Since 1992, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has collected data on civil disputes adjudicated by trial in state courts of general jurisdiction. Although civil trials represent a small fraction of all civil dispositions, they are important to examine because they can set the overall context for the civil justice system as a whole. The most recent civil trial survey tracked nearly 12,000 general civil (e.g., tort, contract, and real property) jury and bench trials disposed of in a sample of the nation's 75 most populous counties during the year 2001. An overview of the research findings and a summary of their implications are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2002). Annual report of the director: Judicial business of the U.S. Courts. Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
2.
CarrollS.HenslerD.AbrahamseA.GrossJ.WhiteM.AshwoodS., & SlossE. (2002). Asbestos litigation costs and compensation: An interim report. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Institute for Civil Justice.
3.
Center for Legal Policy. (2003). Trial lawyers inc.: A report on the lawsuit industry in America 2003. New York: The Manhattan Institute.
4.
CohenT., & SmithS. (2004). Civil trial cases and verdicts in large counties, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
5.
CohenT. (2004a). Medical malpractice trials and verdicts in large counties, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6.
CohenT. (2004b). Tort trials and verdicts in large counties, 2001, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
7.
Court Statistics Project. (2004). State court caseload statistics, 2003. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
8.
DeFrancesC., & LitrasM. (1999). Civil trial cases and verdicts in large counties, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
9.
DeFrancesC., & SmithS. (1996). Contract cases in large counties. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
10.
DeFrancesC.SmithS.LanganP.OstromB.RottmanD., & GoerdtJ. (1995). Civil jury cases and verdicts in large counties. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
EisenbergT. (2001). Damage awards in perspective: Behind headline grabbing awards in Exxon Valdez and Engle. Wake Forest Law Review, 36, 1129–1155.
12.
EisenbergT.GoerdtJ.OstromB.RottmanD., & WellsM.T. (1997). The predictability of punitive damages. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 623–661.
13.
EisenbergT.LaFountainR.OstromB.RottmanD., & WellsM.T. (2002). Juries, judges, and punitive damages: An empirical study. Cornell Law Review, 87, 743–782.
14.
GalanterM. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, (3), 459–570.
15.
GiffordL.DeFrancesC., & LitrasM. (2000). Contract trials and verdicts in large counties, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16.
GoerdtJ.OstromB.RottmanD.LaFountainR., & KauderN. (1995). Litigation dimensions: Torts and contracts in large urban courts. State Court Journal, 19, (1), 5–47.
17.
Hannaford-AgorP.HansV.MottN., & MunstermanT. (2000). The timing of opinion formation by jurors in civil cases: An empirical examination. University of Tennessee Law Review, 67, 627–652.
18.
HansV., & AlbertsonS. (2002–2003). Empirical research and civil jury reform. Notre Dame Law Review, 78, 1497–1523.
19.
HeiseM. (2000). Justice delayed: An empirical analysis of civil case disposition time. Case Western Law Review, 50, 813–849.
20.
HuberP. (1988). Liability: The legal revolution and its consequences. New York: Basic Books.
21.
KeetonW.DobbsD.KeetonR., & OwenD. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on the law of torts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
22.
KritzerH. (1997). Contingency fee lawyers as gatekeepers in the American civil justice system. Judicature, 81, 22–29.
23.
KritzerH. (1998). Contingent fee lawyers and their clients: Settlement expectations and settlement realities. Law & Social Inquiry, 23, 795–821.
24.
LitrasM.GiffordS.DeFrancesC.RottmanD.LaFountainR., & OstromB. (2000). Tort trials and verdicts in large counties, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
25.
OstromB.KauderN., & LaFountainR. (2004). Examining the work of state courts, 2003: A national perspective from the court statistics project. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
26.
OstromB.RottmanD., & GoerdtG. (1996). A Step Above Anecdote: A Profile of the Civil Jury in the 1990s. Judicature, 79 (5), 233–241.
27.
PaceN. M.GolinelliD., & ZakarasL. (2004). Capping non-economic awards in medical malpractice trials: California jury verdicts under MICRA. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Institute for Civil Justice.
28.
PaceN. M.RevilleR.T.GalwayL.GellerA.B.HaydenO.HillL.A.MardesichC.NeuhauserF.W.PolichS.YeomJ., & ZakarasL. (2003). Improving dispute Resolution for California's injured workers: Executive summary. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Institute for Civil Justice.
29.
SeaburyS.PaceN., & RevilleR.2004. (2004) Forty years of civil jury verdicts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, (1), 1–25.
30.
SmithS.DeFrancesC.LanganP., & GoerdtJ. (1995). Tort cases in large counties, 1992. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
31.
SunsteinC.HastieR.PayneJ.SchkadeD., & ViscusiW. K. (2003). Punitive damages: How juries decide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
TrubekD. (1980/1981). Studying courts in context. Law and Society Review, 15, 486–501.
33.
VidmarN. (1992). The unfair criticism of medical malpractice juries. Judicature, 76, (3), 18–124.
34.
VidmarN., & RiceJ. (1992–1993). Assessments of non-economic damage awards in medical malpractice: A comparison of jurors with legal professionals. Iowa Law Review, 78, 883–911.
