U.S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

I 1973-83 Trends 

p 

The Growth of Appeals 

America's State appellate courts had a faster growing workload than most 

other components of the Nation's criminal justice system throughout the past 

decade. The number of State court appeals more than doubled during 1973-83 

in the 43 jurisdictions able to measure 

the growth. This growth overshadows 

the growth in trial court caseloads, in 

the number of judges, in the crime rate, 

in the arrest rate, and in almost all 

other factors usually associated with 

appellate caseload. 

Rising numbers of arrests during the 

1960's and 1970's have resulted in more criminal trials and clogged criminal 

trial calendars as courts struggled with 

riSing caseloads and growing backlogs. 

As the number of civil suits has increased, media accounts have debated 

whether ours has become a more litigious society, in which we are more inclined to seek jUdicial resolution of 

disputes by bringing civil suit against one another than to seek less formal 

ways of dispute resolution. 

The rapid increase in court case- loads has raised serious questions as to 

whether public safety is jeopardized 

when the outcome of criminal cases can be delayed for many months and wheth- er justice is being served when it can take years to resolve a civil court case. 

Although delays do occur at the 

trial court level where the criminal or civil case begins, further delays are introduced when appeals are made to a 

higher State court. This bulletin exam- ines the dramatic increases in appellate 

court caseloads from 1973 to 1983 and 

some of the circumstances surrounding those increases. 

Criminal justice statistics have 

been used extensively in the past 

to document changes in the work 

loads of the various components of 

the criminal justice system, both 

at the national level and in 

individual States and local jurisdictIons. Media acco'mts of these 

statistics have informed the public 

of increases in the crime rate, 

numbers of arrests, numbers of 

jailed inmates and prisoner populations. Similar data describing 

the workloads of the courts have 

been much more difficult to obtain 

for a variety of reasons. This 

report is the first containing 

appellate case trend data for a large number of States for an extended period of time. 

These numbers are important 

because they show that appellate 

court caseloads have grown at a greater rate than other com- ponents of the justice system 

during most of the past decade. 

Appellate caseload trends 

Historical data depicting overall 

national trends in State appellate court 

c&seloads are not available. However, 

studies of long-term tr~nds in various 

States show a steady increase until the' 

early 1930's fOllowed by a rapid drop 

during the Depression and World Will' n. 

By the late 1940's appellate caseloads 

were/ess than half their previous 

high. After several years of gradu&l 

growth, caseloads began to increase 

February 1985 

These numbers do not show why 

appellate court caseloads have increased. Additional research is 

needed to determine what factors 

in our society or in our justice 

system drive such growth. Such 

research should focus on the 

impact of establishing an intermediate appellate court, changes 

in the economy, growth in 

appealable outcomes from trial 

courts, prisoner populations, 

reported crime rates, trial court 

judgeships, and court structure and 

proced\.\re. 

We wish to express our appreciation to the National Center for 

State Courts and The Appellate 

Justice Center for their efforts in 

assembling this data base and to 

the many individuals in State court 

administrators' offices and State 

appellate courts for providing these data. 

Steven R. SchleSinger Director 

rapidly in the mid-1960's, and growth 

has continued to the present, The 

availability and quality of appellate 

court caseload statistics improved 

sufficiently by the 1970's to permit 

detailed analysis of caseload trends 

over the past decade for most States. 

Statistics on total State court appeals 

for 1973-83 were obtained from 43 

jurisdictions (42 States and the District 

of Columbia), 38 of which could also 

show crimi~al appeals and civil appeals separately. 

= 

~ .• 

\ 

.. 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
M A ;, 

Cumulative growth in appeals filed, 1973.83 

1973- 1977- 1980-

74 78 81 

Figure 1 

Cumulative 

percent change 

1973- 1077· 

74 78 

'The total number of appeals in the 

43 jurisdictions grew by 112% over the 

decade (figure 1). This is somewhat 

greater than the 90% increase for the 

U.S. C'3urts of Appeal in the same 

period. 

In the 38 States in which civil and 

criminal appellate filings are available 

separately, criminal filings gIew by 

107%; civil filings, by 114%. Although 

both civil and criminal filings grew 

dramatically over the 10-year period, 

year-te-year changes in criminal filings 

were somewhat more uneven than those 

for civil filings (figure 2). For example, 

annual growth in criminal appeals exceeded 20% in 1975, but the number of 

criminal appeals filed actually dropped 

between 1977 and 1978. On the civil 

side, the highest annual rate of growth 

was also during 1975, when filings 

increased 14.7%, but the lowest growth 

period was during 1982, when filings 

increased 2.6%. 

Over the decade, in the States for 

which statistics are available, 379,000 

civil appeals were filed compared with 

Civil and criminal appeals filed, 

1973-83 (38 States) 

Number of filings 

Cumllilltive 

pt,rctl.,! change 

107% 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

1980- 1982- 1973- 1977· 

81 83 74 78 

Cumulative 

percent change 

114% 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

1980- 1982-

81 83 

296,QOO criminal appeals. Criminal 

cases accounted for 43 to 46% of total 

appellate volume. Criminal appeals had 

composed only 10 to 15% of total appeals until the 1960's, when a rapid 

increase in criminal filings occurred, 

probably because of the 1963 U.S. 

Suprem e Court ruling in Douglas v. 

California that provided indigent defendants with counsel on appeal, as well 

as other Court decisions establishing 

"new rights" tha~ could then be the 

basis of appeals. 

The high rate of growth for both 

civil and criminal filings in 1975 (the 

only year in which both case types 

simultaneously exceeded their annual 

average growth rate for the period) 

combined to make 1975 the year with 

the highest annual percent increase in 

total filings. 

Appellate caseload growth has 

slowed from the sharp increases of the 

mid 1970's, but it now appears to ce 

increasing somewhat more rapidly than 

it did in the late 1970's. 

State trend variability 

AHhough all 43 jurisdictions experienced substantial growth, appellate 

growth rates differed significantly from 

State to State. Overall, growth in 

total appeals filed from 1973 to 1983 

ranged from 38% in Mississippi and 53% 

in Maryland to 305% in Alaska. Appellate case filings also grew exceptionally fast in Connecticut, Oregon, and 

Hawaii, where total appellate caseload 

growth exceeded 200% over the decade 

(table 1). 

Several States with exceptionally 

large increases in appellate case filings 

expanded appellate jurisdiction during 

the period, accounting for part of the 

increase in filings. In addition, six 

States changed their system of docketing cases during the period, artificially increasing the number of filings. 

Table 1. Percent change in appe.'lls filed, 

by State, 1973-83 

Total Criminal Civil 

State appeals appeals appeals 

Alaska 305S,b 914b 91 

Connecticut 265C,d 454c 227C,d 

Oregon 212b 253b 181 

Hawaii 201a 483 103 

Montana 187 217 180 

Florida 186 - - Kent ICky 186s,c 200c 180c 

MinnCJota 172a,b 219b 160b 

Michigan 167b 157 180b 

Maine 161C,d 39 343C,d 

Nevada 159 203 131 

South Dakota 156 - - Alabama 156 137 182 :vrassachu.~etts 154a 191 138 

Arizona 145 273 70 

New Hampshire 144c 178c 133c 

Texas 140c 147c 132 

Louisiana 139 454 94 

Vermont 137 170 126 

illinois 129c 80c 184c 

Utah 116d 69 130

Rhode Island 110 d 41 135 

Colorado lOS 8S 11S

Kansas 108a,b 214b b Sl 

Wyoming 103 196 74 

Missouri 97d SO 105

Washington d 96 14Sd 74 

Ohio 95 - - Pennsylvania 94 - - California 89 66 120 

New York S'/ - - New Mexico 86 50 111 

Oklahoma 85 16 122 

Idaho 72a 125 53 

Iowa 68a 35 91 

Nebraska 68 23 109 

Delaware 67 81 59 

New Jersey 62 72 55 

Tennessee 62 48 74 

Dist. of Columbia 57 40 80 

Virginia GOd 39d 99 

Maryland 53 52 55 

Mississippi 38 5\ 31 

Note: Comparable data were not available for 

Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, South Carolina, West Virginia, 

and Wisconsin. 

- Sub detail data were not available. 

a An intermediate appellate court began 

operation during the period. (See 

Methodology section.) 

b Appellate jurisdiction was inareased substantially, sometimes in conjunction with the 

establishment of a new intermediate appellate court. 

c Docketing systems changed, artifically 

increasing the num ber of filings. 

d Appellate jurisdiction was reduced 

substantielly. 

(See the Methodology section for a 

discussion of these changes.) 

Aggregated nationwide, criminal 

and civil appeals grew at almost the 

same rate during the decade. In individual States, however, one type often 

grew much faster than the other. For 

example, in Hawaii criminal appeals 

increased by nearly five times, while 

civil appeals doubled. Criminal appeals 

grew nearly four times as fast as civil 

appeals in Arizona and nearly five 

times as fast in Louisiana. 

In 17 of the 38 States, increases in 

civil appellate filings exceeded in-

+ 

crea. ·,.n criminal appellate filings. 

For t ._ nple, civil case growth in Utah 

was nearly double criminal case growth. 

Rhode Island, even with a substantial 

reduction in civil appellate jurisdiction, 

experienced a civil filing growth three 

times the growth in criminal filings. 

Many other States showed similar disparate growth rates between civil and 

criminal filings during the period. 

In each State, the year-te-year 

caseload growth demonstrated greater 

unevenness than occurred at the 

national level. The States with the 

greatest variations tended to be those 

where caseloads were relatively small, 

such as Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and Vermont. In these States, an unusually 

high number of cases filed in a single 

year will produce a large percentage 

change. Despite the large increases 

experienced over the 10-year period by 

The appeal process 

An appeal occurs when the defendant in a criminal case (or either 

party in a civil case) requests that 

a court with appellate jurisdiction 

rule on a decision that has been 

made by a trial court or administrative agency. 

Appellate courts receive two 

basic categories of cases, appeals 

and writs. Appeals, by far the 

most time-consuming and iTJ.lportant, occur when a litigant's case 

receives a full-scale review after 

losing at the trial level (or, in 

several States, after losing in certain administrative proceedings). 

The appeal begins when the party losing the case in the trial 

court, the "appellant," files a 

notice of appeal, usually a month 

or two after the trial court decision. Then within a few months 

the appellant files the trial court 

record in the appellate court. The 

record, often bulky, consists of the 

papers filed in the trial court 

along with a transcript of the trial 

testimony. Next the appellant and 

the opposing party, the "appellee," 

file briefs that argue for their 

respective positions. The briefs 

are usually followed by short oral 

presentations to the judge. Finally, the judges decide the case and 

issu.e a wri tten opinion. An increasing number of courts, but 

still a minority, decide some appeals without written opinions. 

State supreme court decisions 

are usually issued by the full 

court; intermediate court decisions are generally issued by 

all of the States, every State except 

Florida experienced a decline in the 

total number of filings in at least 1 

year. 

Factors associated with 

caseload growth 

The 112% increase in appeals between 1973 and 1983 was much greater 

than the increase in most factors to 

which it might be related. It is more 

than 10 times the population growth 

and it is 7 times the growth in personal 

income adjusted for inflation. Appeals 

grew more than three times faster than 

appellate judgeships and more than four 

times faster than trial court judgeships (figure 3). 

Because appellate court judgeships 

have grown at a slower rate than case 

filings, the number of appeals filed per 

appellate judgeship in the 43 jurisdicthree-judga panels. The whole 

decision process takes roughly a 

year, although it ranges from 6 

months in some courts to several 

years in courts with large 

backlogs. 

In making its final disposition of 

the case, an appellate court may-

• "affirm," or uphold, the lower 

court ruling, 

• "modify" the lower court ruling 

by changing it in part, but not 

totally reversing it, 

• "reverse," or set aside, the lower 

court ruling and not require any 

further court action, 

• "reverse and remand" the case 

by overturning the lower court 

ruling but requiring further 

proceedings at the lower court 

that may range from conducting a 

new trial to entering a proper 

judgment, 

• "remand" all or part of the case 

by sending it back to the lower 

court without overturning the 

lower court's ruling but with 

instructions for further 

proceedings that may range from 

conducting a new trial to entering 

a proper jUdgment. 

Thus, the termination of an 

appellate court case mayor may 

not be the end of the case from 

the perspective of the parties 

involved in the case. They may be 

required to go back to the lower 

court for further proceedings. If 

Federal law is involved, a party 

can petition for review in the U.S. 

Supreme Court. In criminal cases, 

defendants can file further 

petitions in a Federal court or a 

State court. 

tions grew from 85 in 1973 to 133 in 

1983. Each jurisdiction experienced an 

increase in appellate filings per judgeship ranging from less than 1 case per 

judge in Delaware, where the supreme 

court was expanded from 3 to 5 judges, 

Cumulative growth in appeals filed 

compared to other factors, 1973-83 

Cumulative 

percent change 43 States 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

1973-

74 

CumUlative 

percent change 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

1973-

74 

CumUlative 

percent change 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

1973-

74 

Figure 3 

1977-

78 

1980-

81 

29 States 

1977-

78 

1980· 

81 

33 States 

1977-

78 

1980-

81 

112% 

36% 

24% 

1982-

83 

131% 

102% 

52% 

1982-

83 

112% 

43% 

1982-

83 

t \ 
to 1\9 cases per judge in Oregon (table 

2). In terms of percent increase, 

Nevada had the highest, 157%, followed 

closely by Alabanja, Alaska, and South 

pakota eUch with 156%, 155%, and 

152% respectively. 

Increases in the number of appellate 

judgeships almost kept pace with rising 

filings in Delaware, Iowa and Idaho, 

where the filings per judgeship inTable 2. Numbe!" of appeals med per 

judgeship, 1983 .gnd 1973, and percent change, 

by State 

Al2l2eals filed l2er jUdgeshil2 

Percent 

State 1983 1973 increase 

South Carolinaa 323 - - Pennsylvania 303 231 31 Flo~\da b 260 178 46 

Virginia 243 151 61 

New Jersey 224 155 44 

Oregon 218 99 120 

Michigan b 198 98 102 

New York 193 129 50 

Minnesotaa 188 78 141 

Georgia 174 - - Dist .. of Columbia 171 109 57 

Ohio 162 109 49 

Alabama 161 63 156 

illinoisc 145 74 96 

Nevadab 139 54 157 

Utah 138 64 116 

Kentuckyc 131 87 51 

Nebraska 131 78 68 

Calif orniab 126 98 29 

West Virginia 123 - - Arizonab 119 69 72 

Vermont 112 47 138 

Arkansas 105 - - Wisconsin 105 - - New HampS%reC 103 42 145 

Rhode Island 100 48 108 

Alaska 97 38 155 

Iowa 95 88 8 MisSissiP~t 95 69 38 

Colorado 91 57 60 

Massachusettsb 92 48 92 

Washingtog 94 57 65 

Okl&hom~ 90 65 38 

Maryland 89 68 31 

ConnecticutC 85 35 14.3 

North Carolinab 85 - - Delaware 83 82 1 

Kansas 80 60 33 Tenn~seeb 78 59 32 

Texas ,c 73 51 43 

Louisianab 71 49 45 

Missouri 71 47 51 

New Mexico 70 45 56 

Mainec 69 31 123 

Montanab 63 31 103 

South Dakota 63 25 152 

North ~akota 62 - - Hawaii 60 32 88 

Idaho 52 49 6 

Wyomingb 47 23 104 

Note: No filing data were available for Indiana. - Comparable data were not available. a Because an intermediate appellate court was added late in the year, the number of judges was prorated for additions during the year. 

The number of filings per judge will decrease 

b when the new court begins hearing cases. All or most appeals are counted by the court 

at a point later than the filing of a notice to 

appeal, understating the State's caseload 

compared to States that count the notice to 

appeal. c Docketing systems changed, artiflcally . increasing the number of filings. 

creased by less thafll0% over the 

decade. In all oth"r States the increase 

was 29% or more. 

Criminal appeals grew more than 

twice as fast as the FBI Crime Index 

statistics and twice as fast as trial 

court criminal filings in the 29 juri~­

dictions with trial court ·statistics. 

Only prison commitments, which grew 

131 % during the decade in the 29 

States outpaced the growth in criminal 

appellate filings. However, the growth 

in prison commitments lagged behind 

criminal appellate filings until the large 

increases in prison population of 1981-

83. 

Civil trial court filings for 1973-83 

were obtained from 33 of the 38 jurisdictions with civil appellate data. For 

these jurisdictions, civil trial court 

filings increased by 43%, considerably 

less than half the growtf of civil 

appeals in those States. 

Appeals might be expected to be 

associated primarily with the number of 

cases decided by trial courts, for with 

few exceptions only these cases can be 

appealed. Unfortunately, there is no 

adequate measure of trial court decisions, only of the number of trials. 

Although most trials result in decisions, 

trials can end in dismissals or mistrials. In any case, the number of trials 

has increased very little. As a result, 

the ratio of appeals to trials has increased greatly. This may be because 

more trial dispositions are appealed or 

because more appeals are made from 

nontrial dispositions such as civil 

summary judgments and guilty pleas. It 

is also possible that the small growth 

rate shown for trials is the result of 

widespread problems with the statistics 

themselves, which reflect disparate 

judgments by local cour~officials as to 

what constitutes a trial. 

Appellate decisions 

There is substantial variation among 

the States in judgeship positions and 

court output (table 3). Most of this 

variation results, of course, from differences in State size. Judgeship 

positions ranged from five in several 

smaller States without intermediate 

appellate courts to 81 in California and 

97 in Texas. Appellate decisions ranged 

from 200-300 cases decided in smaller 

States with solitary supreme courts to 

more than 9,000 in Florida and New 

York, which have intermediate appellate courts as well as a supreme court.9 

Although smaller States tend to 

have fewer filings, cases decided, and 

judgeships, there is considerable variation in the numbel'l3 of cases decided 

per judgeship acro~;s the States. Vir4 

, 

Table 3. Appellate decisions per judgeship, 

by state, 1983 

Number Decisions 

of Per 

judge- judgeState ships Number !lhip 

States with solitary supreme courts 

Virginia8 7 1,580 226 

West Virginia8 ,5 625 125 

Dist. of Columbia 9 875 97 

Utah 5 437 87 

New Hampshires 5 404 81 

Nebraska 7 502 72 

Rhode IslandS 5 304 61 

Oelawarea 5 296 59 

Mississippia 9 502 56 

South Dakota 5 271 54 

North Dakota 5 241 48 

Montana 7 320 46 

Vermont 5 209 42 

Maine 7 288 41 

Nevada 5 193 39 

Wyoming 5 147 29 

States with intermediate appellate courts 

Ncw Yorka 55 10,214 186 

Floridaa 53 9,379 177 

New Jersey 28 4,419 158 

Michigan 25 3,925 157 

Georgia 16 2,331 146 

Oregona 17 2,443 144 

Pennsylvania 31 3,803 123 

Ohio 59 7,362 125 

illinois 48 5,121 107 

South Carolinaa,b 5 499 100 

California 81 7,8:13 97 

Indiana 17 1,573 93 

Alabama 17 1,530 90 

Alaska 8 707 88 

Texas 97 8,443 87 

Arizona 20 1,696 85 

Wisconsin 19 1,600 84 

Minnesotas,b 9 743 83 

Maryland 20 1,647 82 

Iowa 14 1,127 81 

Kentucky 21 1,701 81 

Arkansas 13 1,003 77 

Oklahoma 24 1,770 74 

Kansas 14 1,002 7'il 

Colorado 17 1,192 70 

North Carolina 19 1,283 68 

Louisiana 55 3,555 65 

Massachusetts8 17 1,107 65 

Tennessee 26 l,6ll4 64 

Washington 25 1,432 57 

New Mexico 12 668 56 

Hawaii 8 397 50 

Missouri 39 1,679 43 

Connecticutb 6 233 39 

Idaho 8 285 36 

a Courts in the State decide at leas~ a third of 

the cases without writing opinions. 

b An intermediate appellate court was established late in the year. Because each new court had decided only a small number of cases by the end of the reporting period, 

neither the number of judgeships nor the 

number of decisions is included here. 

-. ginia, which established an intermediate appelillte court to relieve the 

burden on its supreme court in 1985, 

had the most decisions per judgeship, 

226. This number will undoubtedly 

decrease as the 10 new judges of the 

intermediate appellate court begin 

hearing cases. Other high output States 

are New York, Florida, New Jersey, and 

Michigan, each with more than 150 

cases decided per judge during 1983. 

The great differences in decisions 

per judge do not necessarily reflect 

,,':t: ," • '.' ~llsiD··... l." .> ", ~', '-..' .' r'~" .," .~, \.a ~'" '" : 

differences in the amount of effort 

expended by the judges. Judges have 

great discretion concerning how much 

attention to give each case. Most highoutput courts have curtailed traditional 

features of appellate decision procedure, and, for example, decide many 

cases without hearing oral arguments 

and writing full opinions. States with 

few cases decided per judge tend to be 

smaller States with solitary supl'eme 

courts that hear and decide nearly all 

their cases using. traditional procedures 

such as oral arguments and full written 

opinions. 

Summary 

State appellate court workload grew 

faster over the past decade than almost 

all other components of the justice 

system. 

• Appellate case filings grew 112% 

from 1973 to 1983 in the 43 jurisdictions for which data were available. 

• Criminal and civil appellate filings 

grew at similar rates in the 38 jurisdictions able to supply separate data: 

criminal filings increased 107% and 

civil filings increased 114%. 

• Appellate caseload growth has slowed 

from the sharp increases of the mid1970's, but it now appears to be 

increasing somewhat more rapidly than 

during the late 1970's. 

• All 42 States and the District of 

Columbia experienced substantial 

growth in appellate filings during the 

period, but the rates of growth differed 

substantially from State to State, and 

all States except one experienced a 

decrease in appellate filings in at least 

1 year during the decade. 

• The growth in appellate filings over 

most of the decade was greater than 

the increase in most factors that might 

be associated with it. These include 

population, judgeships, crime rate, 

arrest rate, trial court filings, and 

prison commitments. Prison commitment growth, however, surpassed appellate filing growth beginning in 1981. 

• Throughout the decade, criminal 

appeals accounted for 43 to 46% of 

total appeals. Until as recently as the 

early 1960's, criminal appeals had 

• accounted for only 10 to 15% of total 

appeals. 

Methodology 

The following two sections present a 

general description of the definitions 

and procedures used in this study. More 

detailed information can be found in 

State Appellate Caseloa? Growth, 

Documentary Apeendix. 1l The appeals 

included in this analysis' are initial 

appeals from trial courts and administrative agencies. This definition 

permits a caseload measure that is 

Appellate court functions 

The two basic functions of appellate courts are to determine the 

correctness of the trial court 

decisions and to develop the law of 

the State. The second function 

arises in relatively few cases, 

since most appeals do not present 

new legal issues. Intermediate 

appellate cOl:lrts are generally 

limited to the determination of 

correctness, whereas most supreme courts, especiaJly those 

over intermediate courts, concentrate on developing law. 

comparable from State to State. It 

excludes writs and petitions, nearly all 

of which represent little work for the 

courts. 

Direct filings in both supreme and 

intermediate appellate courts are 

included; but, to avoid double-counting, 

appeals do not include transfers from 

one appellate court to another. Also, 

appeals do not include supreme court 

review of cases filed initially in 

intermediate appellate courts. Most 

courts count juvenile delinquency appeals (which are quite rare) as civil 

appeals, and that convention is used he~'e as well. 

. Writs are not included in this report 

because they take far less judicial time 

than regular appeals. The few other 

Appellate court organization 

There are three types of appellate 

courts: supreme courts in States 

with no intermediate appellate 

courts (called IIsolitary supreme 

courtsll), supreme courts in States 

with intermediate appellate courts, 

and intermed~ate appellate courts 

themselves. 

Every State has a supreme court 

with five to nine judges (Texas and 

Oklahoma have separate supreme 

courts for civil and criminal cases). 

In addition, 36 States now have 

,lower-level or intermediate appellate courts, often called IIcourts of 

appeal.1I Between 1870 and 1915, 13 

States created permanent intermediate appellate courts to relieve the 

burden on State supreme courts. 

These new courts heard some or all 

initial appeals, but their decisions 

were subject to review by the State 

supreme court. Morl;! intermediate 

appellate courts We'le not created 

until 1957 in Florida and 1963 in 

Michigan. In the past 20 years, 

States have created intermediate 

appellate courts at the rate of one 

5 

original matters, such as bar discipline, 

jUdicial discipline, and advisory opinions, are also excluded. Appeals from 

trial court decisions on postconviction 

writs, however, are counted as criminal 

appeals, except in those cases where 

the appellate courts process them in a 

summary fashion. Some of the statistics collected depart from these rules 

for defining an appeal, but the departures affect only a small portion of the 

caseload in anyone court, and caseload 

definition is consistent from year to 

year in each State. 

Virginia and West Virginia are 

exceptions to the rule that writs for 

discretionary appeals are not counted 

as appeals filed; almost all filings are 

discretionary, but they are counted as 

appeals because they are briefed and 

argued in a manner similar to the 

regular appellate review conducted in 

other States. The decision statistics 

for these two States include denials of 

petitions to review rulings of lower 

courts or administrative agencies (but 

not denial of original jurisdiction writs) 

since these denials are comparable to 

appeals as counted in other States with 

solitary supreme courts. 

A difficulty ~ncountered when gathering and evaluating appellate statistics 

is that procedures for docketing appeals 

are not uniform. Most appellate courts 

count cases soon after the notice of appeal is filed; but some wait until the 

trial court record is received, usually 

1 to 3 months after the notice of apor more a year to relieve State 

supreme courts as appellate caseloads increase. 

In States with intermediate 

appellate courts, the portion of 

appeals going directly to the 

supreme court varies greatly. In 

large States, almost all appeals go to 

the intermediate court. Elsewhere, 

appeals often bypass the intermediate court and go directly to the 

supreme court. This division of 

caseload is accomplished either by 

routing specific categories of cases 

(for example, murder cases) directly 

to the supreme court or by permitting the supreme court to screen all 

a('peals and send the less important 

ones to the intermediate court to be 

heard. 

Except in Florida, litigants losing 

in an intermediate court can request 

the State supreme court to grant a 

review, which 's almost always discretionary. The supreme courts 

decline to hear the vast majority of 

these cases, agreeing to hear mainly 

those that a quick scretming indicates are concerned with important 

issues of law. 

~. \ 
R( 

g 

peal. Caseload figures in the latter 

courts do not include appeals filed and 

then dismissed before the record of the 

trial is prepared. The practical impact 

on civil appellate statistics is substantiel bec"use many cases are settled 

or withdrc a before the parties incur 

the cost of l?reparing the record. 

Docketing system changes during 

the period can artificially increase 

appellate case growth. Approximately 

1,000 of the increased number of civil 

filings and 800 of criminal filings are 

attributable to changes in docketing 

systems. A docketing system change 

that would artificially increase filings 

occurs when a State changes from 

counting the filing of trial court 

records to counting the "notice to 

appeal." This is because the llotice to 

appeal occurs a few months earlier 

than. the filing of trial court records 

and some cases are dropped between 

these two points. Excluding these cases 

reduces the 1973-83 growth by approximately 2 to 4 percentage points. The 

trends for individual States are 

aIfected little by this problem if the 

definition of a filing remains constant 

over time within the State. But appellate courts in six States changed from 

counting cases when the record arrived 

(or when the briefs arrived) to counting 

all cases in which a notice of appeal 

was filed. The six States are Connecticut, illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire, 

Maine, and Texas. 

Changes in appellate jurisdiction 

can also affect the trend data. Roughly 

one to two percentage points of the 

increase in total appeals results from a 

net increase in app.ellate court jurisdiction over the decade. States with 

changes in appellate court jurisdiction 

are noted in table 1. Appellate court 

jurisdiction is established by State 

constitut\on and State law. The most 

commor. type of expansion of appellate 

jurisdiction is when appeals from 

administrative agencies and limited 

jurisdiction courts formerly filed in 

trial courts that had what is called 

incidental appellate jurisdiction are 

allowed to be filed directly with the 

appellate court. Before such a change, 

the cases were the workload of the trial 

court. Cases originating in limited 

jurisdiction courts or administrative 

agencies are also the most common 

area for reductions in appellate jurisdiction and caseload; that is, the cases 

become reviewable by discretionary 

writ rather than appeal. 

The establishment of an intermediate appellate court is often accompanied by an increase in appellate case 

filings. For this reason, table 1 is 

footnoted to indicate those States 

where such a court was established during the period being studied. The 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletins are prepared by the staff 

of BJS or those commissioned by 

BJS. This bulletin was written by 

Thomas B. Marvell of The Appellate Justice Center and Sue A. 

Lindgren of BJS. Carol B. Kalish, 

chief of data analysis, edits the 

bulletins. Marilyn Marbrook, 

publications unit chief, administers their production, assisted 

by Millie J. Baldea and Joyce M. 

Stanford. Special acknowledgment iF made of the 

assistance of Russell Hochman, 

1984 BJS Summer Intern. 

li'ebruary 1985, NCJ-96381 

States that established intermediate 

appellate courts and the dates those 

courts began operation are as follows: 

Massachusetts, August 1972; Kentucky, 

August 1976; Iowa, January, 1977; 

Kansas, January 1977; Wisconsin, 

August 1978; Arkansas, July 1979; 

Hawaii, April 1980; Alaska, September 

1980; Idaho, January 1982; Connecticut, 

July 1983; South Carolina, October 

1983; and Minnesota, November 1983. 

Virginia has established an intermediate 

appellate court to begin operation in 

1985. 

The statistics for roughly half the 

States are based on the court's fiscal 

year, ending in June, August, or 

SeptE;mber; data for the remainder of 

the States are for the calendar year. 

This bulletin presents data aggregated for all appellate courts in each 

State. Data for the individual courts 

are availab12 fr£r the Appellate Justice Center. 

Data collection 

Appellate caseload information "~;s 

collected in a 2-year effort designed to 

document trends in State appellate 

courts. The major sources of statistics 

were State court annual reports and 

unpublished reports furnished by individual appellate courts. These were 

supplemented by research in court 

dockets in six States. Appellate clerks 

in the States and the District of Columbia were interviewed at length about 

the content of their appell;ate court 

statistics. The statistics were also 

checked against a wide va'riety of published reports and articles. Trial court 

caseload statistics were EUSO obtained 

mainly from State court annuai reports 

and unpublished reports, Much additional information about the courts, 

such as jurisdiction and docketing 

system changes, was obtained from 

legal research into State statutes and 

rules and from interviews with court 

clerks. 

6 

I 

In a few States, separate civil and 

criminal caseload data were missing for 

individual years and were estimated 

from total filing statistics. The figures 

also were corrected occasionally for 

anomalous changl~ that would render 

them misleading. 

References 

IMarvell, Thomas 8., "Appellate Court Caseloads: 

Hist.orical Trends," Af,pellate Court Administration 

ReView, Vol. 4, (1983 , p. 3; Kagan, Robert A., et. 

al., "The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870-

1970" Stanford Law Review, Vol. 30, No.1 

(November 1977), p. 121. 

2Many adjustments W.lre made to the data supplied 

by the States to improve the comparability of data 

between States and across time within the reporting 

States. A general discussion of these adjustments 

and the definitions of terms used in thi~ report can 

be found in the Methodology and Data Collection 

sections. 

3Federal court appeals in the U.S. Circuit Courts of 

Appeal increased from 15,629 in fiscal year 1973 to 

29,630 in fiscal year 1983. Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts, Annual Report of the 

Director 1973; and 1983_ (Washington, D.C., 

Administrative Office of United States Courts). 

4The total trend line for the 38 States is virtually 

identical to the trend line for the 43 States. 

5Marvell and Kagan et. al, note 1 above. 

6Criminal trial court filings are limited to felonie3 

(and major misdemeanors or misdemeanor appeals in 

several States). 

7The civil court trial filing statistics include regUlar 

civil cases, such as torts and contracts, as well as 

domestic relations cases, in general jurisdiction 

courts only. Excluded are probate, juvenile, small 

claims, and, in most States, child support cases; 

these are generally minor or routine cases that are almost never appealed. 

8These problems, which were uncovered in interviews with officials responsible for compiling these 

statistics, are described in !VIarvell, Thomas 8., et. 

al, State A ellate Caseload Growth Documentar 

AppendiX, Williamsburg, Va: NatIOnal Center or 

State Courts, 1985), Section VI, pp. 10-12. Se-" also 

Adams, Eleanor 8., "Statistical auditing: Do the 

numbers speak for themselves ?" State Court 

Journal, Vol_ 8, No.4 (Fall 1984), p.16. 

9The number of decisions is the number of cases decided on the merits. It does not include dismissal 

of petitions for review and original jurisdiction 

writs, and it does not include appeals dismissed for 

lack of progress. Unlike the appellate case filing 

data where petitions to appeal are not counted, a 

petition to appeal that is granted is counted as a decision when the case is decided. 

10Marvell, et. aI, note 8 above. 

llThomas 8. Marvell, The Appellate Justice Center, 

Southern Bank Building, 306 South Henry Street, 

Williamsburg, Virginia, 23185, (804) 229-9772., 

12Marvell, et. aI, note 8 above_ 

g 

1 

I 

:1 

\1 

;1 

iJ 

" fl Ij 

(1 

i1 :; 

1 

~ I 

, 

. 

,. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 

(revised February 1985) 

Call toll-free 800-732-3277 (local 

251-5500) to order BJS reports. to be added 

to one of the BJS mailing lists. or to speak 

to a reference specialist in statistics at the 

Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, National 

Criminal Justice Reference Service, 

Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Single copies of reports are free; use NCJ number . to order. Postage and handling are charged 'for bulk orders of single reports. For Single 

copies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are . free; 11-40 titles $1 0; more than 40, $20; 

libraries call for special rates. 

Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and 

other criminal justine data are available 

from the Criminal Justice Archive and 

Information Network, P.O. Box 1248, Ann 

Arbor. MI48106 (313-764-5199). 

National Crime Survey 

Criminal victimization in the U.S.: 

1982 (final report). NCJ-92820. 11/84 

1973-82 trends. NCJ-90541. 9/83 

1981 (final report). NCJ-90208 

1980 (final report). NCJ-84015. 4/83 

1979 (final report). NCJ-76710, 12/81 

BJS special reports: 

The economic cost of crime to victims, NCJ93450.4/84 

Family violence, NCJ-93449. 4/84 

BJS bulletins: 

Household burglary, NCJ-96021. 1/85 

CriminallJictimlzation 1983, NCJ-93869. 6/84 

Households touched by crime, 1983. NCJ93658.5/84 

Violent crime by strangers, NCJ-80829. 4/82 

Crime and elderly, NCJ-79614. 1/82 

Measuring crime, NCJ-75710. 2/81 

Victimization and fear of crime: World 

perspectives, NCJ-93872. 1/85 

The National Crime Survey: Working papers. 

vol. I: Current and historical perspectives. 

NCJ-75374.8/82 

vol. II: Methoiogical studies. NCJ-90307, 12/84 

Crime against the elderly in 26 cities, . 

NCJ-76706.1/82 

The Hispanic victim, NCJ-69261. 11/81 

Issues In the measurement of crime, 

NCJ-74682,10/81 

Criminal victimization of California residents, 

1974-77, NCJ-70944. 6/81 

Restitution to victims of personal and household 

crimes, NCJ-72770. 5/81 

Criminal victimization of New York State 

residents, 1974-77, NCJ-66481. 9/80 

The cost of negligence: Losses from preVentable 

household burglaries. NCJ-53527. 12/79 

Rape victimization in 26 American cities, 

NCJ-55878. 8/79 

Criminal victimization in urban schools, 

NCJ-58396. 8/79 

Crime against persons in urban, suburban, and 

rural areas, NCJ-53551. 7/79 

An introduction to the National Crime Survey, 

NCJ-43732. 4/78 

Local victim surveys: A review of the issues. 

NCJ-'39973. 8/77 

Corrections 

BJS 6ulletlns and speCial reports: 

Returning to prison, NCJ-95700, 11/84 

Prison admissions and releases 1981 , 

NCJ-95043. 9/84 

Capital punishment 1983, NCJ-93925.7/84 

--------,-- M 

TIine servedln prIson, NCJ-93924, 6/84 

Prisoners in 1983, NGJ-85861. 12/82 

Justice expenditure and employment in the 

U.S., 1979 (finai report). NCJ-87242. 12/83 

Prisoners in State and Federal institutions on 

Dec. 31, 1982 (final). NCJ-93311. 12/84 

Dec. 31, 1981 (final). NCJ-86485, 7/83 Privacy and security Capital punishment 1982 (finai). NCJ-95133. Computer crime: 11/84 Electronic fund transfer and crime, Capital punishment 1981 (final), NCJ-96484. NCJ-92650. 2/84 5/83 Computer security techniques, 

1979 survey of inmates of State correctional facilities NCJ-84049. 9/82 

and 1979 census of State correctional facilities: Electronic fund transfer systems anr;l crime, 

NCJ-83736. 9/82 BJS special reports: Legislative resource manual, NCJ-78890.9/81 Career patterns in crime, NCJ-88672. 6/83 Expert witness manual, NCJ-77927. 9/81 BJS bulletins: Criminal justice resource manual, NCJ-61550 • Prisoners and drugs, NCJ-87575. 3/83 12/79 

Prisoners and alcohol, NCJ-86223. 1/83 Privacy and security of criminal history Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-a06fl7. 2/82 information: Veterans in prison, NCJ-79232. 11/81 A guide to research and statistical use, Census of jails and survey of jail inmates: NCJ-69790, 5/81 

The 1983 jail census (BJS bulletin. NCJ-95536. A guide to dissemination, NCJ-40000. 1/79 11/84 Compendium of State legislation: Jail inmates 1982 (BJS bulletin). NCJ-87161. 2/83 NCJ-489~1. 7/78 

Census of jails, 1978: Data for individuai jails. 1981 supplement, NCJ-79652. 3/82 

vols. I-IV. Northeast. North Central. South. West. Criminal justice information policy: NCJ-72279-72282.12/81 Victim/witness legislation: An overview, Profile of jail inmates, 1978, NCJ-65412. 2/81 NCJ-94263. 12/84 Census of jails and survey of Jnil inmates, 1978, Information policy and crime control strategies preliminary report. NCJ-55172. 5/79 (SEARCH/BJS conference). NCJ-93926. 

10/84 Parole and probation Research access to criminal justice data, BJS bulletins: NCJ-84154. 2/83 Probation and parole 1983, NCJ-94776. Privacy and juvenile justice records, 9/84 NCJ-84152. 1/83 Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218. 8/83 Survey of State laws (BJS bulletin). Characteristics of persons entering parole NCJ-80836. 6/82 

during 1978 and 1979, NCJ-87243. 5/83 Privacy and the private employer. 

Characteristics of the parole population, 1978, NCJ-79651. 11/81 

NCJ-66479. 4/81 

Parole in the U.S., 1979, NCJ-69562. 3/81 Federal offenses and offenders 

Courts BJS special reports: 

Pretrial release and misconduct, NCJ-96132. 

BJSbulletin: 1/85 

Case filings in State courts 1983, NC,!-95111. BJS bulletins: 10/84 Bank robbery, NCJ-94630. 8/84 

BJS special reports: Federal drug law violators, NCJ·92692. 2/84 

The prevalence of guilty pleas, NCJ-96018. Federal justice statistics, NCJ-80814. 3/82 

12/84 

Sentencing practices in 13 States, NCJ-95399. General 

10/84 BJS bulletins: 

Criminal defense systems: A national Tracking Offenders: The child victim, NCJsurvey, NCJ-94630. 8/84 95785. 12/84 Habeas corpus, NCJ-92949. 3/84 The severity of crime, NCJ-92326. 1/84 Case filings in State courts 1983, The American response to crime: An overview NCJ-95111. 10/84 of criminal justice systems, NCJ-91936. 12/83 State court case load statistics, 1977 and Tracking offenders, NCJ-9t572. 11/83 1981, NCJ-87587. 2/83 Victim and witness assistance: New State 

The prosecution of felony arrests, 1979, NCJ- laws and the system's response, NCJ-87934. 

86482.5/84 5/83 

State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711. 7/82 BJS telephone contacts, NCJ·95505. 10/84 State court model statistical dictionary, How to gain access to BJS data (brochure). NCJ-62320. 9/80 BC-000022. 9/84 

A cross-city comparison of felony case Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1983. processing, NCJ-55171, 7/79 NCJ-91534. 10/84 

Federal Information policy and crime control criminal sentencing: Perspectives of 

analysis and a design strategies, NCJ-93926. 10/84 for research. NCJ-33683. 

10/78 Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law and 

Variations justice statistrcs, 1984, NCJ-93310. 8/84 in Federal criminal sentences, 

NCJ-33684, 10/78 Report to the nation on crime and justice: 

Predicting The data, NCJ-87I)eB. 10/83 sentences In Federal courts: The 

Dictional'} of criminal justice data terminology: feasibility of a national sentencing policy. 

NCJ-33686. 10/78 2nd ed .• NCJ-76939. 2/82 

State and Technical standards for machine-readable data local prosecution and civil attorney supplied to BJS, NCJ-75318. 6/81 ~l systems, NCJ-41334. 7/78 

Justice agencies In the U.S., 1980, NCJ-65560. 

Expenditure and employment 1/81 ~, 

A style manual for machine-readable data, Justice expenditure and employment in the NCJ-62766. 9/80 U. S., 1971-79, NCJ-92596. 11/84 ;po. 

7 
..... e, 

? M 

To be added to any BJS mailing list, copy or cut out this page, fill it in and mail it to: 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

User Services Dept. 2 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20850 

o If the nam e and address on the mailing label attached are correct, check here and 

don't fill them in again. If your address does not show your organizational affiliation (or interest in criminal justice) please put it here: 

If your name and address are different from the label, 

please fill them in: 

Name: 

Title: 

Organization: 

Street or box: 

City, State, Zip: 

Telephone: ( ) 

Interest in criminal justice: 

Please add me to the following list(s): 

o 

o 

o 

D 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Justice expenditure and employment reports-annual spending and staffing by 

Federal, State, and local governments and by function (police, courts, etc.) 

Computer crime reports-electronic fund transfer s1stem crimes 

Privacy and security of criminal history information and information policy-new 

legislation; maintaining and releasing intelligence and investigative recordR 

IDS Billetins and Special Reports -timely reports of the most current justice data 

Courts reports-State court caseload surveys, model annual State reports, State 

court organization surveys 

Corrections reports-results of sample surveys and censuses of jails, prisons, parole, probation, and other corrections data 

National C.rime Survey reports-the only regular national survey of crime victims 

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (annual)-broad-based data from 153 

sources in an easy-to-use, comprehensive format (433 tables, 103 figures, index) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Official Business 

. Penalty for Private Use $300 Postage and Fees Paid 

U.S, Department of Justice 

Jus 436 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

Bulletin 

TI-DRD CLASS 

BlP.....KRATE 

_!:Ie ------------------- 

,-

I 

. 

" 

\ 

4L 

~' \ 
;i 

; 

\ 

, I 

o 

II 

I' 

Ii 

Jl j,! 

I; .\ I: 

Ii 

I' 

L 

;~~ iI" 

~ 

o