The Federal Judicial Center contracted with Claritas Corporation to produce the three data files in this collection from the Census Bureau's 1983 County and City Data Book. The data, which are summarized by judicial units, were compiled from a county-level file and include information on area and population, households, vital statistics, health, income, crime rates, housing, education, labor force, government finances, manufacturers, wholesale and retail trade, service industries, and agriculture.

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.

This data delineates the Circuit Court District Boundaries of Arkansas. It was derived from the Census 2000 block boundaries. Judicial sub-districts are included in the file by a court order known as the Hunt Decree that was ordered by the US District Court, Eastern District Arkansas on November 7, 1991. (Eugene Hunts v State of Arkansas No PB-C-89-405). The purpose of this decree is to provide African American voters improved and equal access to the political processes for electing judges to the trial courts of the general jurisdictions in the State of Arkansas and to enhance the political participation and awareness of all citizens. Voting is a right inherent in citizenship in the State of Arkansas and in the United States. This right specifically includes the right to creation by the State of judgeships and the redistricting of judicial districts in such a way as not to dilute the voting strength of African America voters. The remedy ordered by this court will not disturb the existing district lines of the present judicial districts except to the extent that it creates electoral sub-districts with the First, Second, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh West Judicial Districts for the purposes of election only. All judges elected from the electoral sub-districts will exercise jurisdiction district-wide in their capacity as circuit, chancery or circuit-chancery judges. There will be no sub-district residency requirement. No changes in any of these sub-districts or in the allocation of judgeships among them may be made except by order of the Court. The sub-district polygons representing these judicial sub-districts ordered by the court are titled as follows: 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 6.1 6.2 10.1 10.2 11W.1 11W.2 The original case was brought by Hunt in 1989. The analysis creating the sub-districts was based upon the 1990 Census data. On March 29, 2002 the court amended the original order by stating, “The United States Census Bureau did not use the identical geographic boundaries in publishing the 2000 census report, and the Secretary of State has been unable to exactly replicate the earlier maps that were based upon the 1990 Census Report. The boundary changes are minimal and largely based upon the census geography and the new maps being submitted for the Court’s approval are more detailed than those produced in 1992 when the Amended Consent Decree was entered. The boundary changes will clarify the sub-district lines for the public. Under the 1992 Amended Consent Decree changes in the sub-districts may only be made by Order of this Court. The changes in the demographic population percentages in the sub-districts attached as Exhibit “A” as compared to the sub-districts ordered under the Amended Consent Decree are negligible. The Court’s approval of the attached maps will further the original purpose of the 1992 Amended Consent Decree which was designed to create opportunities for African Americans to elect Circuit Court judges in a manner consistent with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended. The Court therefore ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES that the Joint Motion be and is hereby GRANTED and Court continues to retain jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to the Amended Consent Decree of September 24, 1992.

Investigator(s): U.S. Sentencing Commission These data, collected to assist in the development of sentencing guidelines, describe offense and sentencing characteristics for organizations sentenced in federal district courts. The United States Sentencing Commission's primary function is to inform federal courts of sentencing policies and practices that include guidelines prescribing the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. Court-related variables include primary offense type, pecuniary offense loss and gain, dates of disposition and sentencing, method of determination of guilt, number of counts pled and charged, and dates and types of sentencing and restitution. Defendant organization variables include ownership structure, number of owners and employees, highest level of corporate knowledge of the criminal offense, highest level of corporate indictment and conviction for participation in the criminal offense, annual revenue, equity and financial status of the defendant organization, whether it was a criminal organization, duration of criminal activity, and risk to national security. Part 1, Organizational Defendants Data, 1988, describes offense and sentencing characteristics for organizations sentenced in federal district courts in 1988. Part 2, Organizational Defendants Data, 1989-1990, is a compilation of offense and sentencing characteristics for the population of organizations sentenced in federal district courts during the period January 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. Part 3, Statute Data, 1989-1990, is a secondary component of the Commission's study that includes only the statutes of conviction and number of counts per conviction, during the period January 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. Part 4, Organizational Defendants Data, 1987-1993, includes all organizational defendants sentenced pursuant to the Chapter Two, Part R (1987) antitrust guidelines and the Chapter Eight (1991) sentencing guidelines for organizational defendants that were sentenced between November 1, 1987, through September 30, 1993, and were received by the Commission. Part 6, Organizational Defendants Data, 1994, gives information on organizational defendants sentenced during fiscal year October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994, and includes culpability scores and Chapter Eight (1991) culpability scoring procedures. Part 8, Organizational Defendants Data, 1995, covers fiscal year October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995, and also includes culpability scores and Chapter Eight (1991) culpability scoring procedures. This file includes 9 defendants sentenced pursuant to Section 2R1.1 (1987) and 111 defendants sentenced pursuant to the Chapter Eight guidelines. Years Produced: Updated annually

The purpose of the Habeas Corpus Litigation in United States District Courts: An Empirical Study, 2007 is to provide empirical information about habeas corpus cases filed by state prisoners in United States District Courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy regulated by statute and available in federal court to persons "in custody in violation of the Constitution..." When a federal court grants a writ of habeas corpus, it orders the state court to release the prisoner, or to repeat the trial, sentencing, or other proceeding that led to the prisoner's custody. Each year, state prisoners file between 16,000 and 18,000 cases seeking habeas corpus relief. The study was the first to collect empirical information about this litigation, a decade after AEDPA was passed. It sought to shed light upon an otherwise unexplored area of habeas corpus law by looking at samples of capital and non-capital cases and describing the court processing and general demographic information of these cases in detail. AEDPA changed habeas law by: Establishing a 1-year statute of limitation for filing a federal habeas petition, which begins when appeal of the state judgment is complete, and is tolled during "properly filed" state post-conviction proceedings; Authorizing federal judges to deny on the merits any claim that a petitioner failed to exhaust in state court; Prohibiting a federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner failed to develop the facts in state court, except in limited circumstances; Barring successive petitions, except in limited circumstances; and Mandating a new standard of review for evaluating state court determinations of fact and applications of constitutional law. The information found within this study is for policymakers who design or assess changes in habeas law, for litigants and courts who address the scope and meaning of the habeas statutes, and for researchers who seek information concerning the processing of habeas petitions in federal courts. Descriptive findings are provided detailing petitioner demographics, state proceedings, representation of petitioner in federal court, petitions, type of proceeding challenged, claims raised, intermediate orders, litigation steps, processing time, non-merits dispositions and merits disposition for both capital and non-capital cases which lead into the comparative and explanatory findings that provide information on current and past habeas litigation and how it has been effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

These wards were produced by the Legislative Technology Services Bureau for the 2011 Legislative Redistricting Project. Election data from the current decade is included.Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data AttributesWard Data Overview: These municipal wards were created by grouping Census 2010 population collection blocks into municipal wards. This project started with the release of Census 2010 geography and population totals to all 72 Wisconsin counties on March 21, 2011, and were made available via the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) GIS website and the WISE-LR web application. The 180 day statutory timeline for local redistricting ended on September 19, 2011. Wisconsin Legislative and Congressional redistricting plans were enacted in 2011 by Wisconsin Act 43 and Act 44. These new districts were created using Census 2010 block geography. Some municipal wards, created before the passing of Act 43 and 44, were required to be split between assembly, senate and congressional district boundaries. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39 allowed communities to divide wards, along census block boundaries, if they were divided by newly enacted boundaries. A number of wards created under Wisconsin Act 39 were named using alpha-numeric labels. An example would be where ward 1 divided by an assembly district would become ward 1A and ward 1B, and in other municipalities the next sequential ward number was used: ward 1 and ward 2. The process of dividing wards under Act 39 ended on April 10, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the United States Eastern District Federal Court ordered Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (both in the City of Milwaukee) be changed to follow the court’s description. On September 19, 2012, LTSB divided the few remaining municipal wards that were split by a 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or 44 district line.Election Data Overview: Election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the Government Accountability Board (GAB)/Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. The ward data that is collected after each decennial census is made up of collections of whole and split census blocks. (Note: Split census blocks occur during local redistricting when municipalities include recently annexed property in their ward submissions to the legislature).Disaggregation of Election Data: Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward.The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population.When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the GAB/WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the GAB at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file.Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note… We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2011) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if "Cityville" has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward five was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election Results: The process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from GAB/WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards spring 2017 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (Occurred with spring 2017) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2016Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2011 (then MCD 2011, and County 2011) All election data (including later elections such as 2016) is aggregated to the Wards 2011 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though municipal and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same. Therefore, data totals within a county should be the same between 2011 wards and 2018 wards.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2018. This is due to (a) boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2018, and (b) annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Cape May Court House, NJ, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

GIS Web Map Application of the 10 City Council Voter Districts

description: This dataset contains polygons which represent justice of the peace boundaries for the State of Arkansas. By Arkansas law, the political subdivisions of the State are required to review the boundary lines of various election districts after each decennial census. This ensures the citizens of the county are equally represented by their elected officials. This process is widely known as redistricting. The process of establishing new districts or updating boundary lines is subject to certain constitutional and statutory requirements. The number of Quorum Court districts per county in Arkansas is based upon population ranges (Arkansas Code 14-14-402). The number of Quorum Court districts per county in Arkansas is based upon population ranges (Arkansas Code 14-14-402). 14-14-402. Number of Districts. The number of convenient quorum court districts to be established in each county shall be determined according to the following population categories: Quorum Court Districts Population 9 0 to 19,999 11 20,000 to 49,999 13 50,000 to 199,999 15 200,000 and above Furthermore, apportionment of those districts is the responsibility of the county board of election commissioners and shall be based upon federal decennial census information (Arkansas Code 14-14-403 and 14-14-404).; abstract: This dataset contains polygons which represent justice of the peace boundaries for the State of Arkansas. By Arkansas law, the political subdivisions of the State are required to review the boundary lines of various election districts after each decennial census. This ensures the citizens of the county are equally represented by their elected officials. This process is widely known as redistricting. The process of establishing new districts or updating boundary lines is subject to certain constitutional and statutory requirements. The number of Quorum Court districts per county in Arkansas is based upon population ranges (Arkansas Code 14-14-402). The number of Quorum Court districts per county in Arkansas is based upon population ranges (Arkansas Code 14-14-402). 14-14-402. Number of Districts. The number of convenient quorum court districts to be established in each county shall be determined according to the following population categories: Quorum Court Districts Population 9 0 to 19,999 11 20,000 to 49,999 13 50,000 to 199,999 15 200,000 and above Furthermore, apportionment of those districts is the responsibility of the county board of election commissioners and shall be based upon federal decennial census information (Arkansas Code 14-14-403 and 14-14-404).

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Stonebridge Court - Rollingbrook South, Bloomington, IL, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

The 83rd Legislature, 1st Called Session, enacted S.B. 4 (PLAN C235). The districts are identical to the interim plan, ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, used in 2012 to elect members of the Texas delegation to the U.S. Congress. This plan is effective January 2013. PLAN C2100 is the representation of the current congressional districts drawn on 2020 census geography.

Texas has 36 congressional districts, as determined by apportionment following the 2010 census. According to results of 2020 census congressional reapportionment, Texas will have 38 districts, and each district will have an ideal 2020 census population of 766,987. For more information, visit https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/Current-districts#us-congress-section.

This layer represents the seven Councilmanic districts for the Baltimore County Council, as adopted by Bill 22-22 – Revision of Councilmanic Districts, and described in Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B (Population and Demographic summary). Bill 22-22 was passed by the County Council at an Emergency Legislative Session on March 24, 2022 following acceptance of the Map by a Federal Court Judge on that date as part of the Redistricting litigation. Bill 22-22 supersedes the previously-passed Redistricting legislation (Bill 103-21). The Council will keep the public informed if there are any subsequent changes to this Redistricting Map.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Leclaire Courts, Chicago, IL, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

The downloadable ZIP file contains Esri shapefiles and PDF maps. Contains the information used to determine the location of the new legislative and congressional district boundaries for the state of Idaho as adopted by Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting on March 9, 2002. Contains viewable and printable legislative and congressional district maps, viewable and printable reports, and importable geographic data files.These data were contributed to INSIDE Idaho at the University of Idaho Library in 2001. CD/DVD -ROM availability: https://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/m1uotc/CP71156191150001451These files were created by a six-person, by-partisan commission, consisting of six commission members, three democrats and three republicans. This commission was given 90 days to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries for the state of Idaho. Due to lawsuits, the process was extended. This legislative plan was approved by the commission on March 9th, 2002 and was previously called L97. All digital data originates from TIGER/Line files and 2000 U.S. Census data.Frequently asked questions:How often are Idaho's legislative and congressional districts redrawn? Once every ten years after each census, as required by law, or when directed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The most recent redistricting followed the 2000 census. Redistricting is not expected to occur again in Idaho until after the 2010 census. Who redrew Idaho's legislative and congressional districts? In 2001, for the first time, Idaho used a citizens' commission to redraw its legislative and congressional district boundaries. Before Idaho voters amended the state Constitution in 1994 to create a Redistricting Commission, redistricting was done by a committee of the Idaho Legislature. The committee's new district plans then had to pass the Legislature before becoming law. Who was on the Redistricting Commission? Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting was composed of Co-Chairmen Kristi Sellers of Chubbuck and Tom Stuart of Boise and Stanley. The other four members were Raymond Givens of Coeur d'Alene, Dean Haagenson of Hayden Lake, Karl Shurtliff of Boise, John Hepworth of Buhl (who resigned effective December 4, 2001), and Derlin Taylor of Burley (who was appointed to replace Mr. Hepworth). What are the requirements for being a Redistricting Commissioner? According to Idaho Law, no person may serve on the commission who: 1. Is not a registered voter of the state at the time of selection; or 2. Is or has been within one (1) year a registered lobbyist; or 3. Is or has been within two (2) years prior to selection an elected official or elected legislative district, county or state party officer. (This requirement does not apply to precinct committeepersons.) The individual appointing authorities may consider additional criteria beyond these statutory requirements. Idaho law also prohibits a person who has served on the Redistricting Commission from serving in either house of the legislature for five years following their service on the commission. When did Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting meet? Idaho law allows the Commission only 90 days to conduct its business. The Redistricting Commission was formed on June 5, 2001. Its 90-day time period would expire on September 3, 2001. After holding hearings around the state in June and July, a majority of the Commission voted to adopt new legislative and congressional districts on August 22, 2001. On November 29th, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the Commission's legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional and directed them to reconvene and adopt an alternative plan. The Commission did so, adopting a new plan on January 8, 2000. The Idaho Supreme Court found the Commission's second legislative map unconstitutional on March 1, 2002 and ordered the Commission to try again. The Commission adopted a third plan on March 9, 2002. The Supreme Court denied numerous challenges to this third map. It then became the basis for the 2002 primary and General elections and is expected to be used until the 2012 elections. What is the basic timetable for Idaho to redraw its legislative and congressional districts?Typically, and according to Idaho law, the Redistricting Commission cannot be formally convened until after Idaho has received the official census counts and not before June 1 of a year ending in one. Idaho's first Commission on redistricting was officially created on June 5, 2001. By law, a Commission then has 90 days (or until September 3, 2001 in the case of Idaho's first Commission) to approve new legislative and congressional district boundaries based on the most recent census figures. If at least four of the six commissioners fail to approve new legislative and congressional district plans before that 90-day time period expires, the Commission will cease to exist. The law is silent as to what happens next. Could you summarize the important dates for Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting one more time please? After January 1, 2001 but before April 1, 2001: As required by federal law, the Census Bureau must deliver to the states the small area population counts upon which redistricting is based. The Census Bureau determines the exact date within this window when Idaho will get its population figures. Idaho's were delivered on March 23, 2001. Why conduct a census anyway? The original and still primary reason for conducting a national census every ten years is to determine how the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives are to be apportioned among the 50 states. Each state receives its share of the 435 seats in the U.S. House based on the proportion of its population to that of the total U.S. population. For example, the population shifts during the 1990's resulted in the Northeastern states losing population and therefore seats in Congress to the Southern and the Western states. What is reapportionment? Reapportionment is a federal issue that applies only to Congress. It is the process of dividing up the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on each state's proportion of the total U.S. population as determined by the most recent census. Apportionment determines the each state's power, as expressed by the size of their congressional delegation, in Congress and, through the electoral college, directly affects the selection of the president (each state's number of votes in the electoral college equals the number of its representatives and senators in Congress). Like all states, Idaho has two U.S. senators. Based on our 1990 population of 1,006,000 people and our 2000 population of 1,293,953, and relative to the populations of the other 49 states, Idaho will have two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even with the state's 28.5% population increase from 1990 to 2000, Idaho will not be getting a third seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Assuming Idaho keeps growing at the same rate it did through the decade of the 1990's, it will likely be 30 or 40 years (after 3 or 4 more censuses) before Idaho gets a third congressional seat. What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts within each state to achieve population equality among all congressional districts and among all legislative districts. The U.S. Constitution requires this be done for all congressional districts after each decennial census. The Idaho Constitution also requires that this be done for all legislative districts after each census. The democratic principle behind redistricting is "one person, one vote." Requiring that districts be of equal population ensures that every elected state legislator or U.S. congressman represents very close to the same number of people in that state, therefore, each citizen's vote will carry the same weight. How are reapportionment and redistricting related to the census? The original and still primary reason for conducting a census every ten years is to apportion the (now) 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the several states. The census records population changes and is the legally recognized basis for redrawing electoral districts of equal population. Why is redistricting so important? In a democracy, it is important for all citizens to have equal representation. The political parties also see redistricting as an opportunity to draw districts that favor electing their members and, conversely, that are unfavorable for electing their political opposition. (It's for this reason that redistricting has been described as "the purest form of political bloodsport.") What is PL 94-171? Public Law (PL) 94-171 (Title 13, United States Code) was enacted by Congress in 1975. It was intended to provide state legislatures with small-area census population totals for use in redistricting. The law's origins lie with the "one person, one vote" court decisions in the 1960's. State legislatures needed to reconcile Census Bureau's small geographic area boundaries with voting tabulation districts (precincts) boundaries to create legislative districts with balanced populations. The Census Bureau worked with state legislatures and others to meet this need beginning with the 1980 census. The resulting Public Law 94-171 allows states to work voluntarily with the Census Bureau to match voting district boundaries with small-area census boundaries. With this done, the Bureau can report to those participating states the census population totals broken down by major race group and Hispanic origin for the total population and for persons aged 18 years and older for each census subdivision. Idaho participated in the Bureau's Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program and, where counties used visible features to

Fork this notebook to get started on accessing data in the BigQuery dataset by writing SQL queries using the BQhelper module.

Context

OCE collected all of the data from the Public Access to Court Electronics Records (PACER) and RECAP, an independent project designed to serve as a repository for litigation data sourced from PACER. The final output datasets include information on the litigating parties involved and their attorneys; the cause of action; the court location; important dates in the litigation history; and descriptions of all documents submitted in a given case, which cover more than 5 million separate documents contained in the case docket reports.

Content

USPTO OCE Patent Litigation Docket Reports Data contains detailed patent litigation data on 74,623 unique district court cases filed during the period 1963-2015.

Acknowledgements

"USPTO OCE Patent Litigation Docket Reports Data" by the USPTO, for public use. Marco, A., A. Tesfayesus, A. Toole (2017). “Patent Litigation Data from US District Court Electronic Records (1963-2015).” USPTO Economic Working Paper No. 2017-06.

Data Origin: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/patents-public-data:uspto_oce_litigation

Banner photo by Samuel Zeller on Unsplash

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Judiciary Square, Washington, DC, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

"The Statistical Abstract is the nation's best known and most popular single source of statistics on the social, political, and economic organization of the country. The print version has been published since 1878, and a compact disc version has been available since 1993. Both are designed to serve as a convenient, easy-to-use statistical reference source and guide to statistical publications and sources. Software on the disc can be used to perform full-text searches, view official statistics , open tables as Lotus worksheets or Excel workbooks, and link directly to source agencies and organizations for supporting information. The disc contains over 1,500 tables from over 250 different governmental, private, and international organizations. Topics include population; vital statistics; health and nutrition; education; law enforcement, courts and prison; geography and environment; elections; state and local government; federal government finances and employment; national defense and veterans affairs; social insurance and human services; labor force, employment, and earnings; income, expenditures, and wealth; prices; business enterprise; science and technology; agriculture; natural resources; energy; construction and housing; manufactures; domestic trade and services; transportation; information and communication; banking, finance, and insurance; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation, food services, and other services; foreign commerce and aid; outlying areas; and comparative international statistics. The most significant change in the 2001 data is in the number and order of the sections. New items include 120 new tables; a new section on Accommodation, Food Services, and Other Services; new data from the 2000 Census found in many tables in the Population and Construction and Housing Sections; and results from the 2000 national elections available in the Elections section. The disc includes content not found in the book such as Adobe Acrobat PDFs providing more explanation of several major economic series in cluding the federal budget, the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), and the new North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Other PDFs provide information on the federal court system and social security. Links to these supplemental materials are provided from each appropriate table or from the text beginning the appropriate sections. The disc also includes new maps for reference from many different agencies including world and international maps from the Central Intelligence Agency and energy related maps from the Energy Information Administration. Other maps include maps of each state and their metro areas and component counties, congressional districts, national park sites throughout the country, U.S. transportation facilities and routes, coal mines and facilities, and the distribution of forest land." Note to Users: This CD is part of a collection located in the Data Archive of the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The collection is located in Room 10, Manning Hall. Users may check the CDs out subscribing to the honor system. Items can be checked out for a period of two weeks. Loan forms are located adjacent to the collection.

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data AttributesWard Data Overview: These municipal wards were created by grouping Census 2010 population collection blocks into municipal wards. This project started with the release of Census 2010 geography and population totals to all 72 Wisconsin counties on March 21, 2011, and were made available via the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) GIS website and the WISE-LR web application. The 180 day statutory timeline for local redistricting ended on September 19, 2011. Wisconsin Legislative and Congressional redistricting plans were enacted in 2011 by Wisconsin Act 43 and Act 44. These new districts were created using Census 2010 block geography. Some municipal wards, created before the passing of Act 43 and 44, were required to be split between assembly, senate and congressional district boundaries. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39 allowed communities to divide wards, along census block boundaries, if they were divided by newly enacted boundaries. A number of wards created under Wisconsin Act 39 were named using alpha-numeric labels. An example would be where ward 1 divided by an assembly district would become ward 1A and ward 1B, and in other municipalities the next sequential ward number was used: ward 1 and ward 2. The process of dividing wards under Act 39 ended on April 10, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the United States Eastern District Federal Court ordered Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (both in the City of Milwaukee) be changed to follow the court’s description. On September 19, 2012, LTSB divided the few remaining municipal wards that were split by a 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or 44 district line.Election Data Overview: Election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the Government Accountability Board (GAB)/Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. The ward data that is collected after each decennial census is made up of collections of whole and split census blocks. (Note: Split census blocks occur during local redistricting when municipalities include recently annexed property in their ward submissions to the legislature).Disaggregation of Election Data: Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward.The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population.When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the GAB/WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the GAB at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file.Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note… We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2011) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if "Cityville" has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward five was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election Results: The process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from GAB/WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards spring 2017 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (Occurred with spring 2017) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2016Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2011 (then MCD 2011, and County 2011) All election data (including later elections such as 2016) is aggregated to the Wards 2011 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though municipal and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same. Therefore, data totals within a county should be the same between 2011 wards and 2018 wards.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2018. This is due to (a) boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2018, and (b) annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Hampton Court, Knoxville, TN, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

The Council adopted the first reading of a redistricting ordinance on 12/4/13, chosing the Berkeley Student District Campaign (BSDC) plan. A referendum petition rescinded the ordinance. On April 30, 2014, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled these districts will be used for the November 2014 election.Council districts boundaries adjusted to equalize population in the districts as a result of population changes reflected in the 2010 federal census. Berkeley City Charter requires City Council district boundaries to be adjusted, if needed, following each decennial census.