Mateo counties, and two cases apiece from San Diego, Orange, Fresno, Riverside, Solano, Alameda and Stanislaus counties, as well as two from the Workers Compensation Commission.  The Court decided one case each from Santa Clara, San Francisco, Marin, Ventura, San Luis Obispo and Kings counties, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Governing Board of the Rialto Unified School District, the City of Piedmont School District, the City of Piedmont Planning Commission, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Board of Retirement of the Ventura County Employees Association, the Kern County Department of Planning and Development Services and the Commission on State Mandates.

Table 230

We report the data for 1998 in Table 231.  That year, the Court decided fifteen civil cases which began in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The Court heard four cases apiece from San Francisco, San Diego, and Riverside counties, three from Sacramento and Alameda counties and the Workers Compensation Commission and two each from Santa Clara, Orange and Solano counties.  The Court decided one civil case which originated in the following counties: Lake, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Ventura and Kern, as well as the State Board of Equalization, the California Coastal Commission, the Labor Commission and the Board of Architectural Examiners.

Table 231

In 1999, the Court decided eighteen cases from Los Angeles.  The Court heard four cases from Santa Clara, three from San Diego and two each from San Francisco, Orange and San Bernardino counties. The Court heard one case from Sonoma, Lake, Marin, Santa Barbara, Alameda, San Luis Obispo and Tuolomne counties, as well as one apiece from the following governmental entities: the State Board of Equalization, the Workers Compensation Commission, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, the San Francisco Airports Commission, the City of Angels City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board and the state Commission on Professional Competence.

Table 232

Join us back here next Thursday as we continue our review of the originating jurisdictions of the Court’s civil cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Keoni Cabral (no changes).

LexBlog