This study analyzed the determinants of the explosion in the caseload of the United States federal district courts that commenced in 1960. First, the study sought to provide forecasts of future demands on the federal courts while reducing forecasting errors by taking account of the time series properties of the case data. The researchers constructed a comprehensive dataset based on annual aggregated civil and criminal case volumes of individual federal district courts spanning the period 1904-1998, for a total of 95 yearly observations. Secondly, the study specified and estimated multivariate econometric models of the determinants of civil case filings over time and across geographic space using panel data techniques. These empirical models were run on three alternative datasets consisting of observations on statewide, districtwide, and circuitwide United States civil, private civil, and total civil cases per capita, over the period 1960 to 1998. The empirical models included standard socioeconomic variables, such as income, population density, and race, along with variables that controlled for fixed effects associated with the courts' geographic location. The study also addressed the pressing issue of allocating judgeships across circuits and districts. Variables include total civil and criminal cases, percentage of minority population, unemployment rate, percentage of drug and immigration cases, annual unweighted and weighted total case filings per judge, and annual civil and criminal case filings per judge.

The data contain records of defendants in criminal cases filed in United States District Court during fiscal year 2016. The data were constructed from the Administrative Office of the United States District Courts' (AOUSC) criminal file. Defendants in criminal cases may be either individuals or corporations. There is one record for each defendant in each case filed. Included in the records are data from court proceedings and offense codes for up to five offenses charged at the time the case was filed. (The most serious charge at termination may differ from the most serious charge at case filing, due to plea bargaining or action of the judge or jury.) In a case with multiple charges against the defendant, a "most serious" offense charge is determined by a hierarchy of offenses based on statutory maximum penalties associated with the charges. The data file contains variables from the original AOUSC files as well as additional analysis variables. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were either removed, coarsened, or blanked in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.

This dataset contains a monthly record of how many cases pending over a year each judge had at the end of the month, as well as the average number of pending cases over one year among judges. The average pending is calculated by group, so the average for non-complex is different than the average among the judges handling complex criminal cases. There is one data point for the last day of each previous month, starting 2019-01-01, and a datapoint for the current number of pending cases over one year.

The data contain records of defendants in criminal cases terminated in United States District Court during fiscal year 2022. The data were constructed from the Administrative Office of the United States District Courts' (AOUSC) criminal file. Defendants in criminal cases may be either individuals or corporations. There is one record for each defendant in each case filed. Included in the records are data from court proceedings and offense codes for up to five offenses charged at the time the case was filed. (The most serious charge at termination may differ from the most serious charge at case filing, due to plea bargaining or action of the judge or jury.) In a case with multiple charges against the defendant, a "most serious" offense charge is determined by a hierarchy of offenses based on statutory maximum penalties associated with the charges. The data file contains variables from the original AOUSC files as well as additional analysis variables. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were either removed, coarsened, or blanked in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt Associates and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt Associates.

Abstract (en): The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All federal court cases in the United States in 2002. Smallest Geographic Unit: county 2015-09-18 Six data files were created with docket numbers blanked for Parts 1, 3, and 5, and with docket numbers containing original values for Parts 2, 4, and 6.2012-06-26 All parts are being moved to restricted access and will be available only using the restricted access procedures.2005-04-29 Data files for Part 3, Criminal Data, 2002, Part 4, Civil Pending Data, 2002, and a Civil Pending Restricted Data, 2002 file have been added to the data collection along with corresponding SAS and SPSS setup files and codebooks in PDF formats.2005-01-07 A restricted data file for Part 1, Civil Terminations, 2002, has been added to the data collection. The public use data file for Part 1 and its corresponding SAS and SPSS setup files have been updated. The codebook has been modified to reflect these changes. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. record abstractsStarting with the year 2001, each year of data for Federal Court Cases is released by ICPSR as a separate study number. Federal Court Cases data for the years 1970-2000 can be found in FEDERAL COURT CASES: INTEGRATED DATA BASE, 1970-2000 (ICPSR 8429).

UniCourt is a leader in making judge data for state and federal (PACER) courts more organized, structured, and accessible with API access to AI normalized judicial data connecting real-world judges to the cases they’ve heard and the parties, attorneys, and law firms who’ve appeared before them.

AI Normalized Judges

• Our AI identifies and aggregates judicial name variations and misspellings in court data and combines them with bar records, judicial records, and other public records to connect real-world judges with cases they’ve heard. • Improve your analytics reports and identify new data points you can use to analyze judges with better, normalized judge data. • Use UniCourt’s unique normalized IDs to quickly search for and download all of the cases involving particular judges. • See all of the connections between judges and other real-world attorneys, law firms, and parties with our normalized court data.

Using APIs to Dig Deeper

• Conduct enhanced case research on the precise issues or motions a judge or panel of judges have ruled on, including motions for summary judgment, discovery, peremptory challenges, and much more. • Leverage UniCourt’s automated court searches, APIs, and our normalized judge IDs to get automatic alerts when particular judges hand down new rulings or have new cases added to their docket. • See how opposing counsel have handled certain types of litigation in front of judges in state and federal (PACER) courts and the outcomes they obtained. • Go beyond civil litigation data with UniCourt and download all the criminal court cases judges have handled to gauge their sentencing history and rulings at critical junctures.

Bulk Access to Judge Data

• Get bulk access to judge data, including background information from public data on which law schools and colleges they attended, their party affiliation, who appointed them to their judgeship, and more. • Use UniCourt’s Judge Data API to download all of the structured, enriched data you need to build your own judicial analytics, machine learning models, and the next generation of innovative legal tech tools. • Power your internal applications and databases with 100+ million court records and billions of docket entries all connected to real-world judges. • Stop manually logging into multiple state and federal court databases to get the judge data you need and automate your data entry and workflow processes with APIs.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics Data in this collection examine the processing of federal offenders. The Cases Terminated files (Parts 1-3 and 25-28) contain information about defendants in criminal cases filed in the United States Federal District Court and terminated in the calendar year indicated. Defendants in criminal cases may either be individuals or corporations, and there is one record for each defendant in each case terminated. Information on court proceedings, date the case was filed, date the case was terminated, most serious charge, and reason for termination are included. The Docket and Reporting System files (Parts 4-7 and 31-34) include information on suspects in investigative matters that took an hour or more of a United States Attorney's time with one of the following outcomes: (1) the United States Attorney declined to prosecute, (2) the case was filed in Federal District Court, or (3) the matter was disposed by a United States magistrate. Codes for each disposition and change of status are also provided.The Pretrial Services data (Parts 8 and 22) present variables on the circuit, district, and office where the defendant was charged, type of action, year of birth and sex of the defendant, major offense charge, and results of initial and detention hearings. The Parole Decisions data (Part 9) contain information from various parole hearings such as court date, appeal action, reopening decision, sentence, severity, offense, and race and ethnicity of the defendant. The Offenders Under Supervision files (Parts 15-16 and 37-40) focus on convicted offenders sentenced to probation supervision and federal prisoners released to parole supervision. The Federal Prisoner files (Parts 18 and 20) supply data on when an offender entered and was released from confinement, as well as the amount of time served for any given offense.Years Produced: Annually.NACJD has prepared a resource guide for the Federal Justice Statistics Program.

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is seeking feedback on this publication so that we can assess how well it meets our users’ needs and make improvements where possible. If you have not already done so, please could you complete a short survey.

These statistics focus on key trends in case volume and progression through the criminal court system in England and Wales. There is also information concerning the enforcement of financial penalties in England and Wales.

• Outstanding cases in magistrates’ courts have increased by 3% since Q3 2015, and are back to similar levels as Q4 2014. This increase in outstanding cases reflects the increase in receipts and decrease in disposals at Q4 2015.
• Outstanding cases in the Crown Court have been falling over the last year with a 9% decrease in the number of outstanding cases between Q4 2014 and Q4 2015. This decline reflects the number of disposals being greater than the number of receipts for the last 4 quarters.
• For Crown Court cases, the mean time from first listing at the magistrates’ court to receipt by the Crown Court fell substantially, from 22 days in Q2 2013 to 6 days in Q4 2015. This figure has been fairly stable since late 2014.
• Time from receipt by the Crown Court to main hearing and, also, main hearing to completion have increased across the last 2 years. This has resulted in the number of days from first listing to completion increasing from 164 to 204 days between Q2 2013 and Q2 2015, although more recently there was a decrease to 195 days at Q4 2015.
• Across a 2 year period, the waiting times for triable-either-way cases and indictable only cases have increased overall by 6 weeks and 4.2 weeks respectively. Waiting times have remained fairly steady in non-trial cases.

Pre-release

In addition to MOJ professional and production staff, pre-release access to the quarterly statistics of up to 24 hours is granted to the following postholders:

MOJ:

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Minister of State (Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Victims), Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HMCTS, Tribunals, Judicial Policy, Coroners), Lord Chief Justice, Permanent Secretary, Director General of Finance and Corporate Services, Director General Criminal Justice, Director of Sentencing & Rehabilitation, Head of Criminal Procedure, Policy Advisor to the Secretary of State, Head of Analytical Services, Chief Statistician, Attorney General’s Office, relevant Press Officers, relevant Special Advisers and Private Secretaries.

Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service:

CEO of HMCTS, Director of Crime, Director Finance, Deputy Director Victims & Proceedings Policy, Head of Criminal Procedure, Deputy Director of Legal Services, Court Users and Summary Justice Reform, Cross Jurisdictional Director of the Court Service, Data Collection, Performance and Reporting Manager, Performance Information Manager.

This dataverse contains the replication data for "Essays on the Federal Judicial Hierarchy" by Albert Rivero. As these projects develop, these data will likely be out of date; I will create updated dataverses for these papers as these papers are published. Abstract: This dissertation considers the multiple ways that the hierarchical structure of the U.S. federal judiciary constrains (or fails to constrain) judicial behavior. How much are lower court judges constrained by courts above them in the hierarchy and by their own colleagues? Political science research has considered the pressures under which federal judges operate, but has not come to a definitive conclusion about when and why these pressures affect lower court decision-making. The first paper considers whether judges on the Courts of Appeals respond to changes in the ideological compositions of the circuits on which they sit. I show that circuit judges are influenced by other members of their circuit; in fact, circuit and panel ideology are larger predictors of circuit judges' behavior than a judge's own ideology. I argue that this derives from an unusual institutional feature of the circuit courts, where circuit judges sitting on panels are bound by the precedential decisions of other panels. In the second paper, co-authored with Michael Olson, we investigate how changes in the composition of appellate court panels affects district court voting. District court judges face a much greater rate of review than do circuit court judges. We find that district court judges vote more liberally when they face more liberal circuits. Crucially, this is limited to district-years when the rate of appellate review is high; when it is low, district court judges are not affected by circuit ideology, suggesting that it is indeed the hierarchical structure of the federal courts that drives this responsiveness. In the third paper, I consider the relationship between the circuit courts and the Supreme Court by looking at resolved circuit splits. This work suggests that the Supreme Court's ability to constrain lower court behavior is limited by the low rate of review of circuit cases; only when the rate of review increases (after the first case in a circuit split) do we see any congruence between circuit court behavior and Supreme Court behavior.

The Courts Service Annual Report 2024 highlights a transformative year marked by continued modernisation, increased judicial capacity, and improved operational efficiency. With 20 new judges appointed, the judiciary saw a 25% increase in capacity. Technology upgrades enabled 165 courtrooms for video hearings, and 95% of charge sheets were processed electronically.

Key Highlights

• 20 new judges were appointed, representing a 25% increase in judicial capacity.

Criminal Cases:

• 390,158 new criminal matters presented; 356,045 finalised.
• Central Criminal Court: 24% increase in disposals, 16% reduction in cases-on-hand.
• 27,821 serious offences finalised (up from 26,486 in 2023).
• 434 rape sentences were handed down; 62% ranged from 10 years to life imprisonment.

District Court:

• 350,852 less serious cases received; 309,787 disposed.
• Drug offences: 27,783 new cases (down 16.5% over six years).
• Public order & assault: 47,956 cases (up 9.6%).
• Road traffic: 185,578 new cases (up 8.6%).

Civil Cases

• Nearly 184,000 new cases (up from 180,000 in 2023).
• High Court: 21,371 new cases (33% increase over two years).
• Personal injury: 12,989 new cases (down 41% from 2019); awards reduced by over 45%.

Family Law

• Domestic violence: 25,270 applications (steady with 2023).
• Supervision & Care Orders: 21,684 applications (up 45% over two years).
• Divorce: 5,004 applications (down 10% over two years).

Appellate Courts

• Court of Appeal: 341 new criminal appeals; 269 disposed of involving 2,014 offences.

Other Civil Areas

• Possession cases: 1,135 new; 141 orders granted.
• Debt recovery: 22,584 new cases (up 31% over two years).
• Planning & Environment: 241 new cases; 253 resolved (up 96%).

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2001. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The dataset contains year- and state-wise number of IPC crime cases by courts by their disposal status, such as cases compounded or withdrawn, cases pending trail at the end of the year, acquitted, etc.

Data on cases held in the Appeals Court, including source and type of appeal, dispositions, and the number of panel decisions. Data is available going back to Fiscal Year 2012 (July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012).

These data contain records of statutes for each count of conviction for criminal defendants who were sentenced pursuant to provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1984 and reported to the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) during fiscal year 2004. The data are one of two supplementary files that should be used in conjunction with the primary analysis file, which contains records for all defendants sentenced under the guidelines. These data can be linked to the primary analysis file using the unique identifier variable USSCIDN. The number of records for a defendant in the current data corresponds to the total number of counts of conviction for that defendant, and that total is recorded in the NOCOUNT variable. As an example, if a defendant has five counts of conviction (NOCOUNT=5), he or she will have five records in the current data. As it is possible for defendants to have multiple statutes applying to a single count of conviction, up to three statutes (STA1 - STA3) are recorded for each count of conviction. The data were obtained from the United States Sentencing Commission's Office of Policy Analysis' (OPA) Standardized Research Data File. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The data contain records of defendants in federal criminal cases filed in United States District Court during fiscal year 1995. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central System file. According to the EOUSA, the United States attorneys conduct approximately 95 percent of the prosecutions handled by the Department of Justice. The Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

This dataset contains a monthly record of how many defendants were in jail, for all Superior Court judges who handle criminal cases. For the current month, there is one data point representative of the number of defendants in jail as of today. For previous months, the data point is the last day of the month, and shows how many defendants were in jail on that day.