We begin part 2 of our review of the geographic origin of the civil docket by reviewing the population distribution among First District counties which accounted for cases between 2000 and 2009. Alameda had 27.69% of the District population. Contra Costa County was 19.23%. San Francisco was 14.76% and San Mateo County was 13.17%. Sonoma
Like the Second District, the Sixth District is dominated by one county, Santa Clara. Santa Clara County accounts for 70.31% of the population. Monterey is 16.79%, Santa Cruz County is 10.68% and San Benito County accounts for 2.22% of the District.
Given this data, the caseload is not surprisingly almost entirely from Santa Clara County.
As of the end of the nineties, the population of the Fifth District was 2,092,011. Fresno County accounted for 38.21% of that, Kern County was 31.63% and Stanislaus County was 21.37%. Kings County had 6.19% of the population and Tuolumne accounted for 2.61%.
The Supreme Court reviewed relatively few cases from the Fifth District between
By a narrow margin of 44,000 people, Orange County is the largest county in the Fourth District, accounting for 32.011% of the District. San Diego accounts for 31.52%. San Bernardino County is 19.15% and Riverside County is 17.31%.
San Diego and Orange counties both contributed cases to the Supreme Court’s Fourth District caseload every year
Like the Second District, the Third District is dominated by a single County. Sacramento County accounts for 51.33% of the total population. San Joaquin County is another 23.65%. Butte is 8.52%, Yolo County is 7.08%, and the remaining counties are much smaller.
Nearly all of the Third District cases originate in Sacramento County. For the
The population distribution for the Second District is, well, a bit lopsided. The 2000 population of Los Angeles County – 9,519,338 – accounts for 87.18% of the District. Ventura County is 6.89%, Santa Barbara County is 3.66% and San Luis Obispo accounts for 2.26% of the population.
Not surprisingly, nearly all of the Supreme Court’s
This time, we’re beginning a new series, looking at the geographic spread of the Court’s civil docket. We’ll assess two issues: (1) does the spread of civil cases track – at least across longer periods – the distribution of population; and (2) how does the distribution of cases change over time.
We begin with the
Reprinted with permission from the October 2017 issue of ALI CLE’s The Practical Lawyer.
On Lex Machina’s platform, counsel can use the “motion kickstarter” to survey recent motions before the assigned trial judge. The “motion chain” links together the briefing and the eventual order for each motion, so counsel can identify the arguments which
Reprinted with permission from the October 2017 issue of ALI CLE’s The Practical Lawyer.
Cross-posted from the Illinois Supreme Court Review.
“In God we trust. All others must bring data.”
— Professor William Edwards Deming
All of us who often speak and write about the ongoing revolution in data analytics for litigation have heard
We’ve all heard it any number of times: the appellate courts only review final judgments. Even if you can figure out a theory to take a non-final judgment up, the appellate courts won’t decide it on the grounds that it isn’t necessary – let it percolate out, and maybe the case will settle, or the