This time, we’re reviewing the data for the Second District.

Of course, Los Angeles County continued to dominate between 2000 and 2009, with 86.62% of the population among counties that produced Supreme Court cases.  Ventura County was 7.26%, Santa Barbara was 3.74% and San Luis Obispo was 2.38%.

The case distribution was even more lopsided – Los Angeles County sent 164 cases to the Supreme Court’s civil docket.  Santa Barbara had seven, San Luis Obispo accounted for three and Ventura County had two.

Next time, we’ll review the data for the Third District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Joe Wolf (no changes).

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 had 8.87% and Solano County had 7.58% of the First District.  Marin and Humboldt were behind Solano.

Compared to the nineties, the case distribution shifted even more dramatically towards San Francisco, notwithstanding it being only the third biggest county by population.  San Francisco County accounted for 47 cases between 2000 and 2009.  Alameda County had only eight cases.  Sonoma, Marin and Contra Costa counties produced five cases apiece.  San Mateo had four, Humboldt County had three, Solano had two and Mendocino County produced one case.

Next up, we’ll review the data for the Second District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by David Sanabria (no changes).

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.  During the nineties, the Court decided 20 civil cases from Santa Clara County, three from Monterey and one case each from Santa Cruz and San Benito counties.

Next week, we’ll begin reviewing the data for the years 2000 through 2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Marc Cooper (no changes).

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 1990 and 1999.  There were eight cases from Fresno County, five cases apiece from Kern and Stanislaus counties, and one case each from Kings County and Tuolumne.

Next time we’ll conclude Part 1 of this post, reviewing the nineties, with a look at the data for the Sixth District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Mike McBey (no changes).

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 of the nineties.  In all, San Diego produced 32 cases and Orange County accounted for 29.  Riverside County produced 13 cases and San Bernardino produced ten.

Next time, we’ll be reviewing the data for the Fifth District for the nineties.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Sheila Sund (no changes).

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 decade of the nineties, the Supreme Court decided 28 cases from Sacramento.  There were two cases from San Joaquin County and one each from Yolo, Trinity, Sutter, Butte, Nevada and Calaveras County.

Join us back here next time, when we’ll be reviewing the data for the Fourth District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Corey Leopold (no changes).

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 civil cases from the Second District originate in Los Angeles Superior Court – 143 for the decade of the nineties.  Ten cases came from Santa Barbara, seven from Ventura and two from San Luis Obispo County.

Next up: we review the data for the Third District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by G. Lamar (no changes).

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 First District for the years 1990 through 1999.  Population distribution is reported in Table 1483, which shows the percentage of the total District population accounted for by each county.  Alameda County is the biggest county in the First, with 26.86% of the District.  Contra Costa has 17.65%, San Francisco 14.45% and San Mateo accounts for 13.16% of the District.  Sonoma is 8.53% and Solano County is 7.34%.  The remaining counties are smaller.

The distribution of cases for the nineties did not track the population distribution.  The Court decided 38 cases from San Francisco County, 16 from Alameda and 13 from San Mateo County.  The Court had nine cases from Contra Costa County, eight from Solano and seven from Marin County.  The remaining counties contributed only scattered cases during the nineties.

Next time we’ll look at the data for the Second District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Giuseppe Milo (no changes).

This time, we’re reviewing the reversal rates for the Divisions of the Second District in civil cases from 2010 through 2019.

Overall for Second District cases, the reversal rates were 100% in wills and estates, domestic relations and property law cases.  The reversal rate was 80% for arbitration law and commercial law.  The rate was 75% for insurance law, 64.71% in employment law, 63.64% for tort law and 60% in government, environmental and constitutional law.  In civil procedure law, the reversal rate was 58.62%.  The rate was 50% in tax law and zero in workers compensation.

The reversal rate in employment law cases was 100% for Divisions One and Four, 50% in Divisions Six and Eight, 33.3% in Division Three and zero in Divisions Two and Seven.  In tort cases, the reversal rate for the decade was 100% in Divisions Six and Eight, 75% in Division One, two-thirds for Divisions Three and Four, 50% in Division Seven and 42.9% in Division Five.  Six Divisions had reversal rates of 100% in government and administrative law – Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight.  Division One was at 50%, Division Three was at 33.3% and the reversal rate for Division Two was zero.  Divisions Two and Six had reversal rates of 100% in constitutional law cases.  Two-thirds of constitutional law cases from Division Three were reversed.  The rate was 50% for Divisions One and Five and zero in Division Four.  The reversal rate in civil procedure cases was 75% in Division Three, 71.4% in Division One, two-thirds in Divisions Five and Eight, 50% in Division Four and 33.3% in Division Two.

Join us next time as we review the data for the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Districts.

Image courtesy of Flickr by zoxcleb (no changes).

For the years 2010 through 2019, overall reversal rates for First District civil cases were 100% in insurance cases, environmental law, arbitration, tax, commercial law and election law.  The reversal rate in tort was 80%.  The rate for employment law cases was 71.4%.  Two-thirds of domestic relations cases were reversed.  The reversal rate for civil procedure cases was 53.9% and the reversal rate for government and administrative law was 50%.

All of the tort cases from Divisions Three and Four of the First District were reversed.  The reversal rate for Division Five was zero.  The reversal rate for Division Two of the First in employment law cases was 100%; the rate was two-thirds in Divisions Three and Four.  For civil procedure cases, the reversal rate was 100% in Divisions Three and Five, 80% in Division Four, 33.3% in Division One and zero in Division Two.  The reversal rate in government and administrative law cases was 100% for Divisions Four and Five of the First District and zero for Divisions Two and Three.

Join us back here next time as we proceed to the data for the Second District.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Gallant’s Photography (no changes).