Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin

September 2009, NCJ 225634

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Contract Bench and Jury Trials 

in State Courts, 2005

by Donald J. Farole, Jr., Ph.D.

BJS Statistician

In 2005, state courts of general jurisdiction disposed of 

approximately 26,950 tort, contract, and real property 

cases by bench or jury trial. Contract cases (8,917) 

accounted for about a third of all disposed trial cases.

This report provides an in-depth examination of contract 

cases decided by a judge or jury in 2005. Contract disputes 

involve fraud, employment discrimination or dispute, tortious interference, or allegations of unfulfilled agreements 

between buyers and sellers, lenders and borrowers, or 

landlords and tenants.

This report is the second in a series based on analysis of 

data collected from the 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State 

Courts (CJSSC). The first report in the series, Civil Bench 

and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 (NCJ 223851), provides a general overview of tort, contract, and real property 

cases decided by a bench or jury trial. The CJSSC 

excluded civil cases that did not go to trial, trials in federal 

courts, and trials in state courts of limited jurisdiction. 

The 2005 CJSSC marked the first time that the collection

examined general civil trials concluded in a nationally

representative sample of urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions. The prior data collections in 1992, 1996, and 2001 

had focused on general civil trial litigation in the nation’s 75 

most populous counties.

Highlights

• 64% of contract cases in general jurisdiction courts 

were decided by a judge, and 36% were heard by a 

jury.

• Contract trials in the 75 most populous counties 

declined by more than a quarter from 1996 to 2005.

• Nearly two-thirds of contract trials in 2005 were seller 

plaintiff (32%) or buyer plaintiff (29%) cases. 

• Contract trials in 2005 most commonly involved an 

individual suing a business (33%), followed by a 

business suing another business (25%). 

• Plaintiffs won in 66% of contract trials. Plaintiffs had 

higher win rates in mortgage foreclosure, seller plaintiff, 

and partnership dispute cases (figure 1).

• The median damage award for plaintiff winners in 

contract trials was $35,000. Juries awarded a median 

of $75,000 and judges a median of $25,000 in final 

award amounts.

Plaintiff winners in select contract cases disposed of by trial 

in state general jurisdiction courts, 2005

Figure 1

Employment disputes

Fraud

Tortious interference

Employment discrimination

Buyer plaintiff

Rental/lease agreement

All contract trials

Partnership dispute

Seller plaintiff

Mortgage foreclosure

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Types of contract cases

Percent of plaintiff winners
2 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

In the 75 most populous counties, contract trials 

declined by a quarter between 1996 and 2005

Prior to the 2005 CJSSC, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

funded three surveys that examined general civil trial litigation in the nation’s 75 most populous counties in 1992, 

1996, and 2001.1 The 2005 study collected data from a 

nationally representative sample of courts. 

All trend analyses in this report are based solely on the 

subset of 2005 civil trial litigation data that were collected in 

the nation’s 75 most populous counties. Limiting analysis to 

data collected in the 75 most populous counties renders 

the data comparable to previous collections. 

The number of contract cases concluded in state courts in 

the nation’s 75 most populous counties declined by over a 

quarter (28%) between 1996 and 2005 (table 1). Between 

1996 and 2005, the number of bench trials declined at a 

greater rate (33%) than the number of jury (20%) trials.

Seller plaintiff and buyer plaintiff cases accounted for 

61% of contract trials in 2005

In 2005, 6 out of 10 (61%) contract trials disposed in state 

courts of general jurisdiction were either seller plaintiff 

cases involving payments owed for the provision of goods 

or services (32%) or buyer plaintiff cases in which the buyer 

of goods or services sought the return of money (29%) 

(table 2). Another 13% involved fraud. Subrogation, partnership dispute, and tortious interference cases were the 

least common contract case types. Similar patterns were 

found when examining the frequency of contract case 

types among the nation’s 75 most populous counties in 

2001, 1996, and 1992.

Mortgage foreclosure (96%), subrogation (93%), seller 

plaintiff (83%), and rental/lease agreement (81%) issues 

were most likely to be heard in a bench trial. The majority of 

cases were decided by a jury in employment discrimination 

(91%), tortious interference (62%), and other employment 

disputes (62%).

Individuals comprised the majority of plaintiffs in 

contract trials, businesses the majority of defendants

Contract trials most commonly involved an individual suing 

a business (33%) or a business suing another business 

(25%) in 2005. Twenty percent of cases involved an individual suing another individual, and 17% involved a business 

suing an individual. In 1% of all contract trials, a government entity initiated the lawsuit (not shown in a table).

Table 1. Selected characteristics of state court contract 

trials in the nation's 75 largest counties, 1996 and 2005

Characteristics 1996 2005

Percent 

change 

1996-2005

Number of contract trials

Totala 4,848 3,472 -28%†

Jury trialsa 1,890 1,504 -20†

Bench trials 2,958 1,968 -33†

Percentage of plaintiff winners

Totala 62.4% 62.7% 0%

Jury trialsb 55.6 59.0 6†

Bench trials 67.8 66.4 -2

Median award to plaintiff

winnersc

Totala $46,000 $54,000 17%†

Jury trialsb 98,000 92,000 -6

Bench trials 31,000 41,000 32†

Median case processing time

Totala 18.4mo 19.9mo 8%†

Jury trialsa 22.6 22.9 1

Bench trials 16.1 17.9 11†

Note: The 1996 civil trial survey sampled from the nation's 75 most 

populous counties. To allow comparability, 2005 data presented in this 

table include only the 75 most populous counties sample and not the 

entire national sample.

Data sources: Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1996 (ICPSR 2883) 

and 2005 (ICPSR 23862). Data can be obtained from the University of 

Michigan Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research 

(ICPSR).

†Difference is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding 

the verdict and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

bExcludes jury trials that concluded with a directed verdict or judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

cIncludes punitive and compensatory damages. Award amounts are 

rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and adjusted for inflation.

Table 2. Contract trials disposed of in state courts, by case

 type, 2005

All contract trials

Percent of 

total trials

Type of trial

Case type Number Total Jurya Bench

Total 8,917 100% 100% 36.0% 64.0%

Seller plaintiff 2,883 32.3% 100% 16.6% 83.4%

Buyer plaintiff 2,591 29.1 100% 44.1 55.9

Fraud 1,113 12.5 100% 50.1 49.9

Rental/lease 606 6.8 100% 19.3 80.7

Other employment disputeb 558 6.3 100% 62.9 37.1

Employment discrimination 319 3.6 100% 91.2 8.8

Mortgage foreclosure 249 2.8 100% 3.6 96.4

Other or unknown contract 245 2.7 100% 52.2 47.8

Tortious interference 152 1.7 100% 61.8 38.2

Partnership dispute 120 1.3 100% 32.5 67.5

Subrogation 81 0.9 100% 7.4 92.6

Note: Data for trial and case type were available for 100% of the 8,917 contract trials. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding.

aIncludes trials with a directed verdict or judgment not withstanding the 

verdict and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

bExcludes discrimination claims against employers.

1See Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1992 (NCJ 

154346), Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996

(NCJ 173426), and Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 

2001 (NCJ 202803) at <http://www.ojpdoj.gov/bjs/civil/htm>.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 3

During 2005, individuals accounted for 55% of plaintiffs in 

contract trials (table 3). Nearly all other contract case plaintiffs were businesses (43%); governments and hospitals 

together accounted for 2% of all plaintiffs. Individuals were 

most likely to be plaintiffs in employment discrimination 

(98%), partnership dispute (77%), and buyer plaintiff (74%) 

cases. By contrast, businesses were the majority of plaintiffs in subrogation (98%), mortgage foreclosure (77%), 

seller plaintiff (68%), and tortious interference (60%) cases.

Businesses comprised the majority of defendants (58%) in 

contract trials during 2005. In buyer plaintiff cases 8 out of 

10 (81%) defendants were businesses. Nearly two-thirds 

(64%) of defendants in mortgage foreclosure cases were 

individuals; another 18% were hospitals or medical companies. Governments were defendants in 35% of employment 

discrimination cases.

Contract trial cases with business plaintiffs were more 

likely to be decided by a judge

Contract trials were more likely to be decided by a judge 

(64%) than a jury (36%) (table 4). This difference was more 

pronounced for certain types of litigants. Trials involving 

business plaintiffs were more likely to be decided by a 

judge (72%) than cases involving individual plaintiffs (58%). 

More than 8 out of 10 (87%) trials involving a business 

plaintiff and an individual defendant were decided by a 

Table 3. Plaintiffs and defendants in state court contract trials, by case type, 2005

Percent of each type of plaintiff Percent of each type of defendant

Case type Individual Governmenta Businessb Hospitalc Individual Governmenta Businessb Hospitalc

Totald 55.0% 1.3% 43.3% 0.3% 36.9% 2.7% 58.4% 1.9%

Fraud 70.0% 3.8% 25.8% 0.4% 34.9% 0.8% 64.2% 0.1%

Seller plaintiff 30.1 2.0 67.6 0.3 55.1 0.9 43.9 0.2

Buyer plaintiff 73.7 0.2 25.9 0.2 19.3 0.0 80.6 0.0

Mortgage foreclosure 22.9 0.0 77.1 0.0 64.0 8.4 9.6 18.0

Employment discrimination 98.1 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 35.4 59.9 4.1

Other employment disputee 74.2 0.5 25.3 0.0 23.0 8.1 58.3 10.6

Rental/lease 49.3 1.0 49.6 0.2 47.2 0.8 44.6 7.4

Tortious interference 35.5 0.7 59.9 3.9 32.0 4.6 61.4 2.0

Partnership dispute 77.3 0.0 22.7 0.0 44.5 0.0 55.5 0.0

Subrogation 2.5 0.0 97.5 0.0 58.5 17.1 24.4 0.0

Other or unknown contract 48.2 0.0 50.6 1.2 37.4 1.2 61.4 0.0

Note: For cases that involve multiple plaintiff or defendant types, cases are categorized using the following hierarchy: (1) hospital/medical 

company, (2) government agency, (3) business, and (4) individual. For example, any case involving a hospital defendant is categorized 

as a hospital case even if there were also business, individual, or government defendants in the case. Data on plaintiff type were available

for 99.7% of contract trials. Data on defendant type were available for 99.8% of contract trials. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding.

aIncludes law enforcement and other governmental agencies.

bIncludes insurance companies and banks.

c

Includes medical companies.

dIncludes bench and jury trials, trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

eExcludes discrimination claims against employers.

Table 4. Contract jury and bench trials in state courts, by primary litigant pairings, 2005

Plaintiff versus primary 

defendant

All contract trials Type of trial

Number of trials Total Jurya Bench

Total 8,888 100% 36.0% 64.0%

Individual plaintiff— 4,891 100% 42.0% 58.0%

v. individual defendant 1,693 100 21.7 78.3

v. business defendant 2,910 100 50.8 49.2

v. other defendantb 288 100 71.5 28.5

Business plaintiff— 3,850 100% 28.5% 71.5%

v. individual defendant 1,476 100 13.3 86.7

v. business defendant 2,251 100 39.2 60.8

v. other defendantb 123 100 16.3 83.7

Other pairingsc 147 100% 39.5% 60.5%

Note: For cases that involve multiple plaintiff or defendant types, cases are categorized using the following hierarchy: (1) hospital/medical company, (2) government agency, (3) business, and (4) individual. For example, any case involving a hospital defendant is categorized as a hospital 

case even if there were also business, individual, or government defendants in the case. Data on litigant pairings were available for 99.7% of all 

trials. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding.

aIncludes bench and jury trials, trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

bIncludes cases involving governmental agency or hospital defendants. 

cIncludes cases involving governmental agency or hospital plaintiffs.
4 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

judge. Jury trials accounted for half (51%) of all cases 

involving individual plaintiffs and business defendants. 

Approximately 1 out of 10 defendants appeared 

without legal representation in contract trials

In civil trials, unlike criminal matters, litigants generally do 

not have a right to legal representation. One or both parties 

appeared without legal representation in 13% of contract 

trials in 2005 (table 5). Defendants (10%) were more likely 

than plaintiffs (3%) to appear without legal representation. 

Defendants most often appeared without legal representation in mortgage foreclosure (22%) and seller plaintiff (20%) 

cases. Plaintiffs were most often unrepresented in tortious 

interference cases (10%).

Plaintiffs won 2 out of 3 contract trials

Plaintiffs won in 66% of contract trials in 2005 (table 6). 

Overall plaintiff win rates were highest in mortgage foreclosure (89%) and seller plaintiff (75%) cases. Subrogation 

(28%) was the only category of contract cases in which 

less than a majority of plaintiffs prevailed in 2005. Plaintiffs 

were more likely to prevail in contract trials decided by a 

judge (69%) than a jury (62%). Plaintiffs had higher win 

rates in mortgage foreclosure and seller plaintiff cases 

decided by the bench. Fraud, partnership disputes, 

employment discrimination, other employment disputes, 

and other or unknown contract cases had higher win rates 

when decided by a jury.

Table 5. Unrepresented plaintiffs and defendants in state court contract trials, by case type, 2005 

Percent of contract trials with—

Case type

One or both parties 

unrepresented

Plaintiff 

unrepresented

Defendant 

unrepresented

Total 12.8% 3.3% 10.2%

Seller plaintiff 23.4% 4.4% 20.2%

Mortgage foreclosure 22.3 0.4 21.9

Rental/lease 13.9 3.1 12.3

Tortious interference 13.8 10.1 3.4

Other or unknown contract 11.5 1.2 10.3

Other employment dispute* 8.2 6.1 2.2

Subrogation 7.4 0.0 7.4

Fraud 6.3 2.2 5.4

Buyer plaintiff 5.5 2.5 3.3

Partnership dispute 5.1 2.5 5.1

Employment discrimination 1.6 0.9 0.3

Note: Data for legal representation status available for 97.3% of defendants and 99.3% of 

plaintiffs.

*Excludes discrimination claims against employers.

Table 6. Winning plaintiffs in state court contract trials, by case type, 2005

All contract trialsa Jury trialsb Bench trials

Case type Number Plaintiff winnersc Number Plaintiff winnersc Number Plaintiff winnersc

Total 8,018 65.6% 2,848 61.9% 5,039 68.5%

Mortgage foreclosure 245 89.4% 6 **% 236 91.1%

Seller plaintiff 2,610 74.6 425 60.5 2,165 77.4

Partnership dispute 102 65.7 32 81.3 69 59.4

Rental/lease 531 62.5 109 61.5 420 63.1

Buyer plaintiff 2,252 62.3 989 57.2 1,214 68.6

Employment discrimination 307 60.9 274 64.6 28 35.7

Tortious interference 146 60.3 85 62.4 55 58.2

Other or unknown contract 214 59.3 99 80.8 113 41.6

Fraud 1,041 59.1 513 67.4 505 50.3

Other employment disputed 519 50.9 312 60.3 188 37.8

Subrogation 51 27.5 4 ** 46 23.9

Note: Data on plaintiff award winners were available for 99.4% of all contract trials. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding.

**Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data.

aIncludes bench and jury trials, trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and jury trials for defaulted defendants. 

bExcludes jury trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

c

Excludes bifurcated trials where the plaintiff litigated only the damage claim. 

dExcludes discrimination claims against employers.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 5

Both individual and business plaintiffs won about 2 out of 3 

contract trials brought against business defendants (text 

table 1). Business plaintiffs were more likely than individual 

plaintiffs to win against individual defendants and government defendants.

Median awards to plaintiff winners were 3 times higher 

in jury trials than bench trials

In 2005 the median damage award for plaintiff winners in 

contract trials (including both compensatory and punitive 

damages) was $35,000 (not shown in a table). The median 

award amount was greater in jury trials ($75,000) than in 

bench trials ($25,000) (table 7). Tortious interference and 

partnership disputes were the categories with the highest 

median awards for both jury and bench trials.

Buyer plaintiff and seller plaintiff cases accounted for nearly 

two-thirds (65%) of all contract cases with plaintiff award 

winners in 2005. Median awards in buyer plaintiff and seller 

plaintiff cases were under $75,000 in jury trials and under 

$30,000 in bench trials.

Eight percent of plaintiff winners in contract jury trials 

received awards of $1 million or more; 1% of plaintiff winners in contract bench trials received at least $1 million. 

Such high award amounts were particularly likely to occur 

Text table 1. Winning plaintiffs in state court contract trials 

by selected litigant pairings

All contract trials

Total Number of trials Percent plaintiff winner

Individual v.—

Individual 1,561 57.2%

Government 156 52.6

Business 2,562 64.2

Hospital 119 70.6

Business v.—

Individual 1,375 76.9%

Government 114 77.2

Business 1,991 65.8

Hospital 4 **

**Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data.

Table 7. Final award amounts in state court contract bench and jury trials with plaintiff winners, by case type, 2005

Number of trials with plaintiff 

winner receiving an awarda

Percent of plaintiff winners with final awards

Case type Medianb

Less than 

$10,000

Over 

$250,000

$1 million 

or more

Jury trialsc 1,815 $75,000 10.4% 23.6% 8.2%

Fraud 361 $93,000 8.3% 33.5% 11.5%

Seller plaintiff 273 69,000 3.7 14.2 5.4

Buyer plaintiff 579 38,000 15.9 16.3 4.5

Mortgage foreclosure 1 498,000d   ** 

Employment discrimination 172 178,000 2.6 18.8 4.6

Other employment disputee 184 74,000 3.3 27.6 8.6

Rental/lease 69 12,000 30.8 12.4 1.8

Tortious interference 54 510,000 3.7 63.9 30.9

Partnership dispute 30 354,000 10.0 53.3 10.8

Subrogation 4 14,000 **  

Other or unknown contract 88 64,000 21.4 34.9 24.3

Bench trials 3,843 $25,000 28.5% 7.1% 1.0%

Fraud 285 $48,000 23.5% 17.2% 2.7%

Seller plaintiff 1,878 24,000 26.1 5.3 1.0

Buyer plaintiff 966 12,000 45.1 6.7 0.6

Mortgage foreclosure 218 78,000 1.5 11.3 1.3

Employment discrimination 10 99,000 12.3 22.2 0.0

Other employment disputee 90 29,000 18.3 1.1 0.0

Rental/lease 223 39,000 24.2 7.3 0.6

Tortious interference 34 107,000 14.7 15.4 2.9

Partnership dispute 52 108,000 6.3 12.0 1.9

Subrogation 40 35,000 22.5 0.0 0.0

Other or unknown contract 47 30,000 21.2 14.7 2.1

Note: Data were available for 100% of jury and bench contract trials.

** Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data.

aExcludes bifurcated trials in which the plaintiff won on the liability claim only. Also excludes plaintiff winners who receive no award 

because of award reductions, jury trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and jury trials for defaulted 

defendants.

bAward data rounded to the nearest thousand. Median amounts calculated for compensatory plus punitive damages awards, after 

adjustment for contributory negligence, prior settlement, high/low agreements and damage caps but prior to post-trial activity and 

appeals.

c

Excludes jury trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict and jury trials for defaulted defendants.

dAmount shown is the actual (not median) award.

eExcludes discrimination claims against employers.
6 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

in tortious interference and other or unknown contract 

cases decided by a jury. At the lower end of award classifications, 29% of plaintiffs in contract bench trials were 

awarded less than $10,000, as were 1 out of 10 plaintiffs in 

contract jury trials. Rental/lease cases decided by a jury 

and buyer plaintiff cases decided by a judge were particularly likely to have awards at the lower end of the spectrum.

In general, cases brought against business defendants featured higher awards than cases brought against individual 

defendants (table 8). The highest median awards were in 

cases in which businesses brought suit against other businesses. Cases involving two individual parties had the lowest median awards.

Median awards for plaintiff winners in the 75 most populous 

counties increased by 17% between 1996 and 2005. This 

growth was driven by a roughly 30% increase in awards in 

bench trials between 1996 and 2005. By contrast, the 

median jury trial award declined by 6% during this 10-year 

period.

Punitive damages were awarded to 8% of plaintiff 

winners in contract trials

Punitive damages, which are awarded to punish the 

defendant and deter similar behavior in the future, were 

sought in 17% of the estimated 5,658 contract cases with 

plaintiff winners in 2005 (not shown in a table). Punitive 

damages were awarded to winning plaintiffs in 8% of 

contract cases with plaintiff winners, with fraud and buyer 

plaintiff cases accounting for 65% of all cases in which 

punitive damages were awarded (table 9). The median 

punitive damage award was $69,000. Punitive damage 

amounts awarded to plaintiff winners were greater in jury 

trials (median award of $100,000) than in bench trials 

(median award of $25,000) (not shown in a table).

The percentage of cases in which punitive damages were 

awarded to plaintiff winners was no greater in 2005 than in 

1996.

Table 8. Final awards to plaintiff winners of state court contract trials, by case type and litigant pairing, 2005

Litigant pairing

All contract trials Individual v. individual Individual v. business Business v. individual Business v. business

Case type Number

Median 

award Number

Median 

award Number

Median 

award Number

Median 

award Number

Median 

award

Total 5,715 $35,000 984 $20,000 1,770 $36,000 1,134 $21,000 1,475 $61,000

Fraud 660 $75,000 184 $26,000 260 $81,000 27 $148,000 142 $160,000

Seller plaintiff 2,177 27,000 398 22,000 159 103,000 745 19,000 777 40,000

Buyer plaintiff 1,549 17,000 203 12,000 995 17,000 54 7,000 288 39,000

Mortgage foreclosure 222 78,000 34 39,000 3 798,000 105 75,000 15 238,000

Employment discrimination 183 175,000 1 54,000a 113 115,000 0 0 1 1,275,000a

Other employment disputeb 282 45,000 20 29,000 112 74,000 76 45,000 23 318,000

Rental/lease 293 35,000 80 10,000 23 38,000 57 31,000 127 99,000

Tortious interference 90 169,000 6 10,000 26 92,000 19 169,000 35 689,000

Partnership dispute 82 120,000 17 43,000 44 129,000 4 14,000 18 108,000

Subrogation 44 30,000 0 0 1 22,000a 42 30,000 1 66,000a

Other or unknown contract 134 30,000 42 15,000 34 28,000 7 17,000 47 175,000

Note: Data were available for 100% of contract trials. Award amounts for trials involving governments or hospitals as a plaintiff or defendant 

are not presented in the table but are included in the calculation of award amounts for all contract cases. Award data are rounded to the nearest 

thousand. Median amounts are calculated for compensatory plus punitive damages awards, after adjustment for contributory negligence, prior 

settlement, high/low agreements, and damage caps but prior to post-trial activity and appeals.

aAmount shown is the actual (not median) award.

bExcludes discrimination claims against employers.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 7

Punitive damage awards were greater than 

compensatory damages in 62% of the cases in which 

punitive damages were awarded

In a series of cases since 1996, the United States Supreme 

Court has examined what comprises a constitutionally 

acceptable ratio between plaintiff punitive and compensatory damage amounts. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 

that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ration between 

punitive and compensatory damages ... will satisfy due process.”2

Among the 446 contract cases in 2005 in which punitive 

damages were awarded, the median ratio between punitive 

and compensatory damages was 1.45. That is, the median 

punitive damage award was 45% greater than the compensatory damage award (not shown in a table). In 62% of 

cases where punitive and compensatory damages were 

awarded, punitive damages were greater than compensatory damages; in about a third (36%), punitive damages 

were at least 4 times greater than compensatory damages 

(table 9).

2State Farm Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell (123 S.Ct. 1513, 

April 7, 2003).

Jury trials lasted longer than bench trials

In 2005 the median length of jury trials for contract cases 

was 3 days; the median length of bench trials was 1 day 

(not shown in a table). The median overall case processing 

time—from the filing of the case until final disposition—was 

about 23 months for jury trials and 17 months for bench trials. Case processing time has not changed much among 

the 75 most populous counties from 1996 to 2005, although 

case processing time did increase by 11% in contract 

bench trials.

Motions for new trials were the most common form of 

post-trial relief sought among parties that did not 

prevail at trial

After a verdict or judgment is rendered, litigants generally 

have a right to petition the court for post-trial relief. Common forms of post-trial relief include petitions to set aside 

the verdict or judgment in favor of a new trial, modify the 

award amounts, or overrule the jury’s decision through a 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

Table 9. Award amounts for plaintiffs awarded punitive damages in state court contract trials, by case type, 2005

Percent of trials with punitive damage awards—

Case type

Median damage awards Greater than

At least 2 times 

greater than 

compensatory 

damages

At least 4 times 

greater than

compensatory 

Number of trials damages

Total 

award

Punitive 

damages

Compensatory 

damages

compensatory 

damages

Total 446 $128,000 $69,000 $34,000 61.6% 48.1% 36.2%

Fraud 151 $193,000 $100,000 $25,000 50.6% 46.8% 42.9%

Seller plaintiff 14 211,000 86,000 73,000 38.5 23.8 9.2

Buyer plaintiff 138 101,000 53,000 34,000 63.9 43.7 22.1

Employment-discrimination 10 977,000 115,000 363,000 39.8 12.0 12.0

Other employment disputea 86 45,000 10,000 0 73.7 65.4c 60.7c

Rental/lease agreement 6 101,000 90,000 10,000 100.0 78.3 78.3

Tortious interference 18 9,048,000 6,888,000 2,263,000 59.5 59.5 5.7

Partnership dispute 3 275,000 147,000 232,000 66.7 66.7 33.3

Subrogation 1 22,000b 13,000b 9,000b 100.0 0.0 0.0

Other or unknown contract 20 42,300,000 28,200,000 14,100,000 93.6 30.0 24.9

Note: Data for final award amounts were available for 100% of the plaintiff winner trials in which punitive damages were awarded. Punitive and 

compensatory damage data will not sum to total because costs, fees, and interest have been excluded. Award amounts have been rounded to the 

nearest thousand. Compensatory and total award damages do not include post-trial activities or appeals. Total award damage amounts include 

adjustments for contributory negligence, damage caps, high/low agreements, and prior settlements. Compensatory amounts are adjusted to reflect 

award amounts after any counterclaim damage awards have been subtracted. There were no cases in which punitive damages were awarded in 

mortgage foreclosure cases.

aExcludes discrimination claims against employers.

bAmount shown is the actual (not median) award.

c

No compensatory damage award was granted in 50 of the 86 employment/other trials (although punitive damages were awarded). These 50 trials 

were counted as having punitive damages multiple times greater than compensatory damages for purposes of calculating the percentage of other 

employment cases (not related to discrimination) in which punitive damages are at least 2 times and 4 times greater than compensatory damages.
8 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

In 2005 the plaintiff or defendant sought post-trial relief in 

approximately a quarter (26%) of all cases (not shown in a 

table). In cases with plaintiff winners, defendants filed 

motions for at least one form of post-trial relief in 23% of 

cases; plaintiffs filed in 10% of cases (table 10). In cases 

with defendant winners, the plaintiff sought post-trial relief 

in 20% of cases, and defendants sought relief in 5% of 

cases. 

A new trial was the most common form of post-trial relief 

sought among losing parties. Defendants sought new trials 

in 55% of cases in which the plaintiff won and the defendant sought some form of post-trial relief. Plaintiffs sought 

new trials in 65% of cases in which the defendant won and 

the plaintiff sought some form of post-trial relief. In half of 

cases where plaintiffs prevailed, they filed motions seeking 

to increase the award amount. In a quarter of cases where 

plaintiffs prevailed, defendants filed motions to decrease 

the award amount.

Winning parties were granted post-trial relief in a 

higher percentage of trials than were losing parties

Plaintiffs were granted some form of post-trial relief in 45% 

of the cases in which they prevailed at trial and also sought 

post-trial relief (table 11).3

Defendants were granted relief in 60% of cases in which 

defendants prevailed at trial and sought relief. Parties that 

did not prevail at trial were granted post-trial relief in a 

smaller percentage of those cases in which they sought 

relief.

3Parties may seek more than one type of post-trial relief. Litigants who 

were granted any form of relief in a case were not necessarily granted all 

forms of relief that they sought. 

Table 10. Post-verdict relief sought by plaintiffs or defendants in state court contract trials, by winners, 2005

Contract trials in which post-verdict 

relief was sought

 Percent of trials in which litigants sought post-verdict reliefa

Award modification

Post-verdict relief sought by— Number Percent of all trials JNOVb New trial Increase Decrease Other reliefc

Trials in which plaintiffs prevailed

Plaintiffs 591 10.0% 9.4% 17.1% 50.0% 0.7% 41.0%

Defendants 1,341 22.6 42.3 54.7 0.6 24.5 25.5

Trials in which defendants prevailed

Plaintiffs 582 19.9% 39.7% 64.9% 13.2% 2.7% 15.7%

Defendants 152 5.2 7.8 12.5 14.1 9.7 66.1

Note: Post-verdict motions filed by plaintiffs or defendants include motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict (jury trials only), 

new trials, award modifications, and other forms of relief. Data for post-verdict relief sought were available for 100% of contract trials.

aThe type of post-verdict relief sought will not sum to 100% because the post-verdict relief categories are not mutually exclusive.

bJudgment notwithstanding the verdict. JNOV relief can be sought in jury trials only. Jury trials constituted 64.0% of the 591 cases in which the 

plaintiff prevailed and the plaintiff sought relief, 60.3% of the 1,341 cases in which the plaintiff prevailed and the defendant sought relief, 63.7% of 

the 582 cases in which the defendant prevailed and the plaintiff sought relief, and 70.7% of the 152 cases in which the defendant prevailed and the 

defendant sought relief.

cOther forms of relief include motions to correct errors that occurred in the trial, to modify court costs and fees or tax court costs, 

or to amend judicial decisions in bench trials.

Table 11. Post-verdict relief granted to plaintiffs or defendants in state court contract trials, by winners, 2005

Percent of trials in 

which any relief was 

sought and any relief 

was grantedb

When litigants sought and were granted relief 

percent of contract trials in which litigants 

received—a

Number 

of trials

Award modification

JNOVc New trial Increase Decrease Other reliefd

Trials in which plaintiffs prevailed

Plaintiffs 265 44.8% 1.4% 4.8% 34.5% 0.5% 72.8%

Defendants 206 15.4 22.1 0.0 0.0 37.8 37.0

Trials in which defendants prevailed

Plaintiffs 104 17.9% 25.8% 5.7% 46.6% 4.3% 24.3%

Defendants 90 59.5 4.3 0.0 9.7 0.0 88.3

Note: Post-verdict motions filed by plaintiffs or defendants include motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict (jury trials only), 

new trials, award modifications, and other relief.

aThe type of post-verdict relief granted will not sum to 100% because the post-verdict relief categories are not mutually exclusive.

bData on the granting of post-verdict relief were available for 100% of trials.

c

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A JNOV may be granted in a jury trial only.

dOther forms of relief include motions to correct errors that occurred in the trial, to modify court costs and fees or tax court costs, 

or to amend judicial decisions in bench trials.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 9

Litigants filed notices of appeal in nearly 1 out of 4 

contract trials

A notice of appeal is a document litigants are required to 

file with the trial court in order to petition an appellate court 

to overturn or modify the trial court’s verdict or judgment. 

Plaintiffs or defendants filed notices of appeal in 22% of 

contract trials concluded in 2005 (not shown in a table).

Both plaintiffs and defendants filed notices of appeal in 

about 1 out of 5 contract trials in which they did not prevail 

(table 12). Defendants were most likely to file notices of 

appeal when they did not prevail in a partnership dispute or 

employment dispute not related to discrimination. Plaintiffs 

were most likely to file notices of appeal in tortious interference and other contract cases with defendant winners. 

Table 12. State court contract trials in which plaintiff or defendant gave notice of appeal, by case type, 2005

Contract trials with plaintiff winners Contract trials with defendant winners

Number 

Percent of trials appealed 

by—

Number 

Percent of trials appealed 

by—

Case type Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Defendant

Totala 5,932 5.3% 18.2% 2,918 21.5% 2.6%

Fraud 668 3.4% 21.6% 442 24.1% 4.2%

Seller plaintiff 2,194 3.1 15.5 685 20.3 1.0

Buyer plaintiff 1,655 7.9 13.9 899 17.3 4.6

Mortgage foreclosure 223 0.9 8.5 26 15.2 0.0

Employment discrimination 190 5.9 26.2 129 21.6 0.0

Other employment disputeb 303 11.9 46.5 255 22.9 0.9

Rental/lease 342 5.1 20.2 263 28.9 2.0

Tortious interference 93 14.3 28.9 58 39.8 1.7

Partnership dispute 84 7.1 56.0 35 5.7 0.0

Subrogation 44 0.0 0.0 37 3.4 0.0

Other or unknown contract 137 5.8 10.4 89 39.2 0.0

Note: Contract trial appeals data were available for 99.5% of contract trials where the plaintiff prevailed and 100% 

of contract trials where the plaintiff did not prevail.

aIncludes bench and jury trials, trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and jury trials 

for defaulted defendants.

bExcludes discrimination claims against employers.

In 11 jurisdictions, 99% of contract cases were disposed without trial

Eleven of the surveyed jurisdictions were able to 

provide full information on all types of trial and nontrial contract dispositions in 2005. These 11 sites 

provided trial and non-trial information on 40,932 

contract dispositions (figure 2).

Among the 11 jurisdictions that could provide 

complete information, the rate of cases disposed 

through trial was approximately 1%. Nearly half of 

contract cases were settled or withdrawn prior to 

trial.

The 11 jurisdictions able to provide complete 

information include the following: Orange and 

Santa Clara Counties and Santa Barbara, 

California; Fairfield and Hartford Counties and 

Middlesex, Connecticut; Orange Circuit Court, 

Indiana; Philadelphia County and Pike, 

Pennsylvania; and King County and Grant, 

Washington.

Figure 2

Alternate dispute resolution

Transfer to another court

Trials

Summary judgment

Other non-trial dispositions

Default judgment

Settled or withdrawn

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Case disposition

Percent of total contract case dispositions

Dismissed for want

of prosecution
10 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

Methodology

Sample

The sample design for the 2005 Civil Justice Survey of 

State Courts (CJSSC) differed somewhat from that used in 

previous BJS civil trial studies. Previous studies were 

designed so that inferences could be made about general 

civil trials litigated in the nation’s 75 most populous counties. The 2005 study maintained the 75 most populous 

counties design in order to examine trends in civil trial litigation. This sample is a stratified sample with 46 of the 75 

most populous counties selected. 

Unlike previous studies, the 2005 CJSSC also included a 

second sample of non-metropolitan counties, from which to 

estimate civil trial litigation in counties other than the 75 

most populous counties. This sample was constructed first 

by forming 2,518 primary sampling units (PSUs) from the 

3,066 counties that are not among the nation’s 75 most 

populous. The 2,518 PSUs were divided into 50 strata 

according to census region, levels of urbanization, and 

population size (based on the square root of the estimated 

2004 population in each of the PSUs).

From the 50 strata, 100 PSUs containing 110 counties were 

selected. Therefore, a total of 156 counties—46 representing the nation’s 75 most populous and 110 representing the 

remainder of the nation—were used for the sample.

The second stage of the sample design involved generating a list of cases to include in the data set. Participating 

jurisdictions were asked to identify cases that had been disposed of by jury or bench trial between January 1, 2005, 

and December 31, 2005. Trial cases were to meet the definitional criteria for jury and bench trials developed by the 

National Center for State Courts: A jury trial is presided 

over by a judge as a case is presented to a lawfully 

selected group of laypersons who issue a verdict for the 

plaintiffs or defendants. Unless otherwise noted, “jury trial” 

includes jury trials with a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and jury trials for defaulted 

defendants. A bench trial is not heard by a jury and culminates in a judge’s verdict for plaintiffs or defendants.

For the sample of civil trials occurring in the nation’s 75 

most populous counties, data on 1,027 contract jury and 

1,403 contract bench trials met the study criteria. When 

these trials were weighted to the nation’s 75 most populous 

counties, they represent 3,473 general contract bench and 

jury trials.

For the sample of civil trials occurring outside the nation’s 

75 most populous counties, data on 123 contract jury trials 

and 256 contract bench trials met the study criteria. When 

these trials were weighted, they represent 5,443 contract 

bench and jury trials disposed of in counties outside the 

nation’s 75 most populous counties. 

For additional details about the sample design and procedures used to determine cases to include in the data set, 

see Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 (NCJ 

223851) at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm>

Sampling error

Since the data in this report come from a sample of civil 

bench and jury trials rather than the entire population of 

civil bench and jury trials, a sampling error (standard error) 

is associated with each reported number. In general, if the 

difference between two numbers is greater than twice the 

standard error for that difference, there is confidence that 

for 95 out of 100 samples a real difference exists and that 

the apparent difference is not the result of measurement 

error associated with using the sample rather than the 

entire population of cases. All differences discussed in the 

text of this report are statistically significant at or above the 

95% confidence level.

Definitions of case types

In general, contract cases address allegations of breaches 

of contract. Following are definitions of terms used to 

describe the specific types of contract cases.

Buyer plaintiff—buyer claims no delivery or delivery of 

incomplete, incorrect, or poor quality goods or services.

Employment discrimination—firing, failure to promote, or 

failure to hire due to age, race, gender, or religion.

Fraud—claim of negligent or intentional misrepresentation 

of the nature of a person, product, or service within a legal 

contract.

Mortgage foreclosure—forced sale of commercial or residential real property due to failure to pay mortgage debt.

Other contract claim—any contractual dispute other than 

the case categories used in this study, such as stockholder 

claims.

Other employment disputes—any dispute between 

employer and employee not based on an allegation of discrimination.

Partnership dispute—dispute over a business not organized as a corporation but owned by two or more persons.

Rental/lease agreement—a dispute between a landlord 

and a tenant over the terms of a lease or rental property.

Seller plaintiff—any debt collection for delivery of goods or 

services, including lenders seeking payment of money 

owed by a buyer or borrowers.

Subrogation—a dispute arising from a contract provision 

giving one party (typically the insurer) the right to act on 

behalf of another party (typically the insured) in legal 

actions related to the subject of the contract.

Tortious interference—dispute alleging a defendant’s intentional procuring of breach of a commercial or contractual 

relationship and damages.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 11

Keep current on criminal justice issues 

Get notices and newsletters: 

JUSTSTATS

E-mail notifications of new statistical materials from BJS, the FBI, 

and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

To subscribe, see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/juststats.htm

JUSTINFO

A biweekly electronic newsletter from the National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service (NCJRS) with news from BJS, NCJRS, and the other agencies in the 

Office of Justice Programs. 

To subscribe, see http://www.ncjrs.gov/subreg.html

For electronic versions of this report,

visit the BJS website 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

To order paper copies of this or other BJS reports —

• Visit

 http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/bjspubs.aspx

• Call 1-800-851-3420

Download datasets and documentation from

the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data —

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/index.html

BJS 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~225634*

12 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

This report in portable document format 

(includes 5 appendix tables) and in ASCII and its 

related statistical data are available at the BJS 

World Wide Web Internet site: <http://www. 

ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cbajtsc05.htm>

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency 

of the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael D. Sinclair is 

Acting Director.

BJS Bulletins present the first release of findings from 

permanent data collection programs.

This Bulletin was written by Donald J. Farole, Jr., Ph.D., 

BJS statistician. The report was verified by Sean 

Rosenmerkel. Catherine Bird and Jill Duncan edited the 

report. Tina Dorsey produced the report. Jayne Robinson 

prepared the report for final printing.

September 2009, NCJ 225634
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 13

Appendix table 1. Selected estimates, standard errors, and confidence intervals

One standard 

error

95%-confidence interval

Estimate Lower Upper

Estimated number of contract trials 8,917 648 7,628 10,207

Seller plaintiff 2,883 281 2,323 3,442

Buyer plaintiff 2,591 311 1,972 3,211

Fraud 1,114 91 933 1,295

Rental/lease 605 160 287 924

Other employment dispute* 558 75 409 707

Employment discrimination 319 60 199 439

Mortgage foreclosure 249 115 21 477

Other or unknown contract 245 52 142 349

Tortious interference 152 27 98 207

Partnership dispute 119 31 57 182

Subrogation 82 40 2 161

Percent decided by—

Jury trial 36.0% 2.5% 31.0% 41.1%

Bench trial 64.0 2.5 58.9 69.0

Percent of contract trials with 

a plaintiff winner 65.6% 1.7% 62.3% 69.0%

Median award to plaintiff winners

Final $35,177 $3,739 $27,919 $42,808

Punitive 68,104 42,146 25,052 192,863

Mean award to plaintiff winners

Final $451,248 $126,918 $198,572 $703,923

Punitive 2,009,691 985,604 47,504 3,971,877

Median months from filing

to final verdict

Jury trial 23.1 1.2 20.5 25.1

Bench trial 17.2 0.8 15.7 18.8

Note: Standard errors were calculated using the jackknife method (JKN) generated by WESVAR PC.

* Excludes discrimination claims against employers.
14 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

Appendix table 2. Percentage of plaintiff winners, 

by sampled county, 2005

All contract trials*

County Number

Percent plaintiff 

winners

Sample of 75 most populous counties

Fairfield, CT 32 87.5%

El Paso, TX 40 85.0

Marion, IN 48 79.2

Fulton, GA 55 78.2

Cook, IL 181 76.2

San Bernardino, CA 24 75.0

Fairfax, VA 176 73.9

Dade, FL 48 72.9

Allegheny, PA 122 72.1

Hennepin, MN 57 71.9

King, WA 79 70.9

Mecklenburg, NC 40 70.0

Franklin, OH 132 69.7

Wayne, MI 68 69.1

Philadelphia, PA 70 68.6

Fresno, CA 60 66.7

Honolulu, HI 18 66.7

Jefferson, KY 93 65.6

DuPage, IL 29 65.5

Oakland, MI 114 64.9

Palm Beach, FL 107 64.5

St. Louis, MO 59 64.4

Alameda, CA 124 62.9

Cuyahoga, OH 120 61.7

Contra Costa, CA 26 61.5

New York, NY 115 60.9

Essex, NJ 33 60.6

Los Angeles, CA 218 59.6

San Francisco, CA 74 59.5

Bexar, TX 24 58.3

Middlesex, NJ 48 58.3

Dallas, TX 77 57.1

Orange, CA 186 57.0

Maricopa, AZ 75 56.0

Harris, TX 226 55.8

Milwaukee, WI 38 55.3

Pima, AZ 40 55.0

Ventura, CA 95 54.7

Bergen, NJ 54 53.7

Orange, FL 55 52.7

Essex, MA 19 52.6

Middlesex, MA 25 52.0

Hartford, CT 44 50.0

Santa Clara, CA 40 50.0

Suffolk, MA 36 50.0

Worcester, MA 17 47.1

Note: Data are presented only for those jurisdictions in the sample of the 

nation's 75 largest counties due to small sample sizes in other jurisdictions.

*

Includes bench and jury trials, trials with a directed verdict or judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict, and jury trials for defaulted defendants.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 15

Appendix table 3. Final and punitive damage awards for plaintiff winners in state court contract trials, 

by sampled county, 2005

Final amount awarded to plaintiff winners Punitive damages awarded to plaintiff winners

County

Total number 

of trials 

Number of 

plaintiff 

winners

Total of all 

awards

Median final 

awarda

Number seeking punitive 

damages

Number 

awarded punitive damagesTotal of all 

awards

Median final 

punitive damage 

award

Maricopa, AZ 75 42 $12,750,000 $36,000 9 1 $1,000,000 1,000,000b

Pima, AZ 40 22 5,057,000 74,000 0 0 0 0

Alameda, CA 124 78 391,418,000 66,000 24 14 248,188,000 $440,000

Contra Costa, CA 26 16 5,482,000 56,000 4 2 128,000 64000

Fresno, CA 61 40 26,884,000 67,000 0 0 0 0

Los Angeles, CA 218 130 102,251,000 124,000 45 9 19,189,000 750,000

Orange, CA 187 106 74,618,000 129,000 33 10 14,866,000 83,000

San Bernardino, CA 24 18 5,336,000 62,000 8 0 0 0

San Francisco, CA 74 44 37,049,000 120,000 20 6 10,904,000 289,000

Santa Clara, CA 40 20 8,530,000 159,000 10 6 4,617,000 500,000

Ventura, CA 95 52 13,210,000 57,000 9 6 5,203,000 901,000

Fairfield, CT 32 28 4,325,000 25,000 0 0 0 0

Hartford, CT 44 22 1,219,000 41,000 4 0 0 0

Dade, FL 48 35 12,814,000 59,000 0 0 0 0

Orange, FL 55 29 8,001,000 43,000 0 0 0 0

Palm Beach, FL 107 69 30,106,000 116,000 0 0 0 0

Fulton, GA 55 43 12,291,000 85,000 26 6 630,000 109,000

Honolulu, HI 17 12 1,036,000 43,000 3 0 0 0

Cook, IL 183 138 27,156,000 66,000 6 2 3,050,000 1,525,000

DuPage, IL 28 19 1,071,000 24,000 8 4 203,000 69,000

Marion, IN 48 38 4,431,000 15,000 1 0 0 0

Jefferson, KY 101 61 1,896,000 19,000 12 12 809,000 58,000

Essex, MA 19 10 3,446,000 163,000 1 1 219,000 175,000b

Middlesex, MA 26 13 3,983,000 80,000 0 0 0 0

Suffolk, MA 36 18 5,217,000 110,000 1 1 10,000 10,000b

Worcester, MA 17 8 1,040,000 71,000 0 0 0 0

Oakland, MI 114 74 21,659,000 59,000 0 0 0 0

Wayne, MI 68 47 4,831,000 57,000 0 1 80,000 80,000b

Hennepin, MN 57 41 5,270,000 36,000 2 3 164,000 13,000

St. Louis, MO 60 38 11,460,000 51,000 11 9 4,106,000 650,000

Mecklenburg, NC 40 28 1,462,000 29,000 2 2 293,000 147,000

Bergen, NJ 55 29 1,816,000 49,000 3 0 0 0

Essex, NJ 33 20 1,420,000 31,000 0 0 0 0

Middlesex, NJ 49 28 3,674,000 35,000 3 1 12,000 12,000b

New York, NY 116 70 27,540,000 103,000 5 0 0 0

Cuyahoga, OH 120 74 7,864,000 41,000 8 6 1,650,000 100,000

Franklin, OH 133 92 43,651,000 22,000 32 6 9,000 2,000

Allegheny, PA 120 88 3,137,000 7,000 1 4 35,000 5,000

Philadelphia, PA 71 48 5,627,000 22,000 11 1 2,000,000 2,000,000b

Bexar, TX 24 14 10,878,000 37,000 8 5 3,901,000 56,000

Dallas, TX 76 44 50,399,000 52,000 3 4 404,000 50,000

Harris, TX 226 126 58,114,000 93,000 7 5 4,422,000 125,000

El Paso, TX 40 34 5,112,000 48,000 4 2 400,000 200,000

Fairfax, VA 176 130 24,254,000 43,000 40 12 6,077,000 50,000

King, WA 80 56 17,674,000 63,000 0 1 305,000 244,000b

Milwaukee, WI 38 21 752,000 14,000 1 1 18,000 18,000b

Note: Data are presented only for those jurisdictions in the sample of the nation's 75 largest counties due to small sample sizes in other jurisdictions.

aMedian final award is calculated prior to adjustments and appeals for plaintiff winners in contract cases awarded compensatory or punitive damages, 

costs and fees, or interest. Award data rounded to nearest thousand.

bNot a median, but the actual awarded amount.
16 Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005

Appendix table 4. Post-verdict relief sought in state court contract 

trials, 2005, by sampled county

Percent of trials where post-verdict relief is sought by—

County Either litigant Plaintiff Defendant

Dade, FL 58.3% 41.7% 31.3%

Orange, FL 58.2 30.9 41.8

St. Louis, MO 55.9 30.5 35.6

Milwaukee, WI 50.0 36.8 36.8

Palm Beach, FL 45.8 27.1 29.9

Bexar, TX 45.8 12.5 37.5

Oakland, MI 45.6 26.3 29.8

San Bernardino, CA 41.7 8.3 33.3

Contra Costa, CA 38.5 23.1 23.1

Middlesex, MA 38.5 23.1 19.2

San Francisco, CA 37.8 21.6 21.6

Jefferson, KY 37.3 28.7 19.8

Hennepin, MN 36.8 19.3 21.1

Worcester, MA 35.3 17.6 17.6

Allegheny, PA 35.2 19.7 21.5

Santa Clara, CA 35.0 30.0 20.0

El Paso, TX 35.0 15.0 20.0

Los Angeles, CA 34.9 13.8 23.9

Dallas, TX 34.2 13.2 24.7

Honolulu, HI 33.3 33.3 0.0

Harris, TX 31.0 13.3 20.4

DuPage, IL 31.0 20.7 20.7

Pima, AZ 30.0 10.0 20.0

Alameda, CA 29.0 6.5 22.6

Orange, CA 28.9 15.5 20.3

King, WA 26.3 17.5 16.0

Fairfax, VA 26.1 13.1 18.2

Fulton, GA 25.9 0.0 25.9

Suffolk, MA 22.2 16.7 11.1

Wayne, MI 22.1 8.8 16.2

Ventura, CA 21.1 9.4 14.7

Essex, MA 21.1 15.8 21.1

Mecklenburg, NC 20.0 15.0 5.0

Fairfield, CT 18.8 12.5 12.5

Middlesex, NJ 18.4 8.2 12.2

Philadelphia, PA 18.3 12.7 7.0

Hartford, CT 18.2 13.6 13.6

Maricopa, AZ 17.3 8.0 9.3

New York, NY 15.5 7.8 11.2

Cook, IL 13.1 6.0 9.3

Essex, NJ 12.1 6.1 9.1

Cuyahoga, OH 11.7 5.0 6.7

Fresno, CA 9.8 9.8 0.0

Franklin, OH 9.0 2.3 9.0

Marion, IN 8.3 2.1 6.3

Bergen, NJ 3.6 1.8 1.8

Note: Data are presented only for those jurisdictions in the sample of the nation's 

75 largest counties due to small sample sizes in other jurisdictions.
Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005 17

Appendix table 5. Notice of appeal filed with trial court in state court 

contract trials, 2005, by sampled county

Percent of appeals filed with trial court by—

County Either litigant Plaintiff Defendant

Suffolk, MA 58.3% 33.3% 30.6%

Fulton, GA 52.7 5.5 47.3

Essex, MA 52.6 26.3 31.6

Honolulu, HI 50.0 17.6 33.3

St. Louis, MO 47.5 27.1 27.1

Los Angeles, CA 46.3 26.1 26.1

Worcester, MA 41.2 23.5 29.4

King, WA 38.8 22.2 25.0

San Francisco, CA 35.1 24.3 10.8

Santa Clara, CA 35.0 25.0 15.0

Dade, FL 34.0 8.3 29.2

DuPage, IL 31.0 27.6 17.2

Orange, FL 30.9 25.9 10.9

Orange, CA 30.1 12.3 20.3

Cuyahoga, OH 30.0 11.7 18.3

New York, NY 29.6 19.8 13.9

Fresno, CA 28.3 14.8 14.8

Fairfax, VA 27.8 8.0 19.8

Alameda, CA 27.4 12.9 16.1

Hartford, CT 27.3 18.2 9.1

Palm Beach, FL 27.1 18.7 8.4

Middlesex, MA 26.9 7.7 19.2

Maricopa, AZ 25.3 12.0 13.3

Bexar, TX 25.0 12.5 16.7

San Bernardino, CA 25.0 8.3 16.7

Ventura, CA 24.2 14.7 9.4

Contra Costa, CA 23.1 15.4 15.4

Dallas, TX 21.1 7.9 18.2

Fairfield, CT 18.8 6.3 18.8

Jefferson, KY 16.8 11.8 8.9

Allegheny, PA 15.6 7.4 10.7

Harris, TX 15.5 7.5 8.8

Cook, IL 15.3 9.3 7.1

El Paso, TX 15.0 10.0 5.0

Mecklenburg, NC 15.0 10.0 15.0

Philadelphia, PA 14.1 8.5 8.5

Milwaukee, WI 13.2 7.9 5.3

Marion, IN 12.8 2.1 10.4

Franklin, OH 12.8 4.5 9.0

Oakland, MI 12.3 5.3 8.9

Hennepin, MN 12.3 7.0 7.0

Essex, NJ 12.1 12.1 0.0

Wayne, MI 10.3 2.9 7.4

Middlesex, NJ 6.1 2.1 4.3

Bergen, NJ 5.5 5.5 0.0

Pima, AZ 5.0 0.0 5.0

Note: Data are presented only for those jurisdictions in the sample of the nation's 

75 largest counties due to small sample sizes in other jurisdictions.