Showing 1 – 50 of 156 results.
Curated
Access to Justice in Ontario, 1985-1988 (ICPSR 9729)
Released/updated on: 1999-11-19
Geographic coverage: Canada, Ontario, Global
Time period: 1985-01-01--1988-01-01
This data collection, which was designed to assess experiences with the Ontario, Canada, civil justice system, is a replication and extension of a survey conducted by the Civil Litigation Research Project at the University of Wisconsin. Interviews were conducted with the heads of households. Questions were asked about the nature of the problem, e.g., auto accident, work injury, discrimination, problems with landlord, violations of privacy, or victimization. Questions were also asked about actions taken in response to the problem, such as whether a lawyer was contacted, reasons for not contacting a lawyer, whether non-lawyer assistance was sought, whether a claim was made, and reasons for not making a claim. Finally, questions were asked about the household's experience with the Ontario justice system if a claim was made, including whether there was a trial or a hearing, how much the lawyer charged, evaluation of the result, satisfaction with the result, evaluation of the cost, perceived delay, agreement reached, and compensation awarded. Major demographic variables include age, occupation, number of persons in household, language, ethnic background, religion, education, and family income.
Curated
Analyzing Trial Time in California, Colorado, and New Jersey, 1986 (ICPSR 9223)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, California, New Jersey
Time period: 1986-03-01--1987-01-01
This study of nine courts was undertaken to identify procedural factors that can be used to reduce the length of criminal and civil trials without impairing fairness. The data collection provides direct information on the actual amount of time consumed by various trial segments and the perceived length of trial segments as gauged by judges and attorneys. In addition, data are supplied on the legal community's attitudes toward existing trial length, reasons for it, and judicial control over it. The trial case file contains information on types of cases and trials, estimated trial length, type of disposition, type of defense attorney, number of claims, cross-claims, and counterclaims, number of exhibits introduced, number of expert and lay witnesses called by the defense, number of peremptory challenges, and day and time the trial ended. The questionnaire data contain information on professional experiences, number of cases tried per month, opinions about time consumed by each segment of the trial, estimated time used in each segment, and attitudes toward judicial control over the trial length.
Curated
The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision-making for Cases Processed by Offices in One Northern County and One Southern County, 2007-2010 (ICPSR 32542)
Released/updated on: 2016-04-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2009-01-01--2011-06-01, 2007-01-01--2009-07-01, 2010-10-01--2011-03-01
Prosecuting attorneys enjoy broad discretion in making decisions that influence criminal case outcomes. This study examines the impact of legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal factors on case outcomes throughout the prosecutorial process. It then examines how prosecutors weigh these factors in their decision making and explores the formal and informal mechanisms that constrain or regulate prosecutors' decision-making.
The study examines case screening decisions, charging decisions, plea offers, sentence recommendations, and dismissals in two moderately large county prosecutors' offices. It includes statistical analyses of actual case outcomes, responses to a standardized set of hypothetical cases, and responses to a survey of prosecutors' opinions and priorities, as well as qualitative analyses of two waves of individual interviews and focus groups. It addresses the following questions:
- How did prosecutors define and apply the concepts of justice and fairness?
- What factors were associated with prosecutorial outcomes at each stage?
- How did prosecutors interpret and weigh different case-specific factors in making decisions at each stage?
- How did contextual factors constrain or regulate prosecutorial decision making?
- How consistent were prosecutors' decisions across similar cases? What case-level and contextual factors influenced the degree of consistency?
Curated
Arkansas Juvenile Court Records, 1994 (ICPSR 6883)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Arkansas
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1994 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases) in Arkansas. Inaugurated in 1983, the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts began to collect data from intake and probation departments on each case disposed during the previous calendar year. The data include a record of each case processed formally with petition and contain an individual record on each family in need of services, delinquency, or dependency/neglect case disposed.
Curated
Arrests Without Conviction, 1979-1980: Jacksonville and San Diego (ICPSR 8180)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California, Florida, Jacksonville
This data collection includes information on robberies and burglaries in two cities, Jacksonville, Florida, and San Diego, California. The unit of analysis is defendants in felony cases. Information on each defendant includes socioeconomic status, criminal history, weapon usage, relationship to victim, trial procedures, and disposition. Demographic information for each defendant includes sex, race, age, and employment status. There are five files in the dataset. Parts 4 and 5 must be merged to form the complete Jacksonville burglaries dataset.
Curated
Assessing Local Legal Culture: Practitioner Norms in Four Criminal Courts, 1979 (ICPSR 7808)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study attempts to operationalize the concept of local legal culture by examining differences in the processing of twelve hypothetical criminal cases in four criminal courts. Questionnaires asking how these hypothetical cases should best be handled were administered to judges, district attorneys, and defense attorneys in four cities: Bronx County (New York City), New York, Detroit, Michigan, Miami, Florida, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In each city, the presiding judge, prosecutor, and head of the public defender's office were informed of the project. Questionnaires were distributed to prosecuting attorneys and public defenders by their supervisors. Judges were contacted in person or given questionnaires with a cover letter from the presiding judge. All questionnaires were completed anonymously and returned separately by respondents. The variables include number of years the respondent had been in the criminal justice system, preferred mode of disposition and of sentencing for each of the twelve cases, and the respondents' predictions of the probability of conviction in each case.
Curated
Assessment of a Single-Purpose Substance Abuse Facility for Committed Juvenile Offenders in Virginia, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 2730)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1995-01-01--1997-01-01
The objective of this data collection was to provide a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of treatment offered at the Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center, a substance abuse treatment facility in Virginia for convicted male offenders that began operation in late 1993. The center uses a holistic approach in the treatment of youth to identify the triggers for substance abuse and to investigate the relationship between substance abuse and delinquent behavior. For the facility assessment, various types of data from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice were gathered. Baseline data on each juvenile were obtained from the department's Reception and Diagnostic Center and consisted of demographic information and I.Q. scores, criminal history, and substance abuse history. Demographic variables include the youth's race, last grade placement, and with whom the youth lived. Youths' scores on standardized tests were also compiled, including SASSI, verbal I.Q., performance I.Q., and full-scale I.Q. scores. Criminal histories covered whether the committing offense was a felony or misdemeanor, the type of committing offense, the total number of committing offenses, whether a prior offense was a felony or a misdemeanor, the type of prior offense, the total number of prior offenses, the age at first criminal adjudication, age at commitment, and degree of delinquency. Alcohol and drug use data focused on the age at which alcohol was first used, number of times alcohol was used in the past year, age at which marijuana was first used, number of times marijuana was used in the past month, and whether the youth ever used cocaine, crack, inhalants, speed, depressants, hallucinogens, or other drugs. Another source of information was the youths' parole officers, who provided data on youths' criminal offending status and substance abuse at three, six, and twelve months after release from the center. Data obtained from parole officers assessing youths' improvement after leaving the center include whether they were rearrested, the type of offense if rearrested, the total number of offenses rearrested for, disposition, most serious offense overall, and youths' overall drug use.
Curated
Augmented Federal Probation, Sentencing, and Supervision Information System, 1985 (ICPSR 9664)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The United States Sentencing Commission, established by the 98th Congress, is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. The Commission recommends guidelines prescribing the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. These data were collected to determine whether sentencing disparities existed and whether the guidelines were adequate. Basic information in the collection includes a description of the offense, characterization of the defendant's background and criminal record, method of disposition of the case, and sentence imposed. Felony and misdemeanor cases are included while petty offense cases are excluded. Three types of additional information were used to augment the existing data: (1) more detailed offense and offender characteristics identified by the United States Sentencing Commission but coded by federal probation officers, (2) actual time served in prison from the SENTRY data file of the United States Bureau of Prisons, and (3) information necessary to estimate prospective release dates from the hearing files of the United States Parole Commission. The unit of analysis is the defendant.
Curated
Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2679)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of conferencing as a restorative policing practice. Family group conferencing is considered an important new development in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively with young first-time offenders by diverting them from court and involving their extended families and victims in conferences to address their wrongdoing. Cases deemed eligible for the study were property crimes including retail and other thefts, criminal mischief and trespass, and violent crimes including threats, harassment, disorderly conduct, and simple assaults. A total of 140 property crime cases and 75 violent crime cases were selected for the experiment, with two-thirds of each type randomly assigned to a diversionary conference (treatment group) and one-third of each type assigned to formal adjudication (control group). Participation in the conference was voluntary. If either party declined or if the offender did not admit responsibility for the offense, the case was processed through normal criminal justice channels. Those cases constituted a second treatment group (decline group). The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year study on the effectiveness of police-based family group conferencing. Beginning on November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were conducted for the study. Approximately two weeks after their cases were disposed, victims, offenders, and offenders' parents in the three experimental groups (control, conference, decline) were surveyed by mail, in-person interviews, or telephone interviews. Those who participated in conferences (Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different questionnaire than those whose cases went through formal adjudication (Parts 5, 7, and 9), with similar questions to allow for comparison and some questions particular to the type of processing used on their case. Disposition data on cases were collected from five district magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12, 1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later (post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type, offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge, arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced, current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected information on police attitudes and work environment before and after the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision, administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration, external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to 9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful, if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.
Curated
Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality Among Crack Cocaine Users in New York City: Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice System Processing, 1983-1984, 1986 (ICPSR 9790)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-01-01
This data collection compares a sample of persons arrested for offenses related to crack cocaine with a sample arrested for offenses related to powdered cocaine. The collection is one of two parts of a study designed to examine the characteristics of crack users and sellers, the impact of large numbers of crack-related offenders on the criminal justice system, and their effects on drug treatment and community programs. Official arrest records and supplementary data bases are used to analyze the official arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories of powdered cocaine and crack defendants. Questions addressed by the collection include: (1) How are defendants charged with crack-related offenses different from defendants charged with offenses related to powdered cocaine? (2) Is there a difference between the ways the criminal justice system handles crack offenders and powdered cocaine offenders in pretrial detention, charges filed, case dispositions, and sentencing? (3) How do the criminal careers of crack offenders compare with the criminal careers of powdered cocaine offenders, especially in terms of total arrest rates, frequencies of nondrug crimes, and frequencies of violent crimes? (4) Is violence more strongly associated with crack dealing than with powdered cocaine dealing? and (5) How does the developmental history of powdered cocaine sales and possession compare with the history of crack sales and possession? Variables include demographic information such as gender, residence, and race, arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories, prior criminal record, community ties, and court outcomes of the arrests.
Curated
Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 (ICPSR 6587)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1991-07-01--1992-06-30
This survey is the first broad-based, systematic examination of the nature of civil litigation in state general jurisdiction trial courts. Data collection was carried out by the National Center for State Courts with assistance from the National Association of Criminal Justice Planners and the United States Bureau of the Census. The data collection produced two datasets. Part 1, Tort, Contract, and Real Property Rights Data, is a merged sample of approximately 30,000 tort, contract, and real property rights cases disposed during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1992. Part 2, Civil Jury Cases Data, is a sample of about 6,500 jury trial cases disposed over the same time period. Data collected include information about litigants, case type, disposition type, processing time, case outcome, and award amounts for civil jury cases.
Curated
Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1996 (ICPSR 2883)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-02
Geographic coverage: United States
In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded a grant to the National Center for State Courts to gather detailed information on tort, contract, and real property rights trial cases in 45 jurisdictions chosen to represent the 75 most populous counties in the nation. The result is this survey, which is a systematic examination of civil trial cases disposed in state general jurisdiction courts. The study expands the 1992 civil jury study, CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1992 (ICPSR 6587), by specifically sampling bench and jury trial cases. Information gathered includes the type of case, the presence of legal representation, the type of litigation, the amount of compensatory damages awarded, the amount of punitive damages awarded, and case processing time.
Curated
Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2001 (ICPSR 3957)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-03
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection examined general civil cases (torts, contracts, and real property) disposed of by bench or jury trial in the nation's 75 most populous counties in 2001. Information reported includes the type of case, types of plaintiffs and defendants, trial winners, amount of total damages awarded, amount of punitive damages awarded, and case processing time. This is the third in a series of data collections begun in 1992: CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1992 (ICPSR 6587), and CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1996 (ICPSR 2883).
Curated
Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005 (ICPSR 23862)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-02
Geographic coverage: United States
The Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (CJSSC), 2005 is a systematic examination of general civil (that is, tort, contract, and real property) cases disposed of by bench or jury trial in a national sample of state courts of general jurisdiction in 2005. This study expands on the 1992, 1996, and 2001 CJSSC by collecting a nationally representative sample of bench and jury trials concluded in 156 urban, suburban, and rural counties. Prior iterations of the CJSSC focused on general civil cases concluded by bench or jury trial in a sample of the nation's 75 most populous counties. The 2005 CJSSC was designed and carried out by the National Center for State Courts. Westat designed the national sampling framework for this survey. The data collection produced two datasets. The first contains information on general civil (tort, contract, and real property) cases disposed of by bench or jury trial in a national sample of counties in 2005. Detailed case level information was obtained on these trials, including types of civil cases litigated at trial, characteristics of litigants involved in trials, who wins in trials, compensatory award amounts, punitive damages, case processing times, and post-trial litigation. The other data file contains aggregate information on the number of general civil trial and nontrial dispositions that occurred in 2005 in CJSCC counties that had the capacity to provide these data. This is the fourth in a series of data collections begun in 1992 [CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1992 (ICPSR 6587), CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1996 (ICPSR 2883), and CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 2001 (ICPSR 3957)].
Curated
Civil Justice Survey of Trials on Appeal, 2005 (ICPSR 32501)
Released/updated on: 2012-01-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2010-01-01
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Civil Justice Survey of Trials on Appeal (CJSTA) was based on 26,950 general civil (i.e., tort, contract, and real property) cases that were disposed by bench or jury trial in 156 counties participating in the 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (ICPSR 23862). Subsequently, 3,970 of those cases were appealed to 84 appellate courts in 35 states. This data collection examines civil bench and jury trials concluded in state trial courts in 2005 that were appealed to an intermediate appellate court or court of last resort. It is the first report based on data collected in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Civil Justice Survey of Trials on Appeal (CJSTA). The CJSTA included information from court records on civil trials concluded in 2005 and tracked the subsequent appeals from 2005 through March 2010. Information collected included the types of civil cases appealed, appeals dismissed or withdrawn before being decided on the merits, and appeals resulting in the trial court decision being reversed or affirmed. The time from the filing of an appeal to final appellate court disposition was also measured.
Curated
Civil Litigation in the United States, 1977-1979 (ICPSR 7994)
Released/updated on: 1994-02-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1977-01-01--1979-01-01
The Civil Litigation Research Project, based at the University of Wisconsin Law School, was organized in 1979 to develop a large database on dispute processing and litigation and to collect information on the costs of civil litigation. Data were gathered on topics such as negotiation proceedings, relationship between lawyer and client, and organizations' influence on the outcome of a dispute.
Curated
Restricted
Community-Level Influences on the Sentencing of Convicted Sex Offenders, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010 (ICPSR 36593)
Released/updated on: 2018-08-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2004-01-01--2010-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study examined the extent to which contextual factors influenced variation in sex offender sentencing decisions.
By law, Pennsylvania trial courts were required to submit all felony and misdemeanor convictions under the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing on a yearly basis.
These data were supplemented with county-level data from the American Community Survey, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts' Annual Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, Associated Religion Data Archives, and Pennsylvania Department of State, Voter Registration Statistics Archives.
The collection contains 1 SPSS data file (Cleaned-Data-2015-R2-CX-0039.sav (n=318048; 31 variables)).
Demographic variables include gender, race, and defendant's age at sentencing.
Curated
Crime Control Effects of Prosecuting Intimate Partner Violence in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1993-1998 (ICPSR 25929)
Released/updated on: 2011-06-27
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
Time period: 1993-01-01--1998-01-01
The purpose of this research was to improve understanding of the conditions under which criminal sanctions do and do not reduce repeat violence between intimate partners. This study involved repeated reading and close inspection of four documents in order to compare and contrast the multivariate analyses reported by John Wooldredge and Amy Thistlethwaite (RECONSIDERING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RECIDIVISM: INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS OF COURT DISPOSITIONS AND STAKE IN CONFORMITY IN HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, 1993-1998 [ICPSR 3013]). The first part of this study's design involved the detailed literature review of four Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite publications between the years 1999 and 2005. The second element of the study's design required researchers to gain a detailed understanding of the archived data using the documentation provided by Wooldredge. The third element of the study's secondary analysis research design involved using the identified variables to reproduce the multivariate empirical findings about the effects of sanctions, stakes, and social context on repeat offending. These findings were presented in a series of tables in the four Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite publications. After numerous iterations of reading reports and documentation and exploring alternative measures and methods, researchers produced a report detailing their ability to reproduce Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's descriptive measures. This study's design called for using explicit criteria for determining the extent to which Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's findings could be reproduced. Researchers developed and applied three criteria for making that determination. The first was a simple comparison of the regression coefficients and standard errors. The second criterion was a determination of whether the reproduced results conformed to the direction and statistical significance levels of the original analyses. The third criterion was to apply a statistical test to assess the significance of any differences in the sizes of the original and the reproduced coefficients. The data archived by Wooldredge provided seven dichotomous measures of criminal sanctions (no charges filed, dismissed, acquitted, a treatment program, probation only, jail only, and a combination of probation and jail). Part of the design of this study was to go beyond reproducing Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's approaches and to reformulate the available measures of criminal sanctions to more directly test the prosecution, conviction, and sentence severity hypotheses. The researchers produced these tests by constructing three new measures of criminal sanctions (prosecution, conviction, and sanction severity) and testing each of them in separate multivariate models. The Part 1 (Hamilton County, Ohio, Census Tract Data) data file contains 206 cases and 35 variables. The Part 2 (Neighborhood Data) data file contains 47 cases and 12 variables. The variables in Part 1 (Hamilton County, Ohio, Census Tract Data) include a census tract indicator, median household income of tract, several proportions such as number of college graduates in the tract and corresponding Z-scores, a regression factor score for analysis 1, a socio-economic factor, a census tract number for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and a Cincinnati neighborhoods indicator. Variables in Part 2 (Neighborhood Data) include a neighborhood indicator, average age in the neighborhood, demographic proportions such as proportion male in the neighborhood and proportion of college graduates in the neighborhood, and a social class factor.
Curated
Criminal Case Processing in Metropolitan Courts, 1976 (ICPSR 7750)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
In 1977 the National Center for State Courts, in cooperation with the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts, began a research and demonstration project on the delay in processing criminal cases in major metropolitan courts. The objectives were (1) to determine the scope and extent of the delay in such courts, (2) to identify factors associated with the delay, and (3) to suggest and ultimately test techniques that might work to reduce the delay. The variables include geographic location, disposition type, most serious charge against the defendant, and dates of arrest, trial, disposition, and sentencing.
Curated
Delinquency in a Birth Cohort II: Philadelphia, 1958-1988 (ICPSR 9293)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1958-01-01--1988-01-01
The purpose of this data collection was to follow a birth cohort born in Philadelphia during 1958 with a special focus on delinquent activities as children and as adults. The respondents were first interviewed in DELINQUENCY IN A BIRTH COHORT IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 1945-1963 (ICPSR 7729). Part 1 offers basic demographic information, such as sex, race, date of birth, church membership, age, and socioeconomic status, on each cohort member. Two files supply offense data: Part 2 pertains to offenses committed while a juvenile and Part 3 details offenses as an adult. Offense-related variables include most serious offense, police disposition, location of crime, reason for police response, complainant's sex, age, and race, type of victimization, date of offense, number of victims, average age of victims, number of victims killed or hospitalized, property loss, weapon involvement, and final court disposition. Part 4, containing follow-up survey interview data collected in 1988, was designed to investigate differences in the experiences and attitudes of individuals with varying degrees of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Variables include individual histories of delinquency, health, household composition, marriage, parent and respondent employment and education, parental contacts with the legal system, and other social and demographic variables.
Curated
Drug Abuse as a Predictor of Rearrest or Failure to Appear in Court in New York City, 1984 (ICPSR 9979)
Released/updated on: 2000-04-18
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1984-04-01--1984-10-01
This data collection was undertaken to estimate the prevalence of drug use/drug use trends among booked arrestees in New York City and to analyze the relationship between drug use and crime. The data, which were collected over a six-month period, were generated from volunteer interviews with male arrestees, the analyses of their urine specimens, police and court records of prior criminal behavior and experience with the criminal justice system, and records of each arrestee's current case, including court warrants, rearrests, failures to appear, and court dispositions. Demographic variables include age, education, vocational training, marital status, residence, and employment. Items relating to prior and current drug use and drug dependency are provided, along with results from urinalysis tests for opiates, cocaine, PCP, and methadone. The collection also contains arrest data for index crimes and subsequent court records pertaining to those arrests (number of court warrants issued, number of pretrial rearrests, types of rearrests, failure to appear in court, and court dispositions), and prior criminal records (number of times arrested and convicted for certain offenses).
Curated
Effects of "United States vs. Leon" on Police Search Warrant Practices, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9348)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection examines the impact of the Supreme Court decision in "UNITED STATES VS. LEON" on police search warrant applications in seven jurisdictions. For this collection, which is one of the few data collections currently available for the study of warrant activities, data were gathered from search warrant applications filed during a three-month period before the Leon decision and three months after it. Each warrant application can be tracked through the criminal justice system to its disposition. The file contains variables on the contents of the warrant such as rank of applicant, specific area of search, offense type, material sought, basis of evidence, status of informants, and reference to good faith. Additional variables concern the results of the warrant application and include items such as materials seized, arrest made, cases charged by prosecutor, type of attorney, whether a motion to suppress the warrant was filed, outcomes of motions, appeal status, and number of arrestees.
Curated
Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3319)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Omaha, Klameth Falls, San Diego, United States, Everett, California, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes, researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett, Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha, Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income, and level of education.
Curated
Evaluation of Pre-Trial Settlement Conference: Dade County, Florida, Criminal Court, 1979 (ICPSR 7710)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
This study reports on the implementation in Dade County, Florida, of a proposal to involve, on a voluntary basis, victims, defendants, and police in a judicial plea negotiation conference. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. Parts 1-3, Defendants, Victims, and Police files, consist of responses to questionnaires given to defendants, victims, and police. The questionnaires were administered during 20-minute interviews, conducted after the case had been completed. The interview instruments were designed to collect data on three major issues: (1) the extent to which respondents reported participation in the processing of their cases, (2) respondents' knowledge of the way their cases were processed, and (3) respondents' attitudes toward the disposition of their cases and toward the criminal justice system. Part 4 is the Conference Data File. During the pretrial settlement conference, an observer wrote down in sequence as much as possible of the verbal behavior. After the session, the observer made some subjective ratings, provided descriptive data about the conclusion of the session, and classified comments into one of the following categories: (1) Facts of the Case, (2) Prior Record, (3) Law and Practices, (4) Maximum Sentence, (5) Prediction of Trial Outcome, (6) Conference Precedent, (7) Personal Background History, and (8) Recommendations. Information in Part 5, the Case Information Data File, was drawn from court records and includes type of case, number of charges, sentence type, sentence severity (stated and perceived), seriousness of offense, date of arrest, date of arraignment, date of conference, prior incarcerations, and defendant background.
Curated
Expanded United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1946-1968 Terms (ICPSR 6557)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1946-01-01--1968-01-01
This data collection is an expanded version of UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL DATABASE, 1953-1996 TERMS (ICPSR 9422), encompassing all aspects of United States Supreme Court decision-making from the beginning of the Vinson Court in 1946 to the end of the Warren Court in 1968. Two major differences distinguish the expanded version of the database from the original collection: the addition of data on the decisions of the Vinson Court, and the inclusion of the conference votes of the Vinson and Warren courts. Whereas the original collection contained only the vote as reported in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS, the expanded database includes all votes cast in conference. Concomitant with the expansion of the database is a shift in its basic unit of analysis. The original collection contained every case in which at least one justice wrote an opinion, and cases without opinions were excluded. This version includes every case in which the Court cast a conference vote, with and without opinions. The justices cast many more votes than they wrote opinions, and hence, the number of Warren Court records in this version increased by more than a factor of two over the original version. As in the original collection, distinct aspects of the Court's decisions are covered by six types of variables: (1) identification variables including case citation, docket number, unit of analysis, and number of records per unit of analysis, (2) background variables offering information on origin of case, source of case, reason for granting cert, parties to the case, direction of the lower court's decision, and manner in which the Court takes jurisdiction, (3) chronological variables covering date of term of court, chief justice, and natural court, (4) substantive variables including multiple legal provisions, authority for decision, issue, issue areas, and direction of decision, (5) outcome variables supplying information on form of decision, disposition of case, winning party, declaration of unconstitutionality, and multiple memorandum decisions, and (6) voting and opinion variables pertaining to the vote in the case and to the direction of the individual justices' votes.
Curated
Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Midwestern Urban Area, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3010)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01
The goal of this study was to identify factors that influence whether city misdemeanor domestic violence cases in which batterers are arrested by police result in dismissals, acquittals, or convictions in the courts, and how these cases are processed. The researchers sought to examine factors that influence court officials' decision-making in domestic violence cases, as well as factors that influence victim and witness reluctance in bringing batterers to successful adjudication. In Part 1 researchers merged pretrial services data with information from police and prosecutors' reports in the urban area under study to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of dismissals, acquittals, and convictions for misdemeanor court cases and what are the conditions of these sentences? (2) What factors in court cases are significantly related to whether the disposition is a dismissal, acquittal, or conviction, and how are these cases processed? In Part 2, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked detailed questions about their level of knowledge about, attitudes toward, and self-reported behaviors regarding the processing of domestic violence cases to find out: (1) What roles do legal and extra-legal factors play in decision-makers' self-reported behaviors and attitudes? (2) How do decision-makers rate victim advocate and batterer treatment programs? (3) How do court professionals view the victim's role in the court process? and (4) To what degree do court professionals report victim-blaming attitudes and experiences? For Part 3 researchers used a stratified random sample to select court cases of misdemeanor domestic violence that would be transcribed and used for a content analysis to examine: (1) Who speaks in court and how? and (2) What is considered relevant by different court players? In Parts 4-103 victim surveys and interviews were administered to learn about battered women's experiences in both their personal lives and the criminal processing system. Researchers sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do victim/witnesses perceive their role in the prosecution of their abusers? (2) What factors inhibit them from pursuing prosecution? (3) What factors might help them pursue prosecution? and (4) How consistent are the victims'/witnesses' demographic and psychological profiles with existing research in this area? Domestic violence victims attending arraignment between January 1 and December 31 of 1997 were asked to complete surveys to identify their concerns about testifying against their partners and to evaluate the effectiveness of the court system in dealing with domestic violence cases (Part 4). The disposition of each case was subsequently determined by a research team member's examination of defendants' case files and/or court computer files. Upon case closure victims who had both completed a survey and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were contacted to participate in an interview (Parts 5-103). Variables in Part 1, Pretrial Services Data, include prior criminal history, current charges, case disposition, sentence, victim testimony, police testimony, victim's demeanor at trial, judge's conduct, type of abuse involved, weapons used, injuries sustained, and type of evidence available for trial. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of defendants, victims, prosecutors, and judges. In Part 2, Professional Survey Data, respondents were asked about their tolerance for victims and offenders who appeared in court more than once, actions taken when substance abuse was involved, the importance of injuries in making a decision, attitudes toward battered women, the role of victim advocates and the police, views on restraining orders, and opinion on whether arrest is a deterrent. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, and years of professional experience. Variables in Part 3, Court Transcript Data, include number and type of charges, pleas, reasons for dismissals, types of evidence submitted by prosecutors and defense, substance abuse by victim and defendant, living arrangements and number of children of victim and defendant, specific type of abuse, injuries sustained, witnesses to injuries, police testimony, verdict, and sentence. Demographic variables include age and sex of defendant and victim and relationship of victim and defendant. In Part 4, Victim Survey Data, victims were asked about their relationship and living arrangements with the defendant, concerns about testifying in court, desired outcomes of case and punishment for defendant, emotional issues related to abuse, health problems, substance abuse, support networks, other violent domestic incidents and injuries, and safety concerns. Part 5 variables measured victims' safety at different stages of the criminal justice process and danger experienced due to further violent incidents, presence of weapons, and threats of homicide or suicide. Parts 6-103 contain the qualitative interview data.
Curated
Federal Court Cases, 1962-1964 (ICPSR 7245)
Released/updated on: 2022-09-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1962-01-01--1964-01-01
This study collected data from both civil and criminal federal cases tried in the fiscal years 1962-1963 and 1963-1964. Procedural, jurisdictional, and other legal information is provided, including the disposition of each case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 1970-2000 (ICPSR 8429)
Released/updated on: 2012-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--2000-01-01
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from 94 district and 12 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. For the appellate and civil data, the unit of analysis is a single case. The unit of analysis for the criminal data is a single defendant.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2001 (ICPSR 3415)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-24
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from 94 district and 12 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. For the appellate and civil data, the unit of analysis is a single case. The unit of analysis for the criminal data is a single defendant.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2002 (ICPSR 4059)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-18
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2003 (ICPSR 4026)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-15
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2004 (ICPSR 4348)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-11
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2005 (ICPSR 4382)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-01
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2006 (ICPSR 4685)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-26
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Database, 2007 (ICPSR 22300)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-25
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2008 (ICPSR 25002)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-24
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2009 (ICPSR 29661)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-21
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2010 (ICPSR 30401)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
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 appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2011 (ICPSR 33622)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
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 appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2012 (ICPSR 34881)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
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 appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2013 (ICPSR 35603)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
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 appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2014 (ICPSR 36110)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-19
Geographic coverage: United States
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 appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Appellate and Civil Pending Data, 2014 (ICPSR 29281)
Released/updated on: 2015-12-16
Geographic coverage: United States
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 appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived as separate data collections each year) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as this data collection and updated annually) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil pending data is the case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1994 (ICPSR 4303)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1995 (ICPSR 4304)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1996 (ICPSR 4305)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1997 (ICPSR 4306)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending data set. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1998 (ICPSR 4086)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data includes all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending data set. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1999 (ICPSR 4088)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data includes all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending data set. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2000 (ICPSR 4249)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records in this file are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end of the year 2000 included in a separate pending dataset not currently in this collection. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.