Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 143–167 | Cite as

Appellate and trial court caseload growth: A pooled time-series-cross-section analysis

  • Carlisle E. MoodyJr.
  • Thomas B. Marvell


This is an econometric study of factors behind filing growth since 1970 in state trial courts and, especially, appellate courts. The model posits two categories of variables: those affecting the supply of disputes and those affecting the costbenefit considerations of potential litigants. The study uses a pooled time-seriescross-section design and a fixed-effects regression procedure. The overall conclusion is that factors determining the supply of disputes overwhelm other factors entered in the model. At the trial level, economic conditions 2 years earlier strongly affect civil filings, and crime rates for the current and prior year have moderate impacts on criminal filings. The output capacity of trial courts, measured by the number of judges, has a strong impact on appeals. Economic conditions and trial court filings influence civil appeals in later years, and prison commitments influence criminal appeals. The great majority of cost-benefit factors, such as simplification of appellate procedure and interest-rate differentials, showed little or no impact on appeals.

Key words

courts appeals economic change econometric methods pooled time series-cross section 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berk, R. A., Hoffman, D. M., Maki, J. E., Rauma, D., and Wong, H. (1979). Estimation procedures for pooled cross-sectional and time series data.Eval. Q. 3: 385–411.Google Scholar
  2. Boyum, K. O., and Krislov, S. (eds.) (1980).Forecasting the Impact of Legislation on Courts, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, Y., and Radbill, L. (1987). Method and substance in the use of ratio variables.Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 132.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1985).The Growth of Appeals, 1973–83 Trends, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T. (1986). Science's social system of validity-enhancing collective believe change and the problems of the social sciences. In Fiske, D. W., and Schweder, R. A. (eds.),Metatheory in Social Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 108–135.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1967).Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Church, T.,et al., (1978).Justice Delayed, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, P. J., and Tauchen, G. (1984). The effect of minimum drinking age legislation on youthful auto fatalities, 1970–1977.J. Legal Stud. 13: 169.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, P. J., and Zarkin, G. A. (1986). Homicide and economic conditions: A replication and critique of M. Harvey Brenner's New Report to the U.S. Congress.J. Quant. Criminol. 2: 69–80.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, T., and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi Experimentation, Design, and Analysis for Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Daniels, S. (1982). Civil litigation in Illinois trial courts: An exploration of rural-urban differences.Law Policy Q. 4: 190–212.Google Scholar
  12. Daniels, S. (1984). Ladders and bushes: The problem of caseloads and studying court activities over time.Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 1984: 751–795.Google Scholar
  13. Dewald, W. G., Thursby, J. G., and Anderson, R. G. (1986). Replication in empirical economics: TheJournal of Money, Credit and Banking project.Am. Econ. Rev. 76: 587–603.Google Scholar
  14. Engel, D. M. (1983). Eases, conflict, and accommodation: Patterns of legal interaction in an American community.Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 1983: 803–872.Google Scholar
  15. Grossman, J. B., and Sarat, A. (1975). Litigation in the federal courts: A comparative perspective.Law Soc. Rev. 9: 321–346.Google Scholar
  16. Housman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics.Econometrica 46: 1251–1271.Google Scholar
  17. Judge, G. G., Hill, R. C., Griffiths, W., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T. (1985).Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Krislov, S. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on case load studies: A critique and a beginning. In Boyum, K., and Mather, L. (eds.),Empirical Theories About Courts, Longman, New York, pp. 161–187.Google Scholar
  19. Kritzer, H. (1986). Adjudication to settlement: Shading in the gray.Judicature 70: 161.Google Scholar
  20. Learner, E. E. (1983). Let's take the con out of econometrics.Am. Econ. Rev. 73: 31–43.Google Scholar
  21. Lempert, R. (1966). Strategies of research design in the legal impact study, the control of plausible rival hypotheses.Law Soc. Rev. 1: 111–132.Google Scholar
  22. Loftin, C. (1983). Policy experiments on crime-preventive effects of sentence reform. Unpublished grant application by the University of Maryland to the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  23. Mahoney, B., Sipes, L. L., and Ito, J. (1985).Implementing Delay Reduction and Delay Prevention Programs in Urban Courts, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va.Google Scholar
  24. Marvell, T. B. (1983). Appellate court caseloads: Historical trends.Appel. Court Admin. Rev. 4: 3–9.Google Scholar
  25. Marvell, T. B. (1985). Civil caseloads: The impact of the economy and trial judgeship increases.Judicature 69: 153–156.Google Scholar
  26. Marvell, T. B. (1986a). The impact of jurisdiction amounts on trial court caseloads.Judicature 69: 367–371.Google Scholar
  27. Marvell, T. B. (1986b). Are caseloads really increasing?Judges J. 25(3): 34.Google Scholar
  28. Marvell, T. B., and Dempsey, P. (1985). Growth in state judgeships, 1970–1984: what factors are important?Judicature 68: 274–284.Google Scholar
  29. Marvell, T. B., and Moody, C. (1985). The impact of economic and judgeship changes on federal district court filings.Judicature 69: 156.Google Scholar
  30. Marvell, T. B., Moody, C., Dempsey, P., Lasky, K. J., and Mackarevich, G. M. (1985).State Appellate Caseload Growth Documentary Appendix, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. McIntosh, W. (1983). Private use of a public forum: A long range view of the dispute processing role of courts.Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 77: 991–1011.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, R., and Sarat, A. (1982). Grievances, claims, and disputes: Assessing the adversary culture.Law Soc. Rev. 15: 525–548.Google Scholar
  33. Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross-sectional data.Econometrica 46: 69–86.Google Scholar
  34. Pindyck, R. S., and Rubinfeld, D. L. (1981).Econometrica Models and Economic Forecasts, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Pogue, T. (1986). Offender expectations and identification of crime supply functions.Eval. Rev. 10: 455.Google Scholar
  36. Posner, R. A. (1973a).Econ. Anal. Law, Little, Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  37. Posner, R. A. (1973b). An economic approach to legal procedure and judicial administration.J. Legal Stud. 2: 399–458.Google Scholar
  38. Stimson, J. A. (1985). Regression in space and time: A statistical essay.Am. J. Polit. Sci. 29: 914–947.Google Scholar
  39. Wolpin, K. I. (1980). A time series-cross section analysis of international variation in crime and punishment.Rev. Econ. Stat. 62: 417.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlisle E. MoodyJr.
    • 1
  • Thomas B. Marvell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCollege of William and MaryWilliamsburg
  2. 2.Court Studies, Inc.Williamsburg

Personalised recommendations