Copr. © West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

26 LYLALR 1007

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

June, 1993

Gerald F. Uelmen [FNa]

Copyright © 1993 by the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review; Gerald F. Uelmen

What is a modern poet's fate?

To write his thoughts upon a slate;

The critic spits on what is done,

Gives it a wipe--and all is gone. [FN1]

I. INTRODUCTION

During the first five years of the Lucas court, [FN2] the California Supreme Court depublished [FN3] 586 opinions of the California Court of Appeal, declaring what the law of California was not. [FN4] During the same five-year period, the California Supreme Court published a total of 555 of *1008 its own opinions, declaring what the law of California was. [FN5] For many years, I have devoted substantial quantities of ink to analyzing the messages delivered in the published opinions of the California Supreme Court. [FN6] The purpose of this Article is to assess the negative message depublication orders are delivering to the court of appeal. Analysis of the output of individual districts and divisions of the court of appeal and comparison of their rates of publication and depublication demonstrates that one message is being delivered loud and clear to selective divisions: Publish fewer opinions.

The same five-year period has seen the overall rate of publication of California Court of Appeal opinions drop precipitously from 14% to 11%. [FN7] Some of this decline is attributable to an increase in workload. During the same period, the average annual output of opinions--both published and unpublished--from California Court of Appeal justices grew from 105 to 114. [FN8] Justices who have to decide more cases will undoubtedly be less inclined to invest the extra time and energy required to polish an opinion for publication. But the increase in workload has not been uniform. In some districts and divisions it has actually declined. This Article will attempt to assess what relative impact the California courts' workload, the nature of the cases being decided (and depublished), and the current depublication practice have had on the rate of publication.

*1009 Apart from its impact on the output of the court of appeal, no attempt will be made to weigh the costs and benefits of depublication. Both the defenders [FN9] and the detractors [FN10] of the practice have marshalled all the arguments to be made. Creative alternatives to make depublication unnecessary or limit its disadvantages have been propounded, [FN11] and ignored. While the current justices of the California Supreme Court apparently regard their power of depublication as a "necessary evil," [FN12] at some point, we can pray, they will realize the wisdom of Andrew Jackson's injunction: "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuse." [FN13]

*1010 II. PROCEDURE FOR PUBLICATION AND DEPUBLICATION

Currently, only 11% of the decisions rendered by the California Court of Appeal are published in the official reports. [FN14] Rule 976(b) of the California Rules of Court sets forth the standards that the court of appeal is required to follow in determining whether an opinion should be published. No opinion may be published unless a majority of the justices rendering the decision certify [FN15] that it:

(1) establishes a new rule of law, applies an existing rule to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions, or modifies, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule;

(2) resolves or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(3) involves a legal issue of continuing public interest or

The court may edit an opinion for partial publication, if only a portion of the opinion meets the standards of Rule 976(b). [FN17]

Any person, whether or not a party to the appeal, may request publication of an unpublished opinion, or depublication of a published opinion. [FN18] The procedure for such requests, however, differs significantly. A request for publication must be made "promptly" to the court of appeal that rendered the decision. [FN19] The rules impose no limitation on the size of the request, but copies of the request must be served on the parties to the action. [FN20] The request must refer to the publication standards of Rule 976(b) and state concisely why one of the standards is met. [FN21] If the court that authored the opinion denies the request, or it can no longer act because of the finality of the decision, [FN22] then the court must transmit the *1011 request to the California Supreme Court. [FN23] The court of appeal accompanies the request with its own recommendation and a brief statement of its reasons. Requests for publication are rarely granted by the supreme court. [FN24]

A request for depublication must be made to the California Supreme Court. [FN25] The supreme court can also order an opinion depublished on its own motion. [FN26] Ordinarily, an order of depublication does not indicate whether, or from whom, a request was received, and the court releases no data indicating how many requests for depublication are received. A request for depublication frequently accompanies a losing party's petition for a grant of hearing to the supreme court. Clearly, when the court significantly reduces grants of hearings, it utilizes depublication as an alternative disposition, eliminating precedents with which it disagrees but has no time to fully consider on the merits. [FN27]

Depublished opinions normally appear in the advance sheets of the official reports. If a case is depublished, the pages on which it appeared are simply deleted from the official bound volumes. An opinion that has been depublished may not be cited or relied upon by a court or a party in any other proceeding. [FN28] This injects a great deal of uncertainty in the citation of recent court of appeal opinions as authority because they are still subject to depublication. The rules impose no time limit within which the supreme court must grant or deny a request for depublication, and the court has been known to depublish opinions as late as fifteen months after publication. [FN29]

*1012 III. DISTRICT AND DIVISION VARIATIONS IN RATE OF PUBLICATION AND

WORKLOAD

The California Judicial Council annually collects and publishes the rates of publication for each district and division of the California Court of Appeal. [FN30] Publication rates are separately compiled for civil and criminal cases. The data for each of the five years up to June 30, 1991, are collected in Table 2 (civil cases) and Table 3 (criminal cases). [FN31]

There are two remarkable aspects of this data. First is the incredible variation in publication rates, not only between districts, but between divisions in the same district. In the most recent year, the rate of publication in civil cases ranged from a low of 6% (Second District, Division Two) to a high of 27% (First District, Division Three). [FN32] In criminal cases, the rate ranged from a low of 1% (Second District, Division One) to a high of 11% (Second District, Division Seven). [FN33]

Second is the clear downward trend of publication rates for both civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the decline is most notable in the Second District, where the rate of publication dropped from 20% to 12% in the past five years. [FN34] The decline for civil cases is even more remarkable when contrasted with the Second District's 1985-1986 rate of publication for civil cases, which was 24%. [FN35] While there are countertrends, [FN36] the statewide rate of publication in civil cases dropped from 19% in 1986-1987 to 16% in 1990-1991. [FN37]

The explanation for the variation in the publication rates is not simply variation in the workloads. Among different divisions in the same district, there is no variation in workloads because cases are randomly assigned on a rotational basis to ensure that each division receives a proportionate share of new filings. While there are variations of workload among districts, the differences are minimal. A rough measure of workload is the number of dispositions by written opinion per judge equivalent. The Judicial Council annually compiles this data, which is *1013 summarized here, for the same five-year period. [FN38] Except for the First District, the variation for 1990-1991 goes from a low of 110 dispositions (Fifth District) to a high of 122 dispositions (Fourth District). [FN39] Interestingly, both the Fourth and the Fifth Districts register at the highest rates of publication for both civil and criminal cases. The First District has experienced a steady decline in workload, to a low of ninety-three dispositions in 1989-1990, but has maintained a relatively stable level of publication in civil cases. In 1986- 1987, for example, the First District's rate of civil publication was highest in the state, with a workload factor substantially higher than current levels. The Second District has experienced a steady growth in its workload during the past five years but not significantly greater growth than the Fifth District. The Fifth District rate of publication in civil cases actually increased during this period, while the Second District's rate declined dramatically.

To some extent, variance in publication rates may reflect a district's or division's view of its work. Because production of published opinions is time consuming, a low publication rate may indicate that a division is more concerned with quickly moving cases through the system than with contributing to the fabric of developing law. Thus, the time that it takes to file opinions is relevant.

Variations in the time factor are illustrated in a Judicial Council report which compiled the elapsed time in days for the filing of opinions in each division and district for 1990-1991. [FN40] Glaring contradictions, as well as some startling confirmations, were discovered. Within the Second District, divisions with the lowest civil publication rates appeared at both the top and the bottom of the time-lapse charts. Of the five divisions with the highest civil publication rates in the state, four were faster in disposition time than the statewide medians. [FN41] For criminal cases, the two slowest divisions in the state are the only two divisions of the Second District with criminal publication rates exceeding the statewide average. [FN42] But the divisions of the First and Fourth District with the highest *1014 criminal publication rates are also significantly faster than the statewide medians for disposition time. [FN43]

This data confirms the perception that the quality of justice meted out by different divisions within the same appellate district may vary substantially, [FN44] and maintaining autonomous divisions may not be recommended. [FN45] The divisional differences, however, provide the best opportunity to analyze the impact of depublication. Rates of depublication show great variation among different divisions of the same district. Thus, comparing variations in depublication rates to variations in publication rates and workload will produce interesting and provocative conclusions.

IV. SUPREME COURT DEPUBLICATION

Table 7 collects all California Supreme Court depublication orders for the five-year period, from April 1, 1987 to March 30, 1992. The cases are divided between civil and criminal cases and are broken down by the district and division that authored the depublished opinion. [FN46] The Lucas court has utilized depublication more often in civil cases than in criminal cases, depublishing 364 civil cases and 222 criminal cases during the five-year period. [FN47]

For both civil and criminal cases, the depublication numbers vary substantially among different districts and divisions. So that the figures can be compared, the numbers are reduced to "per judge equivalents" because the divisions and districts have significantly different sizes. [FN48] *1015 The combined total for civil and criminal cases varies from a per judge equivalent low of 2.7 depublications (Second District, Division One) to a high of 17.7 depublications (Second District, Division Seven). But in some divisions, the rate of depublication varies significantly between civil and criminal cases. Division Five of the First District, for example, has the second highest depublication rate in the state for civil cases but has a depublication rate for criminal cases well below the state average. Conversely, Division Six of the Second District is tied for the highest depublication rate in the state for criminal cases, but has a civil depublication rate slightly below average. [FN49]

One would anticipate that the courts with the highest publication rates might have correspondingly high numbers of depublished opinions. The depublication rates in Table 7 can be compared to the publication rates for civil cases in Table 2 and for criminal cases in Table 3. The correlation is far from precise.

Using the statewide average of 4.1 depublished civil opinions per judge as a guide, three divisions that significantly exceed that rate had publication rates that were consistently below average. Division Four of the First District had a depublication rate of 5.2 opinions per judge, [FN50] although its publication rate was at or below the state average four of the five years included. [FN51] Similarly, Division Four of the Second District had a publication rate at or below the state average four of the five years, [FN52] but it had a depublication rate of 5.0. [FN53] In Division Three of the Fourth District the publication rate was well below the state average all five years, although its depublication rate was 5.2. [FN54]

Nonetheless, the three divisions with the highest depublication rates were all divisions that consistently exceeded the average publication rate. Division Seven of the Second District, with a phenomenal depublication rate of 13.3, [FN55] had the highest publication rate in the state four of the five years included. [FN56] Division Five of the First District, with the second *1016 highest depublication rate of 6.3, [FN57] exceeded the statewide average publication rate four of the five years. [FN58] And Division One of the Fourth District, with a depublication rate of 6.2, [FN59] also exceeded the statewide average for publication four of the five years. [FN60]

Conversely, some of the districts and divisions with the lowest depublication rates also had low publication rates. The Third District was below the statewide average publication rate three of the five years, [FN61] and had a depublication rate of 2.0. [FN62] Division One of the Second District was well below the statewide average publication rate all five years [FN63] and had a depublication rate of 2.2. [FN64] A notable exception, however, is the Fifth District. While it has the lowest depublication rate in the state (1.9), it was at or above the statewide average publication rate four of the five years.

As noted above, civil publication rates have declined during the past five years. Interestingly, divisions with the sharpest declines were the most heavily depublished. The publication rate for Division Seven of the Second District, which has the highest depublication rate, dropped steadily from 38% to 20%. [FN65] Division Five of the First District dropped from 28% to 18%, then rebounded to 23% in 1990-1991. [FN66] Division Six of the Second District had dropped from 17% to 5%, rebounding to 8% in 1990-1991. [FN67] Division One of the Fourth District, however, has actually increased its publication rate in the midst of a trend towards increasing rates of depublication. [FN68] The most notable countertrend districts and divisions are ones that enjoy relatively low rates of depublication: Divisions One and Three in the First District, Division Two in the Fourth and Fifth Districts. [FN69]

Shifting to the criminal side, the patterns are generally consistent, but at least three districts and divisions show remarkably higher rates of depublication for criminal cases than for civil cases. Sharing honors for the highest depublication rate in criminal cases are Divisions Six and *1017 Seven of the Second District. [FN70] Nevertheless, Division Six posts a civil depublication rate below the state average. [FN71] Division One of the First District has the next highest criminal depublication rate, even though its civil depublication rate is among the lowest in the state. [FN72] The Fifth District, which is the least depublished on the civil side, has a criminal depublication rate well above the average, at 3.6. In all three of these districts and divisions, the pattern of publication for criminal cases closely tracks the pattern of publication for civil cases.

In two other divisions, a low rate of depublishing criminal cases contrasted with a high rate of depublishing civil cases. Division Five of the First District, which had the second highest depublication rate in the state for civil cases, posted a 1.7 rate for criminal cases, well below the state average of 2.5. [FN73] Division Three of the Second District had the second lowest rate of criminal depublication in the state, although its civil depublication rate was well above average. [FN74] However, the differences in depublication rates seem to be consistent with the publication rates. Both divisions generally have above-average rates of publication in civil cases and below- average rates of publication in criminal cases.

There are dramatic differences between rates of depublication and publication rates. A number of these aberrational patterns require further explanation. Of particular interest are three divisions that have unusually high rates of depublication, even though their rates of publication are generally at or below average: Division Four of the First District, Division Six of the Second District and Division Three of the Fourth District. [FN75]

V. THE POLITICS OF DEPUBLICATION

With the electoral removal in 1986 of three California Supreme Court justices, [FN76] who were all appointed by a Democratic governor, and with their replacement in 1987 with three appointees by a Republican *1018 governor, [FN77] the dominant political philosophy of the supreme court changed dramatically. Political change at the court of appeal level has been more gradual, but the trend of appointees of Republican governors supplanting Democratic appointees has changed the nature of several districts and divisions that were previously dominated by Democratic appointees or evenly split. [FN78] Currently, there remain only three divisions with a majority of Democratic appointees: Division Five of the First District, Division Six of the Second District and Division Three of the Fourth District. [FN79] By remarkable coincidence, two of these are among the divisions whose high depublication rates are inconsistent with their low publication rates: Division Six of the Second District and Division Three of the Fourth District. Division Five of the First District also had an unusually high depublication rate, but it also has a high publication rate.

The dominant political affiliation of the districts and divisions, in fact, presents a startling correlation with both the highest and lowest rates of depublication. Five of the six divisions with the highest overall rate of depublication were dominated by Democratic appointees for at least part of the five-year period from 1987 to 1992. These divisions include:

Division Seven of the Second District (Democrat to Republican, 1988);

Division One of the Fourth District (Democrat to Republican, 1988);

Division Three of the Fourth District (Democrat);

Division Six of the Second District (Democrat); and

Division Five of the First District (Democrat). [FN80]

Only Division Four of the First District posts a depublication rate as high as these five divisions, despite its domination by Republican appointees. In part, the explanation may lie in the penchant of its lone Democratic appointee, Justice Poche, to frequently write acerbic and well-reasoned dissents, many of which lead to prompt depublication of both the majority and dissenting opinions. [FN81]

*1019 Conversely, only one of the six divisions with the lowest depublication rates was ever dominated by Democratic appointees during the covered five-year period. The Third District shifted from Democratic to Republican domination in 1989. The political composition of the other five divisions with the lowest overall rate of depublication was as follows:

Division One of the Second District (Republican);

Division Three of the First District (Split to Republican, 1990);

Division Two of the Second District (Split);

Division Five of the Second District (Republican); and

Fifth District (Split to Republican, 1989). [FN82]

None of this should be surprising. Clearly, governors consider political philosophy in making appointments, and it is not unusual that divided opinions split courts along lines closely matching the political persuasions of the appointing governors. To the extent that depublication is part of a court's effort to maintain consistency in the law, it is not surprising that the divisions of the court of appeal, dominated by a political philosophy at odds with that of the supreme court, will see more of their opinions depublished.

Although it was documented in a very different way, a similar phenomenon occurred during the Bird court era. In a study of court of appeal opinions depublished by the Bird court, Professor Philip L. Dubois categorized the depublished opinions as "liberal" or "conservative." [FN83] Dubois found that 76.5% of the opinions depublished by the "liberal" Bird court from 1982 to 1983 had conservative outcomes. [FN84] It is quite likely that opinions by "conservative" divisions of the court of appeal were depublished by the Bird court with greater frequency than opinions by "liberal" divisions.

Viewed from this perspective, depublication can be seen for precisely what it is: a device to suppress dissenting views. The decline of the expression of dissenting views on the Lucas court has been noted *1020 elsewhere. [FN85] The use of depublication to obliterate the opinions emanating from those courts of appeal with a differing judicial philosophy is a closely related phenomenon. While one criteria calling for publication of a court of appeal opinion is that it "criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule," [FN86] the supreme court frequently depublishes such opinions, leaving no citable trace of disenchantment in the court of appeal. Even when an issue is closely divided, a narrow majority of the supreme court can create a false aura of harmony by eliminating all opinions that resolve the issue in a manner that is not to their liking. Three justices cannot grant a hearing, so the discontent remains buried in the graveyard of depublication. The harmonious picture of the law presented in published opinions, however, is a gravely misleading one.

The existence of different judicial philosophies is one of the great strengths of our legal system. Judges of different philosophies challenge one another so that assumptions are constantly retested in the face of changing circumstances. As political majorities shift, there will be shifts on our courts as well. While depublication assists the supreme court in maintaining a facade of harmony in the law, it may ultimately contribute to the growing lack of public confidence in the courts, by making the shifting changes appear more sudden and dramatic than they really are.

VI. CONCLUSION

The relationship between publication and depublication remains elusive, but the data presented here lead to some confident conclusions. First, courts of appeal differ substantially in applying the standards that govern which opinions should be published. Second, rates of publication are declining. Third, the growing use of depublication is partly responsible for the decline in publication. And fourth, depublication is selectively employed most aggressively against divisions of the court of appeal with a prevailing judicial philosophy contrary to the prevailing judicial philosophy of the supreme court.

Obviously, then, a high rate of depublication cannot serve to make any qualitative judgment about a particular division of the court of appeal. As the data demonstrate, the divisions that are the hardest working, producing the highest rates of published opinions in the shortest period of time despite high workloads, may well be divisions that see the highest proportion of their work product consigned to oblivion by the California Supreme Court. The concluding Table 9 is a summary for the *1021 various districts and divisions of the court of appeal. [FN87] The letters assigned reflect a quantitative judgment only. "A" indicates that a district or division is among the highest third in workload, speed of disposition and current rate of publication. "B" places a court in the middle third, while "C" indicates that a court is in the bottom third. With respect to depublication, however, "A" indicates that a court is among the lowest third in per judge equivalent depublication orders, while "C" places it in the highest third.

In terms of workload, speed and rate of publication for civil cases, there is only one "AAA" division in the state: Division One of the Fourth District. In terms of depublication, it earned a "C" from the California Supreme Court. Likewise, only one division rated "AAA" for workload, speed and rate of publication for criminal cases: Division Two of the Fourth District. In terms of depublication, it earned a "B" from the California Supreme Court.

*1022 TABLE 1

GRANTS OF HEARINGS AND ORDERS OF DEPUBLICATION

                      1987-88  1988-89  1989-90  1990-91  1991-92  5 Yr. Total

                      -------  -------  -------  -------  -------  -----------

CRIMINAL CASES

Hearings Granted           59       40       30       53       99          281

Opinions Depublished       50       44       56       39       33          222

CIVIL CASES

Hearings Granted          145      148       50      111      121          575

Opinions Depublished       76       98       61       61       68          364

*1023 TABLE 2

PERCENTAGE RATE OF PUBLICATION IN CIVIL APPEALS

                     1986-87  1987-88  1988-89  1989-90  1990-91

                     -------  -------  -------  -------  -------

DIST. I (Averages)    (22)     (19)     (18)     (22)     (21)

Div. 1                 18       15       12       23       21

 2                     23       24       23       25       18

 3                     26       20       20       22       27

 4                     18       17       16       19       14

 5                     28       19       18       18       23

DIST. II (Averages)   (20)     (20)     (17)     (14)     (12)

Div. 1                 11       14        9       10       10

 2                     18       20       11       12        6

 3                     20       19       19       17       12

 4                     17       17       20       12       16

 5                     23       24       19       15       13

 6                     17       19       17        5        8

 7                     38       31       25       32       20

DIST. III              16       13       13       18       16

DIST. IV (Averages)   (14)     (14)     (14)     (20)     (20)

Div. 1                 19       19       21       26       22

 2                     12        6        9       13       22

 3                     10       13       11       17       14

DIST. V                14       18       19       19       19

DIST. VI               15       22       16       15       16

STATEWIDE AVERAGE      19       18       16       18       16

*1024 TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE RATE OF PUBLICATION IN CRIMINAL APPEALS

                     1986-87  1987-88  1988-89  1989-90  1990-91

                     -------  -------  -------  -------  -------

DIST. I (Averages)       (9)      (9)      (8)      (6)      (7)

Div. 1                     8        6       11        7        7

 2                         7        9        9        6       10

 3                        11        7        7        6        7

 4                        10       13        8        6        3

 5                         8       11        4        3        6

DIST. II (Averages)      (6)      (6)      (4)      (4)      (4)

Div. 1                     2        4        2        2        1

2                         4        3        4        6        2

 3                         4        5        3        4        2

 4                         7        6        3        2        3

 5                         7        9        5        5        9

 6                         6        8        5        4        5

 7                        13        7        5        8       11

DIST. III                  4        5        5        4        3

DIST. IV (Averages)      (7)      (6)      (7)      (8)      (7)

Div. 1                     8        9        9        9        6

 2                         5        2        4        5        9

 3                         8        9        8        8        5

DIST. V                   11        8        9        7        7

DIST. VI                   5       11        7        4        6

STATEWIDE AVERAGE          7        7        6        5        6

*1025 TABLE 4

DISPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN OPINION

                     PER JUDGE EQUIVALENT

                          1986-1991

1986-87  1987-88  1988-89  1989-90  1990-91

                   -------  -------  -------  -------  -------

DIST. I                111      101      100       93       96

DIST. II                92       94      110      116      121

DIST. III              117      124      118      111      113

DIST. IV               123      116      112      119      122

DIST. V                 89      106      116      112      110

DIST. VI               122      132      111      132      118

STATEWIDE AVERAGE      105      105      110      112      114

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE

SUPREME COURT DEPUBLICATION

                        BY DISTRICT AND DIVISION

                                1987-1992

                   CIVIL CASES  CRIMINAL CASES   TOTAL

                   ---------------------------  --------------  ---------

                            Per Judge             Per Judge     Per Judge

                        Number          Equiv.  Number  Equiv.     Equiv.

                   -----------  --------------  ------  ------  ---------

DIST. I (Totals)          (81)           (4.3)    (48)   (2.5)      (6.8)

Div. 1                      11             2.7      16     4.0        6.7

 2                          16             4.0       8     2.0        6.0

 3                          14             3.5       4     1.0        4.5

 4                          21             5.2      15     3.7        9.0

 5                          19             6.3       5     1.7        8.0

DIST. II (Totals)        (124)           (4.8)    (52)   (2.0)      (6.8)

Div. 1                       9             2.2       2     0.5        2.7

 2                          11             2.7       8     2.0        4.7

 3                          21             5.2       3     0.7        6.0

 4                          20             5.0       5     1.2        6.2

 5                          11             2.7       8     2.0        4.7

 6                          12             4.0      13     4.3        8.3

 7                          40            13.3      13     4.3       17.7

DIST. III                   20             2.0      14     1.4        3.4

DIST. IV (Totals)         (93)           (5.5)    (62)   (3.7)      (9.1)

Div. 1                      50             6.2      29     3.6        9.9

 2                          17             3.4      14     2.8        6.2

 3                          26             5.2      19     3.8        9.0

DIST. V                     17             1.9      33     3.6        5.5

DIST. VI                    29             4.8      13     2.2        7.0

STATEWIDE TOTALS           364             4.1     222     2.5        6.7

*1029 TABLE 8

POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF APPOINTING GOVERNOR

                     FOR COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICES

                              1987-1992

                              DISTRICT I

Div. 1  (Democrat to Split, 1990; Split to Republican, 1991)

        Racanelli (D)/1991/Strankman (R)

        Elkington (D)/1988/Stein (R)

        Holmdahl (D)/1990/Dossee (R)

        Newsome (D)

Div. 2  (Split)

        Kline (D)

        Benson (R)

        Rouse (R)/1988/Peterson (R)

        Smith (D)

Div. 3  (Split to Republican, 1990)

        White (D)

        Barry-Deal (D)/1990/Chin (R)

Merrill (R)

        Scott (R)/1988/Strankman (R)/1991/Werdegar (R)

Div. 4  (Republican)

        Anderson (R)

        Channell (R)/1990/Reardon (R)

        Poche (D)

        Sabraw (R)/1988/Perley (R)

Div. 5  (Democrat)

        Low (D)

        Hanning (D)

        King (D)

                             DISTRICT II

Div. 1  (Republican)

        Spencer (D)

        Devich (R)

        Hanson (R)/1990/Vogel (R)

        Lucas (R)/1988/Ortega (R)

Div. 2  (Split)

        Roth (D)

        Beach (R)/1990/Nott (R)

        Compton (R)/1987/Fukuto (R)

Gates (D)

Div. 3  (Democrat to Split, 1987)

        Klein (D)

        Arabian (R)/1990/Hinz (R)

        Danielson (D)

        Lui (D)/1987/Croskey (R)

Div. 4  (Democrat to Split, 1988; Split to Republican, 1990)

        Woods (D)

        Arguelles (R)/1987/George (R)

        Kingsley (D)/1988/Goertzen (R)

        McCloskey (D)/1990/Epstein (R)

Div. 5  (Republican)

        Feinerman (D)/1988/Lucas (R)

        Ashby (R)

        Eagleson (R)/1987/Boren (R)

        Hastings (R)/1988/Kennard (R)/1989/Turner (R)/1991/Grignon (R)

Div. 6  (Democrat)

        Stone (D)

        Abbe (D)/1990/Yegan (R)

        Gilbert (D)

Div. 7  (Democrat to Republican, 1988)

Lillie (R)

        Johnson (D)

        Thompson (D)/1988/Woods (R)

             DISTRICT III (Democrat to Republican, 1989)

        Puglia (R)

        Blease (D)

        Carr (D)

        Evans (R)/1990/Nicholson (R)

        Regan (D)/1987/Marler (R)

        Sims (D)

        Sparks (D)

        (1989) Davis (R)

        (1989) Dechristoforo (R)/1991/Raye (R)

        (1989) Scotland (R)

                             DISTRICT IV

Div. 1  (Democrat to Republican, 1988)

        Kremer (R)

        Butler (D)/1988/Froehlich (R)

        Lewis (R)/1987/Benke (R)

        Staniforth (D)/1986/Todd (R)

        Wiener (D)

Work (D)

        (1988) Huffman (R)

        (1988) Nares (R)

Div. 2  (Republican)

        Kaufman (R)/1987/Dabney (R)

        McDaniel (R)/1990/McKinster (R)

        Hews (R)/1990/Timlin (R)

        Campbell (R)/1990/Ramirez (R)

        Rickles (D)/1988/Hollenhost (R)

Div. 3  (Democrat)

        Trotter (D)/1988/Scoville (R)/1990/Sills (R)

        Crosby (D)

        Sonenshine (D)

        Wallin (D)

        (1988) Moore (R)

                DISTRICT V (Split to Republican, 1989)

        Brown (R)/1988/Stone (R)

        Ballantyne (R)/1988/Baxter (R)/1990/Harris (R)

        Best (R)

        Franson (R)/1991/Buckley (R)

        Woolpert (D)/1989/Dibiaso (R)

Hanson (D)/1988/Ardaiz (R)

        Martin (D)

        Hamlin (D)/1989/Vartabedian (R)

        (1990) Thaxter (R)

                       DISTRICT VI (Republican)

        Agliano (R)

        Brauer (R)/1989/Bamattre-Manoukian (R)

        Cottle (R)

        Capaccioli (R)

        Elia (R)

        Premo (R)

*1032 TABLE 9

SUMMARY

                     CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

                               CIVIL   CRIMINAL

                               CASES    CASES

                              --------------------------- ---------------------

             Workload  Pol.    Speed  Pub. Rate   Depub.  Speed  Pub.  Depub.

Aff.                        Rate          Rate    Rate

                       [FN*]

-------- ------- ------- ---------- -------- ----- ------

DIST. I:        C

Div. 1                   R       C        A         A       B     A    C

 2                       S       B        B         B       B     A    B

 3                       R       B        A         B       B     A    A

 4                       R       A        B         C       A     C    C

 5                       D       A        A         C       A     B    A

DIST. II:       A

Div. 1                   R       C        C         A       C     C    A

 2                       S       C        C         A       C     C    B

 3                       S       C        C         C       C     C    A

 4                       R       B        B         B       C     C    A

 5                       R       C        C         A       C     A    B

 6                       D       A        C         B       A     B    C

 7                       R       C        A         C       C     A    C

DIST. III:      B        R       B        B         A       B     C    A

DIST. IV:       A

Div. 1                   R       A        A         C       A     B    B

 2                       R       B        A         B       A     A    B

3                       D       A        B         C       B     B    C

DIST. V:        C        R       B        B         A       A     A    B

DIST. VI:       B        R       A        B         B       B     B    B

FN* Current 'political affiliation' in terms of whether a majority of justices

was appointed by a Democratic governor (D), a Republican governor (R) or

  whether appointments are evenly split (S).