Today, we continue our analysis of the areas of law covered by the California Supreme Court in its civil and criminal dockets by addressing the criminal dockets during the years 2008 and 2009.

In 2008, the Court decided 26 automatic death penalty appeals, but with the criminal side of the docket slightly busier, the death penalty’s share of the docket was virtually flat at 38.24%.  Criminal procedure was next, accounting for 17.25% of the caseload.  Constitutional law contributed 11.76% of the cases, followed by sentencing law at 10.29%.  Habeas corpus cases were 8.82% of the docket.  The rest of the docket was de minimis – juvenile issues, property crimes and drug crimes each accounted for 2.94% of the cases, and violent crimes, attorney admission and fitness and sex crimes each contributed 1.47%.

For 2009, automatic death penalty appeals reached their highest level since 2005 as a fraction of the docket, accounting for 40.98% of the cases.  Only two other areas of the law added more than 10% of the docket – sentencing law, at 14.75%, and violent crimes, adding 11.48%.  Juvenile issues were up sharply in 2009, adding 9.84% of the docket.  Criminal procedure and constitutional law, on the other hand, were down sharply, each contributing 8.2% of the caseload.  Habeas corpus cases were another 3.28%, and the Court heard one case each arising from property law and vehicle crimes.

Join us back here next Thursday as we tackle the areas of law decided by the Court in the civil docket between 2010 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by DocentJoyce (no changes).

For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing the areas of law covered by the California Supreme Court’s civil and criminal dockets, year by year, beginning in 2000.  Today and tomorrow, we address the criminal docket between 2005 and 2009.

Death penalty appeals were up sharply in 2005.  The Court decided 25 automatic death penalty appeals, for 40.98% of the criminal docket.  Criminal procedure and constitutional law were next, each accounting for 11.48% of the cases.  The Court heard six habeas corpus cases – 9.84% of the criminal docket. Sentencing law was next, accounting for 8.2% of the docket, and violent crimes accounted for 6.56%.  Juvenile matters and sex crimes were next, each contributing 3.28% of the docket.  Finally, the Court heard one case each arising from attorney admission and fitness, property crimes and drug crimes.

The data for 2006 is reported in Table 64 below.  Death penalty appeals were down slightly, but still accounted for the largest single share of the criminal docket at 35.19%.  Constitutional law and criminal procedure were once again next, contributing 18.52% and 14.81% of the cases, respectively.  Sentencing law was up slightly, adding 11.11%.  Violent crimes accounted for 7.41% of the Court’s criminal cases, while habeas corpus contributed 5.56%.  Juvenile matters were essentially flat, adding 3.7% to the Court’s criminal docket.  Finally, the Court heard one case each in the areas of financial crimes and drug crimes.

Death penalty appeals were up slightly in 2007, again accounting for the biggest single share of the criminal docket at 37.7%.  Violent crimes, sentencing and constitutional law were tied in second place, each contributing 13.11% of the criminal docket.  Criminal procedure was close behind at 11.48%.  The rest of the docket was concentrated in only two more subjects, with juvenile law accounting for 8.2% of the docket, and habeas corpus cases 3.28%.

Join us back here tomorrow as we address the criminal docket in 2008 and 2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Don McCullough (no changes).

Last year, we looked at the areas of law which the California Supreme Court drew its civil docket from between 2005 and 2007.  Today, we turn to the final two years of this second five-year period, 2008 and 2009.

Arbitration law, well down on the docket in previous years, shot to the top in 2008 with 15% of the civil docket.  Tort law remained near the top, accounting for 12.5% of the caseload.  Employment law, government and administrative law and contract law each contributed 12.5% as well.  Environmental law was up sharply, contributing four cases, or 10% of the docket.  Civil procedure and constitutional law were next, accounting for 7.5% of the civil docket each.  The rest of the docket was scattered among various areas accounting for one case each – domestic relations, consumer law, workers’ compensation and tax law (2.5% of the docket each).

We conclude by looking at the civil docket for 2009.  Tort and employment law were at the top of the docket for 2009, accounting for 15.91% of the docket apiece.  Civil procedure was not far behind with five cases, or 11.36% of the docket.  Insurance law was next, accounting for 9.09% of the cases.  Government and administrative law, constitutional law and commercial law were next with three cases each, or 6.82% of the civil docket.  Consumer law, environmental and property law were next, contributing 4.55% of the docket apiece.  The rest of the docket was widely scattered, with domestic relations, workers’ compensation, arbitration, contract law, tax law and wills and estates accounting for 1 case apiece – 2.27% of the civil docket.

Join us back here next Thursday and we take a close look at the Court’s criminal docket between 2005 and 2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by dlcau58 (no changes).

Today, we continue our analysis of the areas of law involved in the California Supreme Court’s docket with a look at the civil docket between 2005 and 2007.

Tort law was down somewhat from 2004 to 2005, amounting to only 14% of the civil docket.  The Court heard six cases each – 12% of the civil docket – in three areas of law: constitutional law, civil procedure and insurance.  This represented a slight decline for constitutional law, but a sharp increase in the concentration of insurance law cases.  Government and administrative law was down by one third from 2004, accounting for ten percent of the docket.  Employment law was up significantly, also contributing ten percent of the docket.  The Court heard four cases each in domestic relations and arbitration law – eight percent of the civil docket. Finally, environmental law accounted for four percent of the docket, and the Court heard one case each in consumer law, workers’ compensation, property law and secured transactions.

2006 was an unusual year for the Court’s civil docket.  Government and administrative law, generally first or second on the Court’s civil docket, had the biggest single share of the docket at 16.13%, but the Court heard nine cases involving questions of consumer law – 14.52% of the docket.  Tort, employment and civil procedure were next, accounting for 9.68% of the docket apiece.  Constitutional law, insurance law and tax law contributed four cases each – 6.45% of the civil docket. The Court decided two cases apiece in construction law, domestic relations, commercial law, wills and estates and environmental law.   Finally, the Court decided one case apiece in arbitration, property and election law.

The data for 2007 is reported in Table 60 below.  Tort law returned to its usual spot at the top of the docket with 17.19% of the cases.  Government and administrative law was right behind, contributing ten cases for 15.63% of the docket.  Consumer law remained common on the Court’s docket, producing 14.06% of the Court’s civil docket.  The Court decided eight cases each in constitutional law and civil procedure – 12.5% of the docket.  Employment law was next, accounting for 7.81% of the caseload, followed by arbitration law with 4.69% of the cases.  The Court decided two cases each in domestic relations, workers’ compensation, commercial law and environmental law.  Finally, the Court heard one case each in insurance and tax law.

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s civil docket in 2008 and 2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by GPS (no changes).

Yesterday, we addressed the areas of law comprising the California Supreme Court’s criminal docket between 2000 and 2002.  Today, we turn to the final two years of this initial five-year period – 2003 and 2004.

Death penalty decisions were up sharply in 2003.  The Court decided 19 death penalty appeals in 2003, accounting for 30.65% of the docket.  Criminal procedure, the leading subjects in 2001 and 2002, was another 20.97% of the docket.  The Court decided eight sentencing law cases, another 12.9% of the docket.  Constitutional law was the only other area of law accounting for more than 10% of the docket at 11.29%.  Juvenile issues and habeas corpus each accounted for another 8.06%.  Violent crimes were 4.84% of the docket.  Finally, the Court decided one case each involving property law and sexual offenses – 1.61% each.

We report the data for 2004 in Table 57 below.  Death penalty appeals continued to dominate the criminal side of the docket, with 21 cases, or 29.17%.  Criminal procedure accounted for 18.06% of the docket.  Sentencing law was the only other area accounting for more than 10% of the caseload, with 15.28%.  Constitutional law and habeas corpus cases were next, contributing 9.72% apiece.  Sexual offenses were 6.94% of the docket, and violent crimes and juvenile issues accounted for 4.17% apiece.  Attorney admission and discipline and property law cases contributed the final 1.39% apiece of the criminal docket in 2004.

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn to the civil docket between 2005 and 2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Randy Lemoine (no changes).

Last week, we began a close look at the areas of law decided by the California Supreme Court in its civil and criminal dockets.  We began by addressing the civil docket for the years 2000 through 2004.  Today, we turn to the criminal docket for the same years.

In 2000, the Court decided fifteen death penalty cases – 27.27% of the Court’s criminal, quasi-criminal, juvenile and disciplinary docket.  Violent crimes were the next biggest component of the criminal docket, accounting for 16.36% of the caseload.  Criminal procedure and constitutional law were next with eight cases apiece – 14.55% of the Court’s docket.  Property crimes accounted for another 9.09% of the Court’s criminal docket.  Sentencing law cases were another 7.27% of the docket.  Juvenile issues were another 5.55%.  Attorney admission and disciplinary issues were another 3.64% of the caseload.  Finally, 1.82% of the docket was accounted for by political crimes.

Criminal procedure cases doubled on the docket in 2001 from 14.55% to 27.59%.  Death penalty cases declined slightly, accounting for 18.97% of the docket in 2001.  Violent crimes and sexual offenses each accounted for 12.07% of the docket.  Sentencing cases were up slightly at 8.62% of the docket.  Constitutional law and attorney admission and discipline cases were another 6.9%.  Juvenile issues, property offenses, habeas corpus cases and drug crimes contributed one case each – 1.72% of the criminal docket.

Finally, we turn to the data for 2002 in Table 55 below.  Criminal procedure was once again the biggest single area of the docket at 23.19%.  Death penalty cases were flat at 18.84%.  Sentencing and constitutional law were both up sharply by shares of the docket, accounting for 15.94% and 14.49% of the criminal docket respectively.  Sexual offenses accounted for another 7.25% of the docket.  The Court decided four cases involving property offenses – 5.8% of the docket.  Violent crimes and juvenile issues were another 4.35% apiece of the docket.  Habeas corpus cases continued to play a small role in the Court’s criminal docket at 2.9%.  Finally, the Court heard one case each involving drug offenses and attorney admission and disciplinary issues.

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the criminal docket in 2003 and 2004.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jan Arendtsz (no changes).

Yesterday, we began our review of the areas of law producing the California Supreme Court’s civil and criminal dockets between 2000 and 2002.  Today, we address the civil docket for the years 2003 and 2004.

The data for 2003 is reported below in Table 51.  Tort law cases were down significantly, but were still the biggest single topic on the Court’s civil docket, accounting for eight cases, or 18.18% of the docket.  Government and administrative law and employment law were the next two most common areas of civil law, producing six cases each, or 13.64%.  The Court decided five cases each in constitutional and civil procedure law – 11.36% of the docket.  Four cases arose in insurance law, or 9.09% of the civil docket.  The Court also heard three cases in arbitration law, two each in domestic relations and property law, and one each in workers’ compensation, commercial and tax law.

Finally, we report the data for 2004 in Table 52 below.  Tort law was up somewhat, accounting for 11 cases, or 21.15% of the civil docket.  Eight cases apiece arose in government and administrative law and constitutional law – 15.38% of the cases.  Civil procedure accounted for 13.46% of the docket (7 cases).  The Court heard four insurance cases (7.69% of the docket) and three each in domestic relations and employment (5.77% each).  Finally, the Court decided two cases each in consumer and property law (3.85% each), and one each in workers’ compensation, arbitration law, contract law, and wills and estates (1.92% each).

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to the criminal docket between 2000 and 2004.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Wongaboo (no changes).

Last week, we wrapped up our detailed analysis of the originating jurisdictions for the California Supreme Court’s civil, criminal and automatic appeal death penalty dockets between 2000 and 2015.  Today, we begin a new phase of our analysis – what areas of the law does the Court draw its docket from?

In Table 48 below, we report the areas of the law from which the Court drew its civil docket in 2000 by percentage share of the entire docket.  The leading area of the Court’s civil docket that year was constitutional law, which accounted for 10 cases, or 20.41% of the civil docket.  Government and administrative law and civil procedure were next, both accounting for 14.29% of the cases.  The Court decided six employment law cases – 12.24% of the civil docket.  The Court decided three cases each in tort and arbitration law, and two each in domestic relations, consumer law and workers’ compensation law.  The Court heard one case each in construction law, riparian rights, commercial law and contracts.

Tort law was up sharply in 2001, accounting for eight cases, or 17.02% of the civil docket.  Constitutional law was right behind at 14.89%. The Court heard six cases in both government and administrative law and workers compensation – 12.77% of the civil docket.  The Court decided five cases each in both civil procedure and insurance law, accounting for 10.64% of the caseload.  The Court decided three tax cases (6.38%), and two cases in employment law and wills and estates (4.26%).  Finally, the Court heard one case each in domestic relations, commercial and environmental law.

We report the data for 2002 in Table 50 below.  Tort law was up sharply in 2002, accounting for 13 cases, or 27.08% of the civil docket.  The Court heard eight cases each in constitutional law and civil procedure – 16.67% of the civil docket. The Court decided six employment law cases in 2002, or 12.5% of the docket.  The Court decided five cases in government and administrative law, for another 10.42%.  Another 6.25% of the docket was accounted for by insurance law.  The Court decided two cases each in commercial law and wills and estates, and one case involving contract law.

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn to the Court’s civil docket in 2004 and 2005.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ewen Roberts (no changes).