Civil Justice Survey Publications

2005, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Stewart, S.J. & Heise, M. (2011). Splitting Logs: An Empirical Perspective on Employment Discrimination Settlements. Cornell Law Review, 96(4), 931-956.

Cohen, T.H. & Farole, D.J. (2011). Appeals of Civil Trials Concluded in 2005. Bulletin. NCJ 235187, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cohen, T.H. & Harbakek, K. (2011). Punitive Damages Awards in State Courts, 2005. Bulletin. NCJ 233094, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Lee, C.G. & LaFountain, R.C. (2010). Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts. National Center for State Courts: Court Statistics Project 18(1).

Vidmar, N. & Holman, M. (2010). The Frequency, Predictability, and Proportionality of Jury Awards of Punitive Damages in State Courts in 2005: A New Audit. Suffolk University Law Review, 43(4), 855-896.

Heise, M. (2010). Why ADR Programs Aren’t More Appealing: An Empirical Perspective. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(1), 64-69.

Cohen, T. H. (2009). Tort Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005. Bulletin. NCJ 228129, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Farole, D. (2009). Contract Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005. Bulletin. NCJ 225634, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Lee, C. G., & Waters, N. L. (2009). Practitioners Beware: The Dangerous Allure of Jury Verdict ReportersVoir Dire, 16(1).

Eisenberg, T., Hans, V. P., & Wells, M. T. (2007). The Relation Between Punitive and Compensatory Awards: Combining Extreme Data with the Mass of Awards. In Bornstein, B. H., Wiener R. L., Schopp, R. & Willborn, S. (Eds.), Civil Juries and Civil Justice: Psychological and Legal Perspectives (pp. 105-115). New York: Springer.

Langton, L., & Cohen, T. H. (2005). Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005. Bulletin. NCJ 223851, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.


Trends across Civil Justice Survey of State Courts series

Choi, S. & Eisenberg, T. (2010). Punitive Damages in Securities Arbitration: An Empirical Study. The Journal of  Legal Studies, 39(2), 497-546.

Eisenberg, T., Heise, M., Waters, N. & Wells, M. (2010). The Decision to Award Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(2), 577-620.

Cohen, T. H. (2008). General Civil Jury Trial Litigation in State and Federal Courts: A Statistical PortraitJournal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(3), 593-618. 

Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P., Heise, M., LaFountain, N., Munsterman, G. T., Ostrom, B. & Wells, M. T. (2006). Juries, Judges, and Punitive Damages: Empirical Analyses using the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts 1992, 1996, and 2001 data. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3(2), 263-295.

Hannaford-Agor, P. L., LaFountain, R. C. & Strickland, S. M. (2005). Trial Trends and Implications for the Civil Justice System. Caseload Highlights, 11(3), 1-6.

LaFountain, N., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D. & Wells, M. (2002). Juries, Judges, and Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study. Cornell Law Review, 87(3) 743-82.

 

2001, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Eisenberg, T. (2009). Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal. Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), 121-155.

Lee, C. G. & Waters, N. L. (2009). Medical Malpractice on AppealCaseload Highlights, 16(4), 1-8.

Miller, G. (2007). Do Juries Add Value? Evidence from an Empirical Study of Jury Trial Waiver Clauses in Large Corporate ContractsJournal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 539-588.

Waters, N. L. (2007). Civil Trials on Appeal, part 1. Caseload Highlights, 14(1), 1-6.

Waters, N. L. & Sohoni, T. (2007). Civil Trials on Appeal, part 2. Caseload Highlights, 14(2), 1-8.

Waters, N. L. & Sweikar, M. (2007). Efficient and Successful ADR in Appellate Courts: What Matters Most? Journal of Dispute Resolution, 62(3), 42-53.

Cohen, T. H. (2006). Appeals from General Civil Trials in 46 Large Counties, 2001-2005. Special Report. Bulletin. NCJ 212979, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cohen, T. H. (2005). Contract Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001. Selected Findings. Bulletin. NCJ 207388, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cohen, T. H., & Smith, S. K. (2005). Punitive Damage Awards in Large Counties, 2001. Bulletin. NCJ 208445, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

LaFountain, R. C. & Kauder, N. B. (2005). An Empirical Overview of Civil Trial LitigationCaseload Highlights, 11(1), 1-4.

Sharkey, C. M. (2005). Unintended Consequences of Medical Malpractice Damages Caps. New York University Law Review, 80(2), 391-512. 

Cohen, T. H. (2004). Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001. Bulletin. NCJ 206240, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cohen, T. H., & Smith, S. K. (2004). Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001. Bulletin. NCJ 202803, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hannaford-Agor, P. L. (2004). Not Quite the End of the Road: Post-Trial Activity in Civil Litigation. (unpublished manuscript, draft report for the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, on file with the author).

 

1996, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Eisenberg, T. & Hill, E. (2003). Arbitration and Litigation of Employment Claims: An Empirical Comparison. Dispute Resolution Journal, 58(4), 44-55.

Gifford, L. S., DeFrances, C. J., & Litras, M. F. X. (2000). Contract Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996. Bulletin. NCJ 179451, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Heise, M. (2000). Justice Delayed:  An Empirical Analysis of Civil Case Disposition Time. Case Western Reserve University Law Review, 50(4), 813-849.

Litras, M. F.X., Gifford, S. L., DeFrances, C. J., Rottman, D., LaFountain, N., & Ostrom, B. (2000). Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996. Bulletin. NCJ 179769, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

DeFrances, C. J., & Litras, M. F. X. (1999). Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996. Bulletin. NCJ 173426, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Bureau of Justice Statistics.

 

1992, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Eisenberg, T., Rachlinski, J. & Wells, M. (2002). Reconciling Experimental Incoherence with Real-World Coherence in Punitive Damages. Stanford Law Review, 54(6 ), 1239-1271.

Eisenberg, T. & Wells, M. (1998). Punitive Awards After BMW, a New Capping System, and the Reported Opinion Bias. Wisconsin Law Review, (1), 387-425.

Eisenberg, T., Goerdt, J., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Wells, M. (1997). The Predictability of Punitive Damages. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(2), 623-661.

DeFrances, C. J., & Smith, S. K. (1996). Contract Cases in Large Counties: Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992, Special Report. Bulletin. NCJ 156664, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Galanter, M. (1996). Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote. Maryland Law Review, 55(4), 1093-1134.

Goerdt, J., Ostrom, B. & Rottman, D. (1996). Litigation Outcomes in State and Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait. Seattle Law Review, 19(3), 433-453.

Ostrom, B. J., Rottman, D. B. & Goerdt, J. A. (1996). A Step Above Anecdote: A Profile of the Civil Jury in the 1990’s. Judicature. 79(5), 233-241.

DeFrances, C. J., Smith, S. K., & Langan, P. A. (1995). Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties: Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992, Special Report. Bulletin. NCJ 154346, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Smith, S. K., DeFrances, & C. J., Langan, P. A. (1995). Tort Cases in Large Counties: Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992, Special Report. Bulletin. NCJ 153177, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Ostrom, B., Hanson, R. & Daley, H. (1993). So the Verdict is in – What Happens Next?  The Continuing Story of Tort Awards in the State CourtsJustice System Journal, 16(2), 97-115.

 

Civil Justice Survey of State Courts - Project series justification for research

Hanson, R., Ostrom, B. & Rottman, D. (1994). The Williamsburg Report: A Dialogue on Tort Litigation in the United StatesState Court Journal, 18(2). 

The Williamsburg Report synthesizes the discussion and debate that occurred among a diverse group of judges, lawyers, business and insurance company representatives, and scholars. These individuals expressed their views at a one-day conference convened by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia, on October 2, 1993. The purpose of this conference was to improve the quality of the dialogue on torts by bringing together a full range of individuals involved in this important area of litigation and to exchange views as to why the tort system is working (not working).  Essentially, this conference laid the foundation for the Civil Justice Survey.