WIXLIB

2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORTStatewide Caseload Trends2007–2008 Through 2016–2017

2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORTStatewide Caseload Trends2007–2008 Through 2016–2017

Judicial Council of California455 Golden Gate AvenueSan Francisco, California 94102-3688415-865-7740California Courts Infoline: 800-900-5980pubinfo@jud.ca.gov 2018 by Judicial Council of California. All rights reserved.Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein,no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, ormechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission inwriting from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduceand distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder.This report is available on the California Courts website: www.courts.ca.gov/12941.htm#id7495JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIAMartin HoshinoAdministrative DirectorMillicent TidwellChief Deputy DirectorAdministrative DivisionJohn WordlawChief Administrative OfficerBudget ServicesZlatko TheodorovicDirectorOffice of Court ResearchLeah Rose-GoodwinManagerChris BelloliSupervising Research AnalystEmily ChirkSenior AnalystCheryl KingResearch AnalystVy TranTemporary Analyst II

P R E FA C ECourt Statistics ReportThe Court Statistics Report (CSR) is published annually by the Judicial Council of California and is designed tofulfill the provisions of article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which requires the Judicial Council tosurvey the condition and business of the California Courts. The CSR combines 10-year statewide summaries ofSuperior Court filings and dispositions with similar workload indicators for the California Supreme Court andCourts of Appeal. The 2018 CSR also provides more detailed information on filings and dispositions in theindividual Superior Courts for the most recent fiscal year for which data are available, 2016–2017.Caseload Data and Court WorkloadCalifornia’s court system is one of the largest in the world and serves a population of more than 39 millionpeople—about 12 percent of the total U.S. population—and more than 2,000 judicial officers and approximately18,000 Judicial Branch employees statewide address the full range of cases heard each year. The vastmajority of cases in the California Courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts, which reside in eachof the state’s 58 counties. With more than 500 court buildings throughout the state, these courts hear bothcivil and criminal cases as well as family, probate, mental health, juvenile, and traffic cases.The data published in the Court Statistics Report is used by the Judicial Branch in policy development, programevaluation, performance management, and in workload analysis to measure judicial and court staff resourceneeds in California. Because different types of cases require different amounts of judicial and staff resources,a weighted caseload approach is the standard method, nationwide, to estimate the workload and resourceneeds of the courts. Weighted caseload distinguishes between different categories of filings so that theresources required to process a felony case, for example, are recognized as being much greater than theresources required to process a traffic infraction. As the mix or composition of cases change over time, aweighted caseload approach is needed to assess the impact of caseload trends on court workload. The JudicialCouncil has adopted caseweights for two workload models used by the Judicial Branch—the Judicial WorkloadAssessment and the Resource Assessment Study (RAS) model.With the introduction of a new budget development and allocation process for the trial courts in 2013, the datapublished in the Court Statistics Report is being used by the Judicial Branch for a critically important newpurpose. The Judicial Council adopted the Workload-based Allocation and Funding Methodology, or WAFM,which uses the Resource Assessment Model (RAS) and other workload factors in a new budget developmentprocess that alters baseline funding for most trial courts based on court workload.Summary of 2018 Court Statistics ReportA summary of the caseload data in the 2018 CSR for the California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, andSuperior Courts for fiscal year 2016–2017 are as follows:Supreme Court The Supreme Court issued 92 written opinions during the year. Filings totaled 7,317, and dispositions totaled 7,262. Automatic appeals arising out of judgments of death totaled 14 cases, and the court disposed of 20such appeals by written opinion.Judicial Council of Californiai2018 Court Statistics Report

The Supreme Court ordered 5 Court of Appeal opinions depublished in this fiscal year.Courts of Appeal Total contested matters for the Courts of Appeal totaled 18,717 made up of 12,313 records of appealand 6,404 original proceedings. Dispositions in the Courts of Appeal totaled 20,824. Of these dispositions, 15,343 were appeals, and6,279 were original proceedings. Dispositions of appeals by written opinion totaled 9,295, appeals disposed of without written opiniontotaled 3,921, and appeals disposed of without a record filed totaled 2,127. Dispositions of originalproceedings by written opinion totaled 373, and original proceedings disposed of without writtenopinion totaled 5,906. Statewide, 9 percent of Court of Appeal majority opinions were published.Superior CourtsIn FY 2016-17, over 5.8 million cases were filed statewide in the Superior Courts. The CSR organizes all thecases filed in the courts in four main case categories—Civil; Criminal; Family and Juvenile; Probate, MentalHealth, Appeals, Habeas. The case filing totals for the individual case types reported by the courts for FY2016-17 are as follows:Civil: The civil case category is made up of unlimited civil, limited civil, and small claims matters. Civilunlimited cases are matters where the petitioner is seeking more than 25,000. There were 210,028unlimited civil cases filed in the courts. Limited civil filings are cases where the petitioner is seeking 25,000 or less. Limited civil cases totaled 400,599 statewide. Small claims filings are cases where thepetitioner is seeking 10,000 or less and is not represented by counsel. A total of 163,575 small claimscases were filed statewide.Criminal: The criminal case category is made up of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. The filingtotals for the individual case types are as follows: felony filings represented 189,013 cases, misdemeanorfilings totaled 766,782 cases, and infraction filings accounted for 3,562,687 cases.Family and Juvenile: Marital filings (dissolutions, legal separations and nullities) accounted for 134,756cases and other family law filings (e.g. paternity, child support) totaled 240,773 cases. Juveniledelinquency filings totaled 32,806 cases and juvenile dependency filings totaled 41,701 cases.Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, and Habeas: The filing totals for the individual case types are as follows:probate filings totaled 49,152 cases; mental health filings totaled 35,316 cases; civil and criminal appealfilings totaled 3,926 cases; and criminal habeas corpus filings totaled 6,511 cases.The decline in total statewide filings over the past year is mostly driven by limited jurisdiction case type-misdemeanors and infractions in the criminal case category. These limited jurisdiction cases tend to be, onaverage, much less complex and resource-intensive for courts than unlimited jurisdiction cases such asfelonies, civil torts, family and juvenile, probate, and mental health. Several of the most complex types ofcases, such as Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (PI/PD/WD), Probate, and Mental Health,had an increase in filings from the previous year.Judicial Council of Californiaii2018 Court Statistics Report

CONTENTSPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiThe California Court System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiSUPREME COURT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Total Filings and Dispositions. 25Figure 1Total Filings . 25Figure 2Total Dispositions . 25Filings and Dispositions: Summary . 26Figure 3Petitions for Review. 26Figure 4Original Proceedings . 26Figure 5Automatic Appeals. 26Figure 6Habeas Corpus Related To Automatic Appeals . 26Figure 7State Bar Matters . 26Data for Figures 3–7: Filings and Dispositions: Summary . 27Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review. 28Figure 8Total Petitions for Review . 28Figure 9Civil Total . 28Figure 9a Civil Appeals. 28Figure 9b Civil Writs . 28Figure 10 Criminal Total . 28Figure 10a Criminal Appeals. 28Figure 10b Criminal Habeas Corpus . 28Figure 10c Criminal Other Writs . 28Data for Figures 8–10c: Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review. 29Summary of Actions on Petitions for Review. 30Table 1Summary of Actions on Petitions for Review . 30Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings . 31Figure 11 Total Original Proceedings . 31Figure 12 Civil Total . 31Figure 13 Criminal Total . 31Figure 13a Criminal Habeas Corpus . 31Figure 13b Criminal Other Writs . 31Data for Figures 11–13b: Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings. 32State Bar Matters Filed. 33

Figure 14 Total State Bar Matters Filed . 33Table 2Types of State Bar Matters Filed . 33Business Transacted . 34Figure 15 Written Opinions . 34Figure 16 Original Proceedings . 34Figure 17 Petitions for Review – Granted . 34Figure 18 Petitions for Review – Denied . 34Figure 19 Petitions for Review – Percent Granted . 34Figure 20 Rehearings – Granted . 34Figure 21 Rehearings – Denied . 34Figure 22 Executive Clemency Applications . 34Data for Figures 15-22: Business Transacted . 35Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court,Fiscal Years 1998–99 through 2016–17. 36Figure 23 Depublished Opinions . 36Data for Figure 23: Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court . 37Capital Cases in Which the Record Was Not Certified for CompletenessWithin 90 Days, and for Accuracy Within 120 Days . 38Table 3 . 38COURTS OF APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Performance Indicator Data . 41Table 1Performance Indicator Data . 41Figure 1Ratio of Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per 100 AppealsDisposed of by Written Opinion . 42Figure 2Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per Authorized Justice . 42Figure 3Majority Opinions per Judge Equivalent . 42Caseload Comparisons . 43Table 2Caseload Comparisons . 43Figure 4Pending Appeals: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice . 44Figure 5Filings and Dispositions: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice . 44Summary of Filings . 45Figure 6Total Contested Matters . 45Figure 7Total Contested Matters per Authorized Justice . 45Record of Appeal Filings . 46Figure 8All Districts . 46Figure 9First District. 46Figure 10 Second District . 46Figure 11 Third District . 46