State court

State cases come to the United States Supreme Court from the highest appellate courts of the states. Under its discretionary authority to accept or reject cases, and in keeping with its own rules of standing to sue, the Court accepts less than 10 percent of all state appeals. State cases also come to the Court from lower federal court rulings on cases originating in state courts. Included in this category are disputes removed from a state to a federal court, federal court injunctions halting state court proceedings, and federal court issuance of habeas corpus writs to state prisoners claiming violation of federal rights (see Removal of Cases).

Relations between federal and state courts are referred to as “judicial federalism.” As legally established and commonly understood, judicial federalism denotes a hierarchical arrangement. The federal Constitution establishes a national court system and stipulates that inconsistencies between federal and state law are to be resolved in favor of the former and that state judges are bound by this principle. Thus state courts must give precedence to federal over state law and interpret federal law in line with current rulings of the Supreme Court. Federal statutes that authorize Supreme Court review of state supreme court decisions on federal law as well as statutes that vest lower federal courts with jurisdiction over federal questions formerly adjudicated in state courts are intended to ensure the supremacy of federal law. Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall (1801–1835), the Court, against strong state court opposition, successfully reserved for itself the final authority to determine whether state law comported with the federal Constitution, laws, and treaties.

Despite its dominant role in the system of judicial federalism, the Supreme Court has instituted practices that preserve the integrity and autonomy of state law and state courts. The observance of comity assures respectful recognition of the laws and judicial decisions of the states. The ”independent and adequate state ground” doctrine requires Supreme Court acceptance of state court interpretation of state constitutions and statutes provided state law does not violate the federal Constitution, the state court's judgment is solidly based in state law, and its reasoning does not rely on federal judicial precedent.

Further, the Court will not review state court judgments unless federal questions have been raised early in the proceedings, thereby allowing their full consideration at all state court levels; nor will the Court consider appeals when those raising federal claims have failed to comply with state court procedures. It has also held that habeas corpus petitions may not be considered until a prisoner has exhausted all state remedies. Finally, the principle of “equitable abstention” encourages the Court to stay its hand until a state court has had an opportunity to rule in a manner that might preclude Court review (see Abstention Doctrine).

The Constitution and federal statutes indicate a command‐obedience relationship between the highest federal and state courts, and state court autonomy could be viewed as existing at the sufferance of the Supreme Court. In reality, the interactions between the Supreme Court and state high courts are shifting and multifarious, reflecting the Court's perspectives on its role in the federal system, its policy preferences, and state court response to its mandates. Nowhere is this better illustrated than by federal and state high court management of civil liberties questions during the twentieth century.

Until shortly after World War I, a division of labor characterized the relationship between the two judicial systems. State guarantees were enforced in state courts; federal guarantees (namely, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights) were enforced in federal courts. In effect, federal and state courts went their separate ways.

In the subsequent three decades, the Court cautiously extended its supervisory authority over state courts. Typically it invalidated state decisions involving individual rights on Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection grounds. On the rare occasion that it based a holding on the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states it was because the constitutional guarantees in question, notably freedom of the press, speech, and religion, were, as the Court explained, “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” During these years, the Court resisted arguments that state criminal defendants enjoy the same protections as the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments provided federal defendants. Instead, in order to determine the constitutionality of treatment accorded the accused, the Court relied upon judicially established Fourteenth Amendment due process standards such as the “fair trial rule” for defendants unrepresented by counsel and the “shock the conscience test” for defendants subjected to egregious searches and seizures.

The Court's fundamental fairness and due process precepts, enunciated to provide state courts with the leeway to develop acceptable protections of the accused, were considered vague and subjective. Some state judges made conscientious efforts to apply precedent; others took advantage of the lack of precise guidelines.

During Chief Justice Earl Warren's tenure (1954–1969), a Court strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties furthered the process commenced in the 1930s and 1940s of applying the Bill of Rights to the states. haAs a result, many state high court holdings, especially those pertaining to the rights of criminal defendants, were overturned.

Justices in virtually all states expressed resentment over what they regarded as the Court's insensitivity to judicial relationships in a federal system and its assumption that state courts lacked the will and capability to protect civil rights. Tensions between state supreme courts and their federal counterpart were further exacerbated by Court holdings that sustained lower federal court grants of habeas corpus petitions to prisoners seeking to vindicate rights enunciated by the Warren Court and allegedly disregarded by state courts.

Under the leadership of Chief Justices Warren Burger (1969–1986) and William H. Rehnquist (1986–), the Court has significantly curtailed the reach of the Warren Court's numerous civil liberties rulings. In response to the Court's retrenchment, a number of state high courts, some more enthusiastically and consistently than others, have relied on state constitutions to extend protections greater than those accorded by the Supreme Court.

Initially, the Court applauded what is referred to as “the new judicial federalism.” Within a few years, however, the Court paid closer attention to the independent and adequate state ground strictures and a number of civil libertarian state court rulings were reversed or remanded to the states for further consideration. Critics have argued that the Court's increasingly stringent approach pertained less to independent and adequate state ground considerations and more to its restrictive view of civil rights and liberties in general and its distaste for civil libertarian judicial activism in particular.

The Burger and Rehnquist Courts have accompanied this retrenchment process with disapproval of lower federal court grants or habeas corpus petitions in search and seizure and death penalty appeals (see Capital Punishment; Search Warrant Rules, Exceptions to). Since the Supreme Court hears so few of the appeals coming from state courts, denial of state prisoner access to federal courts results in augmenting the authority of state courts to make final decisions in these areas.

While noncompliance with Supreme Court decisions is the exception rather than the rule, state courts have historically contrived means of distinguishing, limiting, or eroding federal precedent and of evading the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Court has the power to exercise its will over all lower state and federal courts, but it must determine how much of its time, its institutional capacities and prestige it is willing to expend in order to assure compliance with its mandates.

In different historical periods and according to different issues, the Court has faced down, mollified, accommodated, and on rare occasions, capitulated to state courts that either defy the Court's direct mandates or fail to observe precedents that enunciate applicable constitutional principles. Examples include the tug‐of‐war between the Virginia judiciary and the Marshall Court over the final determination of federal constitutional questions; the Court's willingness to give state courts more than ample time to follow directives in race relations cases, to clarify ambiguous right to counsel rulings, to overlook or ignore state court manipulation of self‐incrimination precedent, and by default to permit a state supreme court, after protracted litigation in the highest state and federal courts, to have its way in a capital punishment case that involved complicated procedural questions.

The interaction of the Supreme Court and state courts is complex. It is misleading simply to depict the Supreme Court as prime mover, state courts as responders, and the Supreme Court as the institution that selectively and loftily considers the state responses. The Supreme Court is not the only initiator; it also has been receptive to substantive state court influence.

In the first place, as Justice William Brennan acknowledged in a 1964 law review article, state high courts have provided the Supreme Court with guidance in deciding federal constitutional questions in areas such as reapportionment, obscenity, freedom of religion, and defendants' rights. Second, state courts, expanding on recently enunciated Supreme Court principles, have charted the way for further Supreme Court evolution of its new doctrines. The California high court, for example, employing techniques developed by the Supreme Court for deciding Fourteenth Amendment equal protection cases, ruled in Purdy and Fitzpatrick v. State (1969) that special treatment for aliens constituted impermissible discrimination. In Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court followed suit.

In the third place, the process of state court response to Supreme Court holdings and Supreme Court response to the state court responses has over time produced a “hybrid federal‐state constitutional law” covering a wide spectrum of issues. For instance, in the seven years that followed a Supreme Court holding concerning right to counsel for indigents at probation revocation hearings, state courts decided hundreds of similar cases. When the Court again reviewed the issue, its ruling took account of state court problems with and objections to the earlier mandate. Similarly, New York's highest court so impressed a Warren Court majority with its People v. Rivera (1964) that admitted holding evidence obtained from a police stop and frisk search and seizure, that the Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968) essentially agreed that such procedures were exempt from what had been its increasingly expansive interpretation of Fourth Amendment protections.

The Supreme Court is in control of its relations with state courts. But how it chooses to exercise that control is another matter. In some periods, as illustrated by the Warren Court, the Court has come close to adhering to a hierarchical model. In others, as illustrated by pre‐Warren and the Burger and Rehnquist courts, it has allowed state courts considerable leeway. Traditional considerations for state court autonomy may be overridden by the Court's concern for preserving its own precepts, but the Court has been willing to shift authority from federal to state courts in order to reduce substantially what the Court regards as excessive appeals concerning issues that do not elicit the Court's sympathy.

Finally, if past trends portend the future, relations between federal and state supreme courts will continue to fluctuate. No matter how persuasive or consistent state courts may be, the Supreme Court will continue to establish the terms of judicial federalism.

See also Federalism; Incorporation Doctrine; State Constitutions and Individual Rights.

Bibliography

• William J. Brennan, Jr., Some Aspects of Federalism. New York University Law Review 39 (1964): 945–961.
• Robert M. Cover and T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Dialectical Federalism: Habeas Corpus and the Court, Yale Law Journal 86 (1977): 1035–1102.
• Stanley H. Friedelbaum, ed., Human Rights in the States (1988), chaps. 1, 2, and 6.
• Mary Cornelia Porter and G. Alan Tarr, eds., State Supreme Courts: Policymakers in the Federal System (1982), intro. and chaps. 1, 2, 7, and 8.
• G. Alan Tarr and Mary Cornelia Aldis Porter, State Supreme Courts in State and Nation (1988)

— Mary Cornelia Aldis Porter

Some cases that go to the Supreme Court originated in the courts of the 50 states. The direct line of appeal, however, is only from the highest appellate court of a state. For example, a case originating in a trial court in Indiana must be appealed first to the Indiana Supreme Court before it can be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, state-level cases may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court only if they involve federal questions—issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution, federal treaties, or federal laws. State courts are required to act in accordance with the Constitution, as well as federal statutes and treaties made under the Constitution. They must recognize the supremacy of federal law—acts of Congress as well as the Constitution—over state law. And they must interpret federal law in accordance with prevailing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

See also Federalism; Judicial review

Judicial tribunals established by each of the fifty states.

Each of the fifty state court systems in the United States operates independently under the constitution and the laws of the particular state. The character and names of the courts vary from state to state, but they have common structural elements.

State governments create state courts through the enactment of statutes or by constitutional provisions for the purpose of enforcing state law. Like the federal court system, the judicial branch of each state is an independent entity, often called "the third branch" of government (the other two being the executive and legislative branches). Though independent, state courts are dependent on the state legislatures for the appropriation of money to run the judicial system. Legislatures also authorize court systems to establish rules of procedure and sometimes direct the courts to investigate problems in the legal system.

Most states have a multilevel court structure, including a trial court, an intermediate court of appeals, and a supreme court. Only eight states have a two-tiered system consisting of a trial court and a supreme court. Apart from this general structure, the organization of state courts and their personnel are determined by the laws that created the court system and by the court's own rules.

State courts are designed to adjudicate civil and criminal cases. At the trial level, there are courts of limited and general jurisdiction. Limited jurisdiction courts, sometimes called inferior courts, handle minor civil cases, such as small claims or conciliation matters, and lesser crimes that are classified as misdemeanors. The persons who judge these cases may be part-time judges, and some states still allow persons not trained in the law to hear these cases. A justice of the peace falls within this category and handles typically minor matters such as traffic violations. Courts of general jurisdiction, also known as superior courts, handle major civil matters and more serious crimes, called felonies.

Some states have a large number of trial courts. They can include small claims, municipal, county, and district courts. Since the 1980s, some states have simplified their systems, creating a unified trial court that hears all matters of limited and general jurisdiction.

Intermediate courts of appeal consider routine appeals brought by losing parties in the trial courts below. These are "error correcting" courts, which review the trial court proceedings to determine if the trial made errors in procedure or law that resulted in an incorrect decision. If the court determines that an error was made (and it was not a harmless error), it reverses the decision and sends it back to the trial court for another proceeding. Intermediate courts of appeal are supposed to interpret the precedents of the state's supreme court. However, in every state there are many areas of law in which its supreme court has not ruled, leaving the appellate courts free to make decisions on what the law should be. These courts process thousands of cases a year, and losing parties generally have a right to appeal to these courts, no matter how dubious the merits of the appeal.

The supreme court of a state fulfills a role similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. A state supreme court interprets the state constitution, the statutes enacted by the state legislature, and the body of state common law. A supreme court is a precedential court: its rulings govern the interpretation of the law by the trial and appellate courts. A supreme court also administers the entire state court system, and the chief justice of the court is the spokesperson for the judiciary. In New York and Maryland, the highest court is called the court of appeals. In New York, the trial court is called the supreme court. These and other names for courts are based on historical circumstances but do not alter the substance of the work these courts perform.

The supreme court also establishes rules of procedure for all state courts. These rules govern civil, criminal, and juvenile court procedure, as well as the admission of evidence. State supreme courts also promulgate codes of professional responsibility for lawyers.

State courts have become highly organized systems. Beginning in the late 1960s, federal money helped states rethink how they deliver services. All states have a professional state court administrator, who administers and supervises all facets of the state court system, in consultation with the trial, appellate, and supreme courts. Research and planning functions are now common, and state courts rely heavily on computers for record keeping and statistical analysis.

At the county level, court administrators, previously known as clerks of court, oversee the operations of the trial courts. Court clerks, officers, bailiffs, and other personnel are called upon to make the system work. Judges have court reporters, who record trial proceedings either stenographically or electronically, using audio or video recording devices.

State court judges, unlike federal judges, are not appointed for life. Most states require judges to stand for election every six to ten years. An election may be a contest between rival candidates, or it may be a "retention election," which asks the voters whether or not a judge should be retained.

United States

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the United States

Federal government Constitution Taxation Legislature Congress House Speaker Party leaders Congressional districts Senate President pro tempore Party leaders Presidency President Vice President Cabinet Federal agencies Judiciary Federal courts Supreme Court Courts of Appeals District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political parties Democratic Republican Third parties Subdivisions State government Governors Legislatures (List) State courts Local government

Other countries · Atlas  US Government Portal view • talk • edit

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. Cases are heard before and evidence is presented in a trial court, which is usually located in a courthouse in the county seat. Territory outside of any state in the United States, such as the District of Columbia or American Samoa, often have courts established under federal or territorial law which substitute for a state court system, distinct from the ordinary federal court system.

If one of the litigants is unsatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the matter may be taken up on appeal (but an acquittal in a criminal trial may not be appealed by the state due to the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy). Usually, an intermediate appellate court, if there is one in that state, often called the state court of appeals, will review the decision of the trial court. If still unsatisfied, the litigant can appeal to the highest appellate court in the state, which is usually called the state supreme court. Appellate courts in the United States, unlike their civil law counterparts, are generally not permitted to correct mistakes concerning the facts of the case on appeal, only mistakes of law, or findings of fact with no support in the trial court record.

Many states have courts of limited jurisdiction (inferior jurisdiction), presided over by (for example) a magistrate or justice of the peace who hears criminal arraignments and tries petty offenses and small civil cases.

Larger cities often have city courts which hear traffic offenses and violations of city ordinances. Other courts of limited jurisdiction include alderman's courts, police court, mayor's courts, recorder's courts, county courts, probate courts, municipal courts, courts of claims, courts of common pleas, family courts, small claims courts, tax courts, water courts (present in some western states such as Colorado and Montana), and workers' compensation courts.

All these courts are distinguished from courts of general jurisdiction (superior jurisdiction), which are the default type of trial court that can hear any case which is not required to be first heard in a court of limited jurisdiction. Most such cases are civil cases involving large sums of money or criminal trials arising from serious crimes like rape and murder.

A few states like California have unified all courts of general and inferior jurisdiction to make the judicial process more efficient. In such judicial systems, there are still departments of limited jurisdiction within the trial courts, and often these departments occupy the exact same facilities they once occupied as independent courts of limited jurisdiction. However, as mere administrative divisions, departments can be rearranged at the discretion of each trial court's presiding judge in response to changing caseloads.

Contents 1 Differences among the states 2 Nature of cases handled in state courts 3 Relationship to federal courts 4 Nomenclature 5 See also 6 External links and references 7 References

Differences among the states

• Delaware, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Tennessee make a distinction between a "court of law" and a "court of equity" (chancery court). For the most part in the American legal system, while the distinction between law and equity has some legal consequences, separate court systems are not maintained.

• Texas and Oklahoma have separate courts of last resort for criminal cases and other cases. In all other states, there is a single court of last resort. While collateral attacks on criminal convictions, such as state level habeas corpus petitions, are usually considered to be technically civil cases, because they are not brought by a prosecutor and do not seek to convict someone of a crime, these suits are, in both states, appealed to the criminal court of last resort, rather than the civil court of last resort.

• In Maryland and New York, the Court of Appeals is the highest state court, and in New York the Supreme Court, Civil Court, and Criminal Court collectively are lower.

• The courts of Louisiana and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are organized under a civil law model with significantly different procedures from those of the courts in all other states and the District of Columbia, which are organized on an American version of the common law system established originally in England. The courts of one state are generally not required to follow the decisions of the courts of another state, but in the common law legal system it is customary for the courts of one state to look to decisions of other states as persuasive statements of what the law should be in the state making the decision, where express statutory provisions do not control.

Nature of cases handled in state courts

The vast majority of non-criminal cases in the United States are handled in state courts, rather than federal courts. For example, in Colorado, in 2002, which is typical, roughly 97% of all civil cases were filed in state courts and 89% of the cases filed in federal court were bankruptcies. Just 0.3% of the non-bankruptcy civil cases in the state were filed in federal court. In Colorado, in 2002, there were 79 civil trials in federal court (41 jury and 38 non-jury), and 5950 civil trials in state court (300 jury and 5650 non-jury). [1][2] Essentially all probate and divorce cases are also brought in state court, even if the parties involved live in different states.

Often, a plaintiff can bring a matter either to state court or federal court, because it arises under federal law, or involves a substantial monetary dispute (in excess of $75,000 as of October 26, 2007) arising under state law between parties that do not reside in the same state. If a plaintiff files suit in state court in such a case, the defendant can remove the case to federal court if a timely request is made to do so. Deciding on the jurisdiction (jurisdictional arbitrage) is part of litigation strategy for both plaintiff and defendant, in which the make up of the likely juries in each court, and the differences between federal and state court procedures figure highly. A mere federal law defense to a claim arising under state law, however, is generally not a basis for removing a case to federal court from state court.

About 91% of people in prison at any given time in the United States were convicted in state court, rather than federal court, including 99% of defendants sentenced to death. [3] Federal courts disproportionately handle white-collar crimes, immigration-related crimes and drug offenses (these crimes make up about 70% of the federal docket, but just 19% of the state court criminal docket). [4][5] A large share of violent crimes that are prosecuted in federal court arise on Indian reservations or federal property, where state courts lack jurisdiction and tribal court jurisdiction is usually limited to less serious offenses.

Many rights of criminal defendants in state courts arise under federal law, but federal courts only examine if the state courts applied those federal rights correctly on a direct appeal from the conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, after state court direct appeals have been exhausted, or in a collateral attack on a conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Relationship to federal courts

The relationship between state courts and federal courts is quite complicated. Although the United States Constitution and federal laws override state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. Rather, they are two parallel sets of courts with different often overlapping jurisdiction.

State courts systems always contain some courts of "general jurisdiction." All disputes which are capable of being brought in courts, arising under either state or federal law may be brought in one of the state courts, except in a few narrow case where federal law specifically limits jurisdiction exclusively to the federal courts. Some of the most common cases exclusively in federal jurisdiction are suits between state governments, suits involving ambassadors, certain intellectual property cases, federal criminal cases, bankruptcies and most securities fraud class actions. There are also a handful of federal laws under which lawsuits can be pursued only in state court, such as those arising under the federal "junk fax" law.^[1]. Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of "limited jurisdiction", that can only hear the types of cases specified in the Constitution and federal statutes (primarily federal crimes, cases arising under federal law and cases involving a diversity of citizenship between the parties).

Federal courts must defer to state courts in their the interpretation of state laws, and sometimes "certify" a question of state law to a state court in a case pending before it, if state law is unsettled on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court can review final decision of state courts, after a party exhausts all remedies up to a request for relief from the state's highest appellate court, if the justices believe that the case involves a question of constitutional law or federal law. Normally in an average sized state, one or two decisions every year or two from a state's court system are reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most U.S. Supreme Court review of state court decisions involves review of the constitutional rights of state court criminal defendants.

Another method of federal court review of state court judgments in criminal cases is the federal writ of habeas corpus, in which a federal court is asked to review whether a defendant has been given due process of law. If the federal court finds that the defendant has been denied due process then the defendant must be released or re-tried in the state court. Applications for habeas corpus review are most frequently made in death penalty cases, although the scope of review has been sharply restricted in recent years by Supreme Court decisions and legislation.

Nomenclature

The following table notes the names of the courts in the states and territories of the United States. Listed are the principal courts of first instance (general jurisdiction), the principal intermediate appellate courts, and the courts of final appeal or resort.

In some cases where courts are generally assigned to counties, the number of county-based courts does not exactly match the number of actual counties in the state. This happens when a single court has jurisdiction over more than one county.

State	Court of first instance (general jurisdiction)	Intermediate appellate court	Court of last resort (State supreme court)
Alabama	(District) Circuit Court (41 judicial districts)	Court of Civil Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals (-1969: single Court of Appeals)	Supreme Court
Alaska	(District) Superior Court (4 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Arizona	(County) Superior Court (15 counties)	(Division) Court of Appeals (2 divisions)	Supreme Court
Arkansas	Circuit Court (23 judicial circuits)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
California	(County) Superior Court (58 counties)	(District) Court of Appeal (6 appellate districts)	Supreme Court
Colorado	District Court (22 judicial districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Connecticut	Superior Court (13 judicial districts)[2]	Appellate Court	Supreme Court (previously: Supreme Court of Errors)
Delaware	Superior Court (previously: Superior Court and Orphans' Court) Court of Chancery	(none)	Supreme Court (previously: Court of Errors and Appeals)
District of Columbia	Superior Court	(none)	Court of Appeals (previously: Municipal Court of Appeals)
Florida	Circuit Court (20 judicial circuits)	District Court of Appeal (5 districts)	Supreme Court
Georgia	Superior Court (159 counties, divided into 49 judicial circuits); also State Court (not in all counties)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Hawaii	Circuit Court and Family Court (4 circuits)	Intermediate Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Idaho	District Court (7 judicial districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Illinois	Circuit Court (23 judicial circuits)[3]	(District) Appellate Court (5 districts)	Supreme Court
Indiana	Superior Court (177 divisions), Circuit Court (90 circuits)	(District) Court of Appeals (5 districts) (previously: Appellate Court)	Supreme Court
Iowa	District Court (8 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Kansas	District Court (31 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Kentucky	Circuit Court (57 circuits)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court (-1976: Court of Appeals)
Louisiana	District Court (40 districts)	(Circuit) Court of Appeal (5 circuits)	Supreme Court (-1813: Superior Court)
Maine	Superior Court	(none)	Supreme Judicial Court
Maryland	Circuit Court (8 judicial circuits)	Court of Special Appeals	Court of Appeals
Massachusetts	Superior Court (14 divisions)	Appeals Court	Supreme Judicial Court
Michigan	Circuit Court (57 circuits) Court of Claims	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Minnesota	District Court (10 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Mississippi	District Circuit Court (22 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Missouri	Circuit Court (45 circuits)	(District) Court of Appeals (3 districts)	Supreme Court
Montana	District Court (22 judicial districts)	(none)	Supreme Court
Nebraska	District Court (12 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Nevada	District Court (9 districts)	(none)	Supreme Court
New Hampshire	Superior Court	(none)	Supreme Court
New Jersey	(Vicinage) Superior Court (15 vicinages), has separate law & equity divisions	Superior Court, Appellate Division (previously: Court of Chancery, Supreme Court, and Prerogative Court)	Supreme Court (previously: Court of Errors and Appeals)
New Mexico	District Court (13 judicial districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
New York	(District) Supreme Court (12 judicial districts) County Court (57 counties)	Supreme Court, Appellate Term (3 judicial departments) Supreme Court, Appellate Division (4 departments)	Court of Appeals (-1848: Court for the correction of Errors, Supreme Court of Judicature, and Court of Chancery)
North Carolina	(District) Superior Court (46 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
North Dakota	District Court (7 judicial districts)	(none)	Supreme Court
Ohio	(County) Court of Common Pleas (88 counties)	(District) Court of Appeals (12 districts)	Supreme Court
Oklahoma	District Court (26 judicial districts with 77 district courts)	Court of Civil Appeals	Supreme Court Court of Criminal Appeals (1907-1959: Criminal Court of Appeals)
Oregon	(District) Circuit Court (36 courts administratively divided between 27 judicial districts)[4]	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Pennsylvania	County Court of Common Pleas (60 judicial districts)	(District) Superior Court (3 districts) Commonwealth Court	Supreme Court
Rhode Island	Superior Court	(none)	Supreme Court
South Carolina	Circuit Court (16 circuits)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
South Dakota	Circuit Court (7 circuits)	(none)	Supreme Court
Tennessee	(District) Circuit Court (31 judicial districts) (District) Criminal Court (31 judicial districts) (District) Chancery Court (31 judicial districts)	(Grand Division) Court of Appeals (3 grand divisions) (Grand Division) Court of Criminal Appeals (3 grand divisions)	Supreme Court
Texas	District Court (420 districts)	(District) Court of Appeals (14 districts)	Supreme Court (civil cases); Court of Criminal Appeals
Utah	District Court (8 districts)	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
Vermont	Superior Court District Court Family Court	(none)	Supreme Court
Virginia	Circuit Court (120 courts divided among 31 judicial circuits)[5]	Court of Appeals	Supreme Court (previously: Supreme Court of Appeals)
Washington	(County) Superior Court (39 counties)	(Division) Court of Appeals (3 divisions)	Supreme Court
West Virginia	Circuit Court (31 judicial circuits)	(none)	Supreme Court of Appeals
Wisconsin	(District) Circuit Court (10 judicial administrative districts)	(District) Court of Appeals (4 districts)	Supreme Court
Wyoming	District Court (9 districts)	(none)	Supreme Court
American Samoa	High Court, Trial Division	(none)	High Court, Appellate Division
Guam	Superior Court	(none)	Supreme Court
Northern Mariana Islands	Superior Court	(none)	Supreme Court
Puerto Rico	Court of First Instance Superior Division (13) Municipal Division (13)	Circuit Court of Appeals	Supreme Court
U.S. Virgin Islands	Superior Court (2 divisions)	Supreme Court	Third Circuit Court of Appeals (federal, temporary)

See also

• Courts of the United States

External links and references

• 2004 United States Justice Department Report
• National Center for State Courts, including *State Court Structure Charts
• Gavel2Gavel's State Court web directory, an ad-supported website
• Federal Court Statistics 2002
• Colorado Court Statistics 2002
• Statistical Abstract of the United States 2006

v • d • e Law of the United States Constitutional law Federalism · Separation of powers · Civil rights Courts of the United States Federal courts Supreme (SCOTUS) · Appeals · District (list) · Bankruptcy · Claims · International Trade · Tax State courts State supreme Education Law school · Law School Admission Test · Admission to the bar

References

1. ^ See Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Act), 47 U.S.C.S. § 227 (the "junk fax" law); Consumer Crusade, Inc. v. Affordable Health Care Solutions, Inc., 121 P.3d 350 (Colo. App. 2005)
2. ^ Listing of Connecticut Superior Court judicial districts.
3. ^ Illinois Circuit Courts
4. ^ Oregon Circuit Courts
5. ^ Virginia Circuit Courts

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)