(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

X 13 

101: m/to 

C. I 



North Carolina State Library. 
Raleigh 






SNortlj Carolina Courts 



1979-80 






APR 



6 



'981 




Annual Report 

of tl|0 

JV&mmistrattue <K)fftce of ttje Courts 



The Cover: The Madison County Courthouse, in Marshall, North Carolina, was 
completed in 1907. It is a two-story Neo-Classical Revival brick structure, a style 
which significantly influenced courthouse design in North Carolina from the 1890\s 
to the 1930Y 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1979-80 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 



In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes I hereby transmit the Four- 
teenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1979 - 
June 30, 1980. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, 
and present process required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the 
Courts, principal responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Systems 
Division. Among court officials, the principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data 
rested upon the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of 
the State. Without the daily, responsible work of clerk personnel across the State, this report would 
not have been possible. 

Bert M. Montague 
Director 

January, 1981 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Parti 
The 1979-80 Judicial Year In Review 

The 1979-80 Judicial Year In Review 



Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7 

The Present Court System 11 

Organization and Operations in 1979-80 

The Supreme Court 15 

The Court of Appeals 21 

The Superior Courts 29 

The District Courts 33 

District Attorneys 36 

Clerks of Superior Court 39 

Public Defenders 41 

Administrative Office of the Courts 42 

The Judicial Planning Committee 47 

The N.C. Courts Commission 49 

The Judicial Standards Commission 50 

Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 53 

Expenditures 56 

Receipts 58 

Distribution of Receipts 59 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63 

Judicial Department Personnel 69 

Part IV 

Courts Caseload Data 

Superior Court Division Caseload Data 77 

District Court Division Caseload Data 117 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 10 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 13 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14 

Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory, 1979-80 16 

Supreme Court, Cases Filed, 1979-80 16 

Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Cases, 1979-80 16 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered, 1979-80 17 

Supreme Court, Petitions Filed, 1979-80 18 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 1979-80 19 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 20 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1979 22 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed, 1979 24 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Petitions and Motions, 1979 , 25 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 26 

Judges of Superior Court 27 

District Court Judges 31 

District Attorneys 35 

Clerks of Superior Court 38 

Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 42 

The Judicial Planning Committee 47 

The N.C. Courts Commission 49 

The Judicial Standards Commission 50 

PART III 
Court Resources 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department, 1979-80 53 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department, 1975-80 54 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all 

State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1975-80 55 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department 

Operations, 1979-80 56 

Judicial Department Receipts, 1975-80 58 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 60 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 64 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 65 

Judicial Department Personnel 69 



Part IV 

Courts Caseload Data 

Superior Courts, Caseload, 1979-80 78 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends, 1970-1980 79 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends, 1970-1980 80 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 81 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory, 1979-1980 82 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition, 1979-1980 85 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, 1979-1980 86 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 89 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings, 1974-1980 94 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings, 1979-1980 95 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases, 1970-1980 98 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 99 

Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 102 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 103 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 106 

District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 
District Courts 



Filings and Dispositions, 1979-1980 118 

Median Ages of Cases, 1979-1980 119 

Caseload Trends, 1971-1980 120 

Caseload Trends of Civil Cases, 1971-1980 121 

Filings and Dispositions of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 122 

Civil Caseload Inventory, 1979-1980 123 

Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 126 

Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 127 

Ages of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 132 

Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions, 1979-1980 137 

Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions, 1979-1980 140 

Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases, 1971-1980 143 

Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, 1979-1980 144 

Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition, 1979-1980 147 

Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, 1979-1980 148 

Ages of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 153 

Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior Court and District Court Cases 161 

Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior and District Court Cases 162 



in 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1980nort 



PARTI 



THE 1979-1980 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1979 and ended June 30, 1980. 



The Workload of the Courts 

During 1979-80 there were some substantial increases 
in the workload of North Carolina's courts, at both the 
appellate and trial court levels. As set out in more detail 
in Part II of this Report, filings in the Supreme Court in- 
creased by 29% to 243 cases filed during the Court's fall 
1979 and Spring 1980 terms, compared with 188 cases 
during the Fall 1978 and Spring 1979 terms. There was a 
substantial increase in the number of opinions filed by 
the Court: from 162 rendered in 1978-79 to 193 in 1979- 
80, an increase of 19%. Petitions docketed in the Court 
rose 23.6% (from 499 in 1978-79 to 617 in 1979-80), and 
there was a 10.8% increase in the number of petitions 
allowed by the Court (65 in 1978-79, 72 in 1979-80). 

In the Court of Appeals, filings in calendar year 1979 
rose to 1,204 cases, an increase of 2.5% over 1978 filings 
of 1,174 cases. There was a corresponding rise in case 
dispositions: from 1,133 cases disposed in 1978 to 1,190 
in 1979, an increase of 5.0%. Petitions filed in the Court 
rose from 351 in 1978 to 532 in 1979, a 52% increase. 
(Petitions as counted here are largely comprised of re- 
quests for extraordinary remedies. Data is reported 
from the Court of Appeals on a calendar year rather 
than a fiscal year basis.) 

More detailed data on the appellate courts is included 
in Part II.) 

In the superior courts, filings of both civil and crimi- 
nal cases increased by 9.1% to a total of 74,899 cases 
filed in 1979-80 (compared with 68,625 cases filed in 
1978-79). Superior court case dispositions also rose, to a 
total of 72,983 civil and criminal cases disposed of in 
1979-80 — 10.7% higher than the 1978-79 total of 65,9 1 1 
cases disposed of. But though dispositions increased at a 
slightly faster rate than filings, there were more cases 
filed in superior courts in 1979-80 than were disposed of, 
and the number of cases pending at the beginning of the 
year (31,356) rose six percent to a total of 33,272 cases 
pending in the superior courts by the end of the year. 
Operations of the superior courts are summarized in 
Part II of this Report; detailed data on the caseloads in 
the 100 counties and 33 judicial districts are presented in 
Part IV. 

The increase in cases filed in North Carolina's district 
courts was a small one in 1979-80. Total filings of civil 
and criminal cases rose from 1,432,067 in 1978-79 to 
1,458,647 in 1979-80, an increase of less than two per- 
cent. Dispositions also rose, although at a slower rate: 
from 1,402,518 in 1978-79 to 1,415,924 in 1979-80, an in- 
crease of just under one percent. The net result was a 
substantial increase in the number of civil and criminal 
cases pending in the district courts. Total cases pending 



rose from 200,316 pending on July 1, 1979 to 243,039 
pending on June 30, 1980; this represents an increase of 
21.% 

The small increase in the combined (civil and crimi- 
nal) total of district court case filings results from two 
conflicting trends. Filings of district court civil cases 
continued to rise sharply: the 1979-80 total (315,867 
cases) is thirteen percent above the previous year's 
(279,548), which was in turn about six percent higher 
than the total for 1978. Filings of district court civil 
cases have more than doubled since 1972. On the other 
hand, filings of district court criminal cases decreased 
for the second year in a row. Again filings of traffic cases 
were lower in 1979-80 than they were in 1978-79: the to- 
tal dropped from 796,227 cases filed in 1978-79 to 
777,264 filed in 1979-80. This decrease more than offset 
a small increase in the numbers of other district court 
criminal cases filed. 

Whether the numbers of traffic cases brought to 
North Carolina's courts will continue to decline in the 
future is, of course, difficult to say. The reduced num- 
bers in the past two reporting periods are probably 
related to changes in automobile owners' driving habits 
- changes which are also reflected in recently reported 
decreases in State gasoline tax revenues. It seems likely 
that higher gasoline prices are prompting private 
automobile owners to drive less than they would 
otherwise, and at lower speeds. 

The possible implications of these trends for the court 
system are potentially profound. Although it may ap- 
pear that the demand for judicial resources is not in- 
creasing at a very drastic rate because the sharp rise in 
civil case filings is numerically diminished by decreases 
in traffic case filings, more civil cases than criminal cases 
require a hearing or trial by a judge or magistrate. In 
1979-80 almost six out of every ten traffic cases disposed 
of were disposed of by the defendant's waiver of ap- 
pearance and plea of guilty before a magistrate or clerk 
of superior court staff — a procedure which requires a 
minimum of time and effort. Most civil cases, on the 
other hand, go to trial before a magistrate (about 60% of 
the total disposed of in 1979-80) or a judge (an ad- 
ditional 21%) or both. In terms of the demand for the 
court system's resources, then, there is no easy 
equivalence between a decrease in traffic case filings and 
an increase in civil case filings or other criminal case 
filings. 

Legislative Highlights 

Expansion of Public Defender System 

The 1979 General Assembly in its second ("short") 
1980 session voted to extend the State's public defender 
system — now operative in five districts — into the 
Third Judicial District effective January 1, 1981. Like 
four of the other five public defenders, the new public 



THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



defender will be appointed by the Governor from a list 
of nominees drawn up by members of the district bar, 
and he or she will serve a four-year term. 

Presumptive Sentencing Law 

The "Fair Sentencing Act" of the 1979 General As- 
sembly (passed in the first, 1979, session) was amended 
in the second, 1980, session. In addition to some clarify- 
ing amendments relating to the effect on an offender's 
sentence of previous felony convictions, the effective 
date of the Act was changed from July 1, 1980 to March 
1, 1981. 

Speedy Trial Law 

Present North Carolina law provides that trial of a 
criminal case must begin within 120 days of the filing of 
the case, with certain periods of excusable or justifiable 
delay excluded by the statute. The 120-day limit was to 
have been reduced to 90 days as of October 1, 1980 un- 
der the law as originally enacted by the 1977 General 
Assembly. In the 1980 session, the imposition of the 90- 
day limit was changed to an effective date of October 1, 
1981; until that date, the present 120-day limit will 
remain in effect. 

Misdemeanor Appeals 

A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor in North 
Carolina's district courts (where no trial by jury is 
available in criminal matters) has the right to appeal the 
judgment to the superior court for trial de novo. 
Previously existing law specifies that the superior court 
obtains the same jurisdiction over the appealing defen- 
dant that the district court had. Amendment to these 
statutes in the 1980 legislative session provides that 
when the conviction in district court resulted from a plea 
arrangement between the defendant and the State, one 
effect of which was the dismissal, reduction or modifica- 
tion of the original misdemeanor charges, the superior 
court has jurisdiction "to try those charges in the form 
and to the extent that they subsisted in the district court 
immediately prior to entry of the defendant and the 
State of the Plea arrangement." 

Court Studies 

The General Assembly established in its 1980 session 
a Juvenile Law Study Commission to make continuing 
studies of statutory and case law relating to juveniles, of 
services available to juveniles and their families, and of 
any other matter the Commission considers "of impor- 
tance to state consideration of juveniles." There are to 
be fifteen members of the Commission, eleven to be ap- 



pointed by the Governor and two each to be appointed 
by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives. Of the eleven gubernatorial 
appointees, two must be district court judges and three 
must be court counselors. (Court counselors are Judicial 
Department employees who provide intake/screening 
functions and probation and parole supervision for the 
juveniles within the jurisdiction of the district courts.) 
Reports from the Commission are to be submitted by 
the first date of each full legislative session. 

The 1980 legislative session directed the North Caro- 
lina Courts Commission to consider the salaries now 
paid to assistant district attorneys, to develop recom- 
mendations for a salary schedule for these personnel, 
and to report to the 1981 General Assembly on this top- 
ic by March 1, 1981. The General Assembly also in- 
cluded in Chapter 1221 of its Session Laws a statement 
of its "understanding" that the Courts Commission is 
authorized to "make continuing studies of the structure, 
organization, jurisdiction, procedures and personnel, in- 
cluding the office of the public defender, of the Judicial 
Department . . ." The listed study-topics, with the ex- 
ception of the explicit reference to public defenders, 
were included in the statutes which re-established the 
Courts Commission in 1979 (G.S. 7A-506, et seq.). 

The General Assembly in 1980 also directed the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts to study the implemen- 
tation of the statute (G.S. 7A-289.32) which permits ter- 
mination of parental rights if a parent is mentally re- 
tarded or mentally ill and cannot provide care for his or 
her child. The report is due to the 1981 General 
Assembly by May 1, 1981, with a supplemental report 
due by May 1, 1982. 



Appropriations 

Modifications of the two-year budget for 1979-81 
provided additional appropriations for: 

- increased costs for representation of indigents; 

- additional magistrate positions authorized in 
Mecklenburg and Stokes Counties; 

- additional assistant district attorney positions 
authorized in Districts 7, 13 and 16; 

- additional secretarial positions in the district at- 
torneys' offices in Districts 3 and 7; 

- additional deputy clerk of court positions in 17 
different counties; 

- reimbursement for superior court judges' travel 
costs (previously covered by the judges' annual 
subsistence allowance); and 

- a 10% pay increase for Judicial Department per- 
sonnel — comparable to the pay increase provided 
other State employees. 



THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Remaining Parts of Annual Report 

More detailed information on the work of the Judicial 
Department in the 1979-80 fiscal year is included in the 
remaining three parts of this Report. Part II contains a 
brief history of the court system and a description of the 
present system, with each of the several components 
described and summary information provided on opera- 
tions in 1979-80. 

Information on the Judicial Department's financial 
and personnel resources is set out in Part III of this 
Annual Report. Included is: information on appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for operating expenses in 
1979-80, compared with appropriations in previous 
years and appropriations trends for the operating ex- 



penses of all State government departments and agen- 
cies; information on expenditures in the several budget 
categories, with comparative information on previous 
years' expeditures; information on Judicial Department 
revenues from its several sources, and the distribution of 
those revenues; a section on the costs of the indigent 
representation program, including a county-by-county 
table on numbers of cases and payments for assigned 
private counsel for indigents; and a table showing the 
Judicial Department personnel categories and salary 
ranges for the 1979-80 fiscal year. 

The great volume of data on the flow of cases through 
the two trial court divisions — with data broken down 
into several cases categories and presented for each of 
the 100 counties — is presented in Part IV. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1979-80 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeat- 
ed sequence of critical examination, proposals for re- 
form, and finally the enactment of some reform 
measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener- 
al (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute 
developed over the appointment of associate justices. 
The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name 
the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself 
the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con- 
troversies developed concerning the creation and juris- 
diction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for 
the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap- 
pointments should be for good behavior as against the 
royal governor's decision for life appointment. State 
historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight 
to establish courts and the judicial structure in the 
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legisla- 
ture," which was more familiar with local conditions 
and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, 
North Carolina alternated between periods under legis- 
latively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and 
the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the 
post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale- 
mate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified 
by royal authority. A more elaborate system was 
framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was 
not renewed because of persisting disagreement be- 
tween local and royal partisans. As a result, North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen- 
dence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative func- 
tions were combined in the authority of the justices of 
the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained 
largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Ses- 
sions — the county court which continued in use from 
about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled 
justices of the peace in each county. The justices were 
appointed by the governor on the recommendation of 
the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees 
charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys- 
tem, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held 
by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the 
county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the Gener- 
al Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of 



Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au- 
thorized three superior court judges and created judi- 
cial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the 
court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys- 
tem much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as 
there had been little distinction in terminology between 
General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolu- 
tion, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court 
were also interchangeable during the period immediate- 
ly following the Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler 
and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con- 
flicting judge opinions, and insufficient number of 
judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as 
problems, although the greatest weakness was consid- 
ered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court or Con- 
ference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made perma- 
nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to 
put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in 
court. The Court of Conference was changed in name 
to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear 
appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English 
legal system, however, there was still no conception of 
an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals 
from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis- 
tricts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 
1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme 
Court was created for review of cases decided at the 
Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the 
State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the 
six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constitut- 
ing a quorum as before. 

The County court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency 
of local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make 
it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary 
holdover from the English legal arrangement - the 
distinction between law and equity proceedings — was 
abolished. The County Court's control of local govern- 
ment was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to 
murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution 
stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to sat- 
isfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus 
prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court 
was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in- 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



eluding the designation of the chief justice) and super- 
ior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken 
from the legislature and given to the voters, although 
vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the 
next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions 
— the County Court of which three justices of the 
peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judi- 
cial responsibilities were divided between the Superior 
Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who 
were retained as separate judicial officers with limited 
jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme 
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges 
to nine. The General Assembly was given the power to 
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. 
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War 
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc- 
ture it had established continued without systematic 
modification through more than half of the 20th cen- 
tury. (A further constitutional amendment approved by 
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme 
Court membership to five, and the number of superior 
court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time 
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. 
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the 
court system was most evident at the lower, local court 
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by 
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and 
jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme 
Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior 
court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu- 
tory courts of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of 
the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divid- 
ed into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts. 
The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the 
counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the 
State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of 
probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county 
official. There were specialized branches of superior 
court in some counties for matters like domestic rela- 
tions and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher 
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder- 
type courts. Among these were the county recorder's 
courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re- 
corder's courts; the general county courts, county crim- 



inal courts and special county courts; the domestic 
relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these 
had been established individually by special legislative 
acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been 
created by general law across the State since 1919. 
About half were county courts and half were city or 
township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors 
(mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and 
sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually 
part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. 
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi- 
lar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties 
up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the 
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These 
court officials were compensated by the fees they exact- 
ed, and they provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi- 
sion of the court system received the attention and sup- 
port of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who 
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar 
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com- 
mittee was established as an agency of the North Caro- 
lina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its 
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A 
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked 
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report 
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur- 
ing of an all-inclusive court system which would be 
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization 
throughout the State and centralized in its administra- 
tion. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and 
unified structure. A particularly important part of the 
proposal was the elimination of the local statutory 
courts and their replacement by a single District Court; 
the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, 
and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would 
function within the District Court as a subordinate ju- 
dicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were 
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The 
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular 
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem- 
bly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by 
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their 
courts had been incorporated into the new system, 
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name, 
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 
20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide 
"court," with components for various types and levels 
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 
17th Century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin- 
ued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide 
for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It 
was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme 
Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom- 



mendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for 
the selection of judges, persistent efforts have been 
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of 
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint 
judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by 
popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments 
have received the backing of a majority of the members 
of each house, but not the three-fifths required to sub- 
mit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. 
It seems likely that this significant issue will be before 
the General Assembly again for consideration. 



Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp. P. An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). I North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



, , 

Recommendations 
from Judicial ^- 

Standards Commission! 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felony cases; civil 
cases in excess of $5,000 



, , 

Decisions of 

most administrative 

agencies 





COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



SUPERIOR COURTS 

66 Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, adoptions, 
partitions, foreclosures, 
etc.) 



civil cases 



criminal cases 
(lor trial de novo) 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

136 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



Magistrates 

(598) 



s^-. i Decisions of Utilities 
'c/. Commission, Industrial 



Commission, State Bar, 



. Property Tax Commi 
Commissioner of Inst 



surance i 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $5,000 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas; worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or less; 
small claims $800 or less 



(1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con- 
stitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re- 
view Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or 
life imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. 
In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the 
trial courts in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



10 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti- 
tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdic- 
tion, operation, and administration, and shall consist 
of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, 
and a District Court Division.'" 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the su- 
perior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of 
the 100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped 
into judicial districts (33 at the present time), and one 
or more superior court judges are elected for each of 
the judicial districts. A clerk of the superior court for 
each county is elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the dis- 
trict courts. The General Assembly is authorized to 
divide the State into a convenient number of local 
court districts and prescribe where the district courts 
shall sit, but district court must sit in at least one place 
in each county. The General Assembly has provided 
that districts for purposes of the district court are co- 
terminous with superior court judicial districts. The 
Constitution also provides for one or more magistrates 
to be appointed in each county "who shall be officers 
of the district court. " 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department," stating that "The 
General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the 
judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that 
rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of 
the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any 
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The 
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial De- 
partment" are almost, but not quue, synonymous. It 
may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses 
all of the levels of court designated as the General 
Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary 
services within the Judicial Department. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal be- 
tween the several levels of court in North Carolina's 
system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the op- 
posite page. 



Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original ju- 
risdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor of- 
fenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empow- 
ered to accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and 
impose fines in accordance with a schedule set by the 
Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Most trials 
of misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also 
hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony 
cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. 



Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the dis- 
trict court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by 
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the su- 
perior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in 
life-imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are 
appealed to the Supreme Court), appeal from the su- 
perior courts is to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges 
of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate 
and estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction 
over such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, 
condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, 
and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed 
to the superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juve- 
nile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for 
involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and gen- 
eral civil cases where the amount in litigation is $5,000 
or less. If the amount in litigation is $800* or less and 
the plantiff in the case so requests, the chief district 
court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a 
magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to 
the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is avail- 
able in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of 
a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina 
Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount of litigation is 
more than $5,000. Appeals from decisions of most ad- 
ministrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any 
of the other courts of the General Court of Justice" 
(G.S. 7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory 
power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide 
certain Judicial Department officials with specific 
powers and responsibilities for the operation of the 
court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility 
for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the 
appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial 
courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of 
the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief 
Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the ses- 
sions of the Court of Appeals. 



* Increased from $500 effective October 1 , 1979 (G.S. 7A-2 10). 



11 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; 
this Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of su- 
perior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 
Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge 
for each of the State's 33 judicial districts from among 
the elected district court judges of the respective dis- 
tricts. These judges have special responsibilities for the 
scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts 
within their respective districts, as well as general local- 
level administrative responsibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsi- 
ble for direction of the non-judicial, administrative and 
business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included 
among its functions are fiscal management, personnel 
direction, information and statistical services, supervi- 



sion of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, 
liaison with the legislative and executive departments of 
government, court facility evaluation, purchase and 
contract, education and training, coordination of the 
program for provision of legal counsel to indigent per- 
sons, juvenile probation and after-care, trial court ad- 
ministrator services, planning, and general administra- 
tive services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as 
clerk for both the superior and district courts. Through 
1979-80, the clerk also served as chairman of the 
county's calendar committee, which set the civil case 
calendars. Effective July 1, 1980, these committees have 
been eliminated; in the future, day-to-day calendaring 
of civil cases will be done by the clerk of superior court 
or by a "trial court administrator" in some districts, 
under the direct supervision of the senior resident supe- 
rior court judge and chief district court judge. The 
criminal case calendars in both superior and district 
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective 
district. 



12 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 



CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



I 

2 

i 



(33) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



± 



(33) District 
Attorneys 



X 




(33) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court 
judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at 
the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 33 judicial districts from the 
judges elected in the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge 
and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their re- 
spective courts. 

6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record- 
keeping functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the su- 
pervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees 
submitted by the clerk of superior court. 



13 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 1 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 



Associate Justices 



J. FRANK HUSKINS 

J. WILLIAM COPELAND 

JAMES G.EXUM, JR. 



DAVID M.BRITT 

WALTER E. BROCK 

J. PHIL CARLTON 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



J. WILLPLESS,JR. 
CARLISLE W.HIGGINS 2 



I. BEVERLY LAKE 
DANK. MOORE 



Clerk 
John R. Morgan 

Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



'As of 30 June 1980. 
2 Deceased 9 October 



980. 



14 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The 
Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to 
eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms 
of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term com- 
mencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall 
Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. 
The Court sits only en banc. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original jurisdiction exercised by the Su- 
preme Court is over the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judi- 
cial Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jur- 
isdiction includes: 

— cases on appeal by right from the Court of Ap- 
peals (Utilities Commission general rate-setting 
cases, cases involving substantial constitutional 
questions, and cases in which there has been dis- 
sent in the Court of Appeals); 

— criminal cases on appeal by right from the supe- 
rior courts (cases in which the defendant has been 
sentenced to death or life imprisonment); 

— civil cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases involving the involuntary annexa- 
tion of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or 
more population); and 

— cases in which review has been granted in the Su- 
preme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of 
the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious ad- 
ministration of justice requires it. Most appeals are 
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power 
to prescribe the rules of practice for the Appellate Divi- 
sion and supplementary rules of practice and procedure 
for the trial court divisions consistent with the rules 



prescribed by the General Assembly. The schedule of 
superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved, 
yearly, by the Supreme Court. The members of the 
North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee are ap- 
pointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Supreme 
Court, as are the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Li- 
brarian of the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Divi- 
sion Reporter. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
an Assistant Director, who serve at his pleasure. He 
also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of 
the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge 
from among the judges in each of the State's 33 judicial 
districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regular- 
ly rotate from district to district, to the scheduled ses- 
sions of superior court in the 100 counties, and is also 
empowered to transfer district court judges to other 
districts for temporary or specialized duty. The Chief 
Justice (or another member of the Supreme Court des- 
ignated by him) is the chairman of the Judicial Council, 
and two superior court judges, one district court judge 
and two district attorneys are appointed to two-year 
terms on the Council by the Chief Justice. He also ap- 
points three of the seven members of the Judicial 
Standards Commission — a judge of the Court of Ap- 
peals who serves as the Commission's chairman, one 
superior court judge and one district court judge. 

Operations of the Court, 1979-80 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1979-80 fiscal year amounted to $1,185,967, an increase 
of one percent over total 1978-79 expenditures of 
$1,173,674. Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 
1979-80 constituted 1.7% of all General Fund expendi- 
tures for the operation of the entire Judicial Depart- 
ment during the fiscal year. 

A total of 262 appealed cases were before the Su- 
preme Court during the Fall 1979 and Spring 1980 
terms. A total of 193 cases were decided (with pub- 
lished opinions). The remainder were either withdrawn 
by the appellates, dismissed, or were still pending in the 
Court at the end of the Spring 1980 term. A detailed 
breakdown of this caseload is included in the tables on 
the following page. 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



Supreme Court Caseload Inventory* 
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 

Cases undecided and brought forward from Spring 1979 term 
Cases unheard and brought forward from Spring 1979 term 
Cases filed during Fall 1979 term 
Cases filed during Spring 1980 term 
Caseload for 1979-80 year 

Cases withdrawn or dismissed 
Cases decided during Fall 1979 term 
Cases decided during Spring 1980 term 
Cases carried forward to Fall 1980 term 



6 

13 
123 
120 
262 

19 

84 

109 

24 



* Beginning and end pending figures do not balance when cases filed and disposed of during the reporting period are taken into account. 
During the past several terms the Court underwent a period of experimentation and evaluation in its method of statistical reporting, including 
changes in the classification of cases. These classification changes, coupled with summary (one-time, cumulative) counting, appear to have in- 
troduced some double counting into the caseload inventory figures. Limited resources prevented a total case-by-case examination to isolate the 
error factor. On the other hand, the new classification and counting structure is designed to improve the long-term accuracy and comprehen- 
siveness of reported statistics, and future reporting periods should not encounter difficulty in reconciling beginning and end pending caseload 
figures. 



Cases Filed In The Supreme Court 
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 

CIVIL CASES 



Appeals as of right 

Dissent in the Court of Appeals 
Annexation by municipality of 5,000 or more 
population 

Requests to appeal granted 

Substantial constitutional question 

Petition for discretionary review of decision of 

Court of Appeals, allowed 
Petition for discretionary review prior to 

determination by Court of Appeals, allowed 
Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed 
Certified to U.S. Supreme Court 

CRIMINAL CASES 

Appeals as of right 

Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 
Defendant sentenced to death 
Dissent in the Court of Appeals 

Requests to appeal granted 

Substantial constitutional question 

Petition for discretionary review of decision of 

Court of Appeals, allowed 
Petition for discretionary review prior to 

determination by Court of Appeals, allowed 
Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed 
Defendant sentenced to less than life imprisonment 

(transferred to Court of Appeals) 



38 



37 



96 

12 

7 



Manner Of Disposition Of Cases 

In The Supreme Court 

September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 

Opinions rendered, civil 87 

Opinions rendered, criminal 106 

Total opinions rendered 193 



Affirmed 

Reversed 

Reversed and remanded 

Remanded 

Granted/denied 

Dismissed/ withdrawn/settled 



106 

4^ 

22 

15 

0/1 

19 



TOTAL 



243 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 
F 

C 

A 
S 
E 

S 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 
Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered in the Supreme Court 



400 



300 _ 



200 



100 _ 



H 



Appeals Docketed 
Opinions Rendered 



1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



The number of opinions written by the Supreme Court 
during the 1979-80 year shows a substantial increase over 
the number written in previous years. Of the 193 opi- 



nions written during the last year, 54.9% of these affir- 
med the decision of a lower court; 25.4% were reversals. 



17 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 
The Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court's workload also includes petitions quests to appeal. The total of 6 1 7 petitions docketed is an 

requesting discretionary review or certiorari and peti- increase of 24% over the total of 499 such petitions in the 

tions for issuance of other remedial writs. A total of 617 previous two terms (Fall 1978 and Spring 1979) and of 

such petitions were before the Court in the Fall 1979 and 81% over the Fall 1977 and Spring 1978 total of 341 

Spring 1980 terms; the vast majority of these were re- petitions. 



Petitions Filed In The Supreme Court 
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 

Requests to Appeal 

CIVIL CASES 

Petitions for discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals 282 

Petitions for discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 1 3 

Petitions for writ of certiorari 20 

Applications for further review 49 

Civil Case Total 364 

CRIMINAL CASES 

Petitions for discretionary review of Court of Appeals 112 

Petitions for discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 2 

Petitions for writ of certiorari 118 

Petitions for writ of habeas corpus 8 

Criminal Case Total 240 

Total Requests to Appeal 604 

Petitions for Other Writs 13 

TOTAL 617 

Other motions considered 1 67 



IX 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 

F 

C 

A 

S 
E 

S 



Petitions Docketed and Allowed 
In the Supreme Court 



800 



600 



400 . 



200 



H 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 




1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



The number of petitions graphed here includes request to 
appeal cases as well as extraordinary writs. The 72 peti- 
tions allowed during the 1979-80 year included 60 for dis- 



cretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 
eight for discretionary review prior to a decision of the 
Court of Appeals, and four for certiorari. 



19 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 



Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



Judges 



FRANK M.PARKER 1 
R.A.HEDRICK 
EARL W.VAUGHN 
ROBERT M.MARTIN 
EDWARD B.CLARK 
GERALD ARNOLD 



JOHN WEBB 

RICHARD C.ERWIN 

HARRY C.MARTIN 

HUGH A. WELLS 

CECIL J. HILL 



Retired Judge 
HUGH B. CAMPBELL 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



*Asof30June 1980. 

'Retired 31 August 1980. Judge Willis P. Whichard was appointed to the Court effective September 2, 1980. 



20 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regu- 
lar or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are 
elected by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief 
Judge for the Court is designated by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Justice responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal num- 
ber of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge 
presides over the panel of which he or she is a member 
and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of 
Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio 
member of the Judicial Council. One member of the 
Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. 



Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The 
Court also hears appeals directly from any final order 
or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis- 
sion, the Industrial Commission, and from certain final 
orders or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar 
and the Commissioner of Insurance. Effective Septem- 
ber 1, 1979, appeals from certain final orders or deci- 
sions of the Property Tax Commission go directly to 
the Court of Appeals. (Appeals from the decisions of 
other administrative agencies lie first within the juris- 
diction of the superior courts.) 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from of- 
fice a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) 
recommendation would be considered by the Chief 
Judge and the six judges next senior in service on the 
Court of Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as 
the Commission's chairman). Such seven-member pan- 
el would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Com- 
mission's recommendation. 

Expenses of the Court, 1979-80 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during 
the 1979-80 fiscal year totalled $1,641,918, an increase 
of 10.5% over 1978-79 expenditures of $1,485,877. Ex- 
penditures for the Court of Appeals during 1979-80 
amounted to 2.3% of all General Fund expenditures for 
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the 
fiscal year. This percentage share of the total is virtual- 
ly identical to the Court of Appeals' percentage share 
of the Judicial Department total in the 1978-79 fiscal 
year. 

Case Data, Calendar Year 1979 

A total of 1,204 appealed cases were before the Court 
of Appeals during calendar year 1979. A total of 1,190 
cases were disposed during the same period. A detailed 
breakdown of this caseload is included in the tables on 
the following pages. 

The Court of Appeals' workload for 1979 also in- 
cluded 532 petitions of all types; of these, requests for 
extraordinary remedies (prerogative writs) make up the 
vast majority. 

The recent trend in filings and dispositions by the 
Court of Appeals is illustrated in the following graph. In 
reviewing the data, it should be noted that the number 
of judges on the Court was raised from nine to twelve by 
the 1977 General Assembly; the three judges appointed 
to these new positions took office in December of 1977 
and January of 1978. 



21 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



Filings and Dispositions in the Court 
of Appeals 1977-1979 



3000 



2500 . 



2000 - 



1500 _ 



1000 



500 . 




1977 



1978 



1979 



Filings and dispositions in the Court of Appeals, as 
graphed here, include appeal cases and petitions filed 
and disposed. The noticeable increase in filings and dis- 
positons in 1979 is explained almost entirely by an in- 
crease in the number of petitions filed and disposed. 



This increase does not necessarily indicate that more re- 
quests to appeal are entering the court, however, since 
the term "petitions" in this instance includes all peti- 
tions regardless of type. 



22 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 

Filings And Dispositions In The Court Of Appeals 
January 1 — December 31, 1979 

Filings Dispositions 
Cases on appeal 

Civil cases appealed from District Courts 

Civil cases appealed from Superior Courts 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 

Criminal cases appealed from Superior Courts 
TOTAL 

Petitions 

Allowed 
Remanded 
Denied 
Other 

TOTAL 
TOTAL CASES ON APPEAL AND PETITIONS 

Motions 

Allowed 
Remanded 
Denied 
TOTAL 



223 




439 




47 




495 




1,204 


1,190 




54 




6 




400 
1 


532 


1 

461 


1,736 


1,651 




818 




3 




207 


1,183 


1,028 



23 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 
January 1 — December 31, 1979 



Cases Filed 



District 

1 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 

7 



9 

10 

11 

12 
13 

14 

15 A/B* 
16 

17 
18 
19 A/B* 

20 

21 
22 
23 

24 
25 
26 

27 A/B* 
28 
29 
30 
Total 



Appeals from 
District Courts 

5 

2 
5 
6 

7 

2 

3 

12 

10 

II 

8 

10 

5 
6 
6 

3 

7 
14 

7 

4 
17 

2 

5 

I 

6 

20 

7 

12 

5 

6 

223 



Appeals from Superior Courts 
Civil Criminal 



19 
10 
9 
12 
II 
16 

4 
64 
II 

7 

4 
15 
18 

4 

6 

20 
16 

IX 
22 
II 
20 

6 

16 

38 
12 
14 
13 
7 
439 



10 
13 
18 
22 
18 
7 
17 
25 

9 

24 

7 

46 

3 

10 
21 
12 

17 
31 
15 
19 
26 
7 
1 I 

9 

15 
42 
18 

9 
12 

2 
495 



Other 


Total 


Cases 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed of 





23 


31 





23 


13 





42 


39 





38 


36 





34 


31 





21 


22 





31 


31 





53 


43 





23 


25 


47 


146 


139 





26 


21 





63 


46 





12 


19 





31 


45 





45 


38 





19 


24 





30 


25 





65 


74 





38 


39 





41 


41 





65 


63 





20 


27 





36 


30 





16 


14 





37 


48 





109 


117 





37 


35 





35 


34 





30 


22 





15 


18 


47 


1,204 


1,190 



*Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate 
figures for these districts were not available. 



24 



INVENTORY OF PETITIONS AND MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

January 1 —- December 31, 1979 























All Petitions 








Petitions 






Motions 




Other 


and Motions 


District 


Filed 


Allowed 


Denied 


Remanded 


Filed 


Allowed 


Denied 


Remanded 




Filed 


Disposed of 


1 


15 


3 


9 


1 


19 


13 


3 





1 


34 


30 


2 


4 





4 





27 


19 


4 








31 


27 


3 


17 





12 





51 


29 


11 








68 


52 


4 


20 





18 





31 


26 


4 








51 


4X 


5 


26 


2 


18 


1 


39 


24 


8 








65 


53 


6 


13 





12 


1 


32 


25 


7 








45 


45 


7 


17 





16 





35 


27 


4 








52 


47 


8 


18 


2 


15 


9 


24 


15 


5 








42 


38 


9 


12 


2 


8 





31 


23 


5 








43 


38 


10 


63 


11 


40 





148 


108 


22 








211 


181 


II 


4 


2 


2 





29 


15 


8 








33 


27 


12 


29 


3 


24 


(J 


41 


26 


10 


I 





70 


64 


13 


8 





6 





10 


9 


1 








18 


16 


14 


22 


2 


18 


1 


57 


37 


13 








79 


71 


15 A/B* 


9 


2 


5 





4S 


32 


II 








57 


50 


16 


20 


2 


17 





21 


17 


2 


1 





41 


39 


17 


13 


2 


10 





26 


22 


4 








39 


38 


18 


30 


6 


20 


1 


76 


51 


II 








106 


89 


19 A/B* 


17 


3 


10 


1 


22 


14 


5 








39 


33 


20 


27 


2 


24 





23 


14 


6 








50 


46 


21 


18 


2 


14 





57 


40 


12 








75 


68 


22 


14 


1 


11 





17 


13 


2 








31 


27 


23 


5 





5 





32 


27 


2 








37 


34 


24 


9 


1 


7 





22 


15 


6 








31 


29 


25 


14 





13 





44 


30 


9 








58 


52 


26 


50 


1 


37 





107 


67 


16 


1 





157 


122 


27 A/B* 


11 


1 


6 





21 


18 


2 








32 


27 


28 


8 


1 


5 





39 


23 


8 








47 


37 


29 


15 


2 


11 





35 


25 


3 








50 


41 


30 


4 


1 


3 





19 


13 


3 








23 


20 



Totals 532 



54 



400 



1,183 



818 



207 



1,715 



1,489 



*Combined totals for Districts 15A and I5B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate 
figures for these districts were not available. 



25 



H 

>< 

H 

O 

u 

H 
Z 

u 
■/: 

Ead 

r- 



B 



-a 

B 

i/i 

5 
H 
•3 

3 

53 

.5 

"o 

u 



8_ 
S 




« 


cs 


j>> 




C 
O 


X3 


15 








3 




m 


5 


</) 




> 


3 




-o 


u 


U 


C 




IH 


r3 




i- 


4-» 


y^ 


3 


aa 


E« 


X) 


O 


•3 


U 


i — 




Oil 


a 


-o 


o 


3 


c 


^^ 




o 


Bj 


u 


l— 


i— 




U5 


3 

o 


'3 


i— 


-5 


-J 


4-1 


^ 


E 


U 


c 


-o 


o 


u- 


J= 




l— 








<— 


t« 


"i 

as 

c 




u 

r3 


Q 


-5 

3 


O 


u 

-o 




« 


Cfl 


3 


m 


3J 


1) 


O 


m 


Oil 


lx 


'J 


o 


X) 
3 




c 


_g 


' ' i 


_C 












u- 




1— 


"O 


3 


_C 


3 


OJ 


O 


o 


O 


-o 


O 


1c 


u 


> 




& 


-o 








-o 


c 


c 


o 




3J 




-C 


us 


Q. 

3 


c 


o 




i— 


Cfl 


TD 




ed 


> 


o 


00 






c 




3 


TD 


Oil 


U 


Oil 






f- 


u 


aj 


m 


H 


ftj 


-C 


m 

71 



26 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 
(As of June 30, 1980) 



FIRST DIVISION 



District 

1 

2 
3 



J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 

Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston 

Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville 
David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 

Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 



8 R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive 
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

SECOND DIVISION 

9 Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 

10 James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 

A. Pilston Goodwin, Jr., Raleigh 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 

1 1 Harry E. Canaday, Benson 

12 E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
D.B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 

13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
John C. Martin, Durham 

15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

15B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 

16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17 James M. Long, Yanceyville 

18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro 
W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 

19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

19B Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 

20 John D. McConnell, Southern Pines 
F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 

21 Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem 
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
Peter W. Hairston, Advance 

23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilksboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 

25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
(Vacant) 1 

26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 

27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 (Vacant) 3 

30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster 



* In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 

1 Judge Sam J. Ervin, III, of Morganton, resigned this seat effective May 30, 1980; Claude S. Sitton, of Morganton, was appointed to suceed 
him effective September 3, 1980. 

2 Judge J. W. Jackson, of Hendersonville, retired on June 1, 1980; Hollis M. Owens, Jr., of Rutherfordton, was appointed to succeed him effec- 
tive July 31, 1980. 



27 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

Clarence P. Cornelius, Mooresville Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville 

Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem Harry L. Riddle, Jr., Morganton 

John R. Jolly, Rocky Mount Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Albert W. Cowper, Kinston 
Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg 



28 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are principally 
original-jurisdiction trial courts which also perform 
some appellate functions. In 1979-80 there were 58 "resi- 
dent" superior court judges elected to office in the 33 
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide 
ballot, and eight "special" superior court judges ap- 
pointed to office by the Governor for four-year terms. 

Jurisdiction 

The superior court has original jurisdiction in all 
felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which 
originate by grand jury indictment. (Most mis- 
demeanors are tried first in the district court, from 
which they may be appealed to the superior court for 
trial de novo by a jury. No trial by jury is available for 
criminal cases in district court.) The superior court is the 
proper court for trial of civil cases where the amount in 
controversy exceeds $5,000, and it has jurisdiction over 
appeals from all administrative agencies except the 
Utilities Commission, Industrial Commission, certain 
rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board of 
Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar, and the Property 
Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie di- 
rectly to the Court of Appeals. Regardless of the 
amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of 
the superior court does not include domestic relations 
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate 
and estates matter and certain special proceedings heard 
first by the clerk of superior court as ex officio judge of 
probate. Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate 
jurisdiction of the superior court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina are grouped into 
33 judicial districts at the present time. Each district has 
at least one resident superior court judge who has cer- 
tain administrative responsibilities for his home district, 
such as providing for civil case-calendaring procedures. 
(Criminal case calendars are prepared by the district at- 
torneys.) In districts with more than one resident supe- 
rior court judge, the judge senior in service on the supe- 
rior court bench exercises these supervisory powers. 

The 33 judicial districts are grouped into four divi- 
sions for the rotation of superior court judges, as 
shown on the map on page 26. Within his division, a 
resident superior court judge is required to rotate 



through the judicial districts, holding court for at least 
six months in each, then moving on to his next assign- 
ment. A special superior court judge may be assigned 
to hold court in any of the 100 counties. Assignments 
of all superior court judges are made by the Chief Jus- 
tice of the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution of 
North Carolina, at least two sessions (a week each) of 
superior court are held annually in each of the 100 
counties. The vast majority of counties have more than 
the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of superior 
court annually. Many larger counties have superior 
court in session about every week in the year. 

Resources 

A total of $14,042, 696 was expended for operation of 
the superior courts during the 1979-80 fiscal year, an in- 
crease of 13.5% over 1978-79 expenditures of $12,377,- 
669. This total includes expenditures for the State's dis- 
trict attorneys' offices as well as the salaries and 
operating expenses of the 66 superior courts judges, 
court reporters in the superior courts, and staff support. 
The 1979-80 total amounted to 19.8% of the General 
Fund expenditures for operating expenses of the entire 
Judicial Department. This percentage share of the total 
is virtually identical to the superior courts' percentage 
share of the Judicial Department total in the previous 
year. 

1979-80 Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 
74,899 cases were filed in the superior courts from July 
1, 1979 through June 30, 1980. Comparisons of this 
year's total with those in previous Annual Reports indi- 
cate that superior court case filings have been increasing 
in recent years. The 1979-80 total is 9.1% higher than the 
total of 68,625 cases filed during 1978-79. 

Superior court case dispositions increased also, al- 
though the number of cases disposed of in 1979-80 — a 
total of 72,983 civil and criminal cases — did not equal 
the number filed. As a result there was an increase in the 
number of cases pending, from 31,356 as of the first of 
the fiscal year to 33,272 as of the last of the year. This 
represents an increase of 6.1%. 

Additional, and more detailed, information on the 
flow of cases through the superior courts is included in 
Part IV of this report. 



29 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Superior Courts 



Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department 
sponsored the following educational activities for 
superior court judges in 1979-80: 

• three orientation sessions for new special superior 
court judges, July 27-28, August 3-4, and Septem- 
ber 7-8, in Chapel Hill, attended by 7 new judges; 

• the Fall Continuing Education Conference, Sep- 
tember 28-29, 1979 in Wilmington, attended by 50 
judges; 



• the Spring Seminar, February 21-23, 1980 in 
Pinehurst, attended by 48 judges; and 

• the annual meeting of the Conference of Superior 
Court Judges, June 22-25 in Wrightsville Beach, at- 
tended by 58 judges. 

Grant Funds also were used to sponsor court reporter 
attendance at a North Carolina Shorthand Reporters 
Association seminar that was held in Fayetteville on 
February 16, 1980. A total of 30 superior court reporters 
attended this training session. 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1980) 

John D. McConnell, Southern Pines, President 

J.W. Jackson, Hendersonville, P resident-Elect 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, Vice President 

F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill, Secretary-Treasurer 

Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro, and 
D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington, 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



30 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 

(As of June 30, 1980) 



District 



1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
Charles H. Manning, Williamston 

3 Charles H. Whedbee, Greenville 
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 
Norris C. Reed, Jr., New Bern 

James E. Regan, Oriental 
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
James N. Martin, Kenansville 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Carter T. Lambeth, Wilminton 
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington 
John M. Walker, Wilmington 

6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 

James E. Ezzell, Rocky Mount 

Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 

Tom H. Matthews, Rocky Mount 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Joseph E. Setzer, Goldsboro 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 

Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
John Hill Parker, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 



District 

11 



12 



Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield 

Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville 
Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 

Frank T. Grady, Elizabethtown 
J. Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville 
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte 
William E. Wood, Whiteville 

J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Karen B. Galloway, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 



15A J.B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 

Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burlington 
W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 



13 



14 



16 



17 



John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

Leonard H. vanNoppen, Danbury 
Foy Clark, Mount Airy 
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 
Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 



Robert L. Cecil, Hig 
Elreta M. Alexander 
Frank A. Campbell, 
John B. Hatfield, Jr. 
James Samuel Pfaff, 
Joseph A. Williams, 
John F. Yeattes, Jr., 
(Vacant) 1 



h Point 

, Greensboro 

Greensboro 

, Greensboro 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 



19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
L. Frank Faggart, Kannapolis 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 



The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 

Judge B. Gordon Gentry, of Greensboro, retired on April 30, 1980; Joseph R. John, of Greensboro, was appointed to succeed him effective 
July 2, 1980. 



31 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1980) 



District 

19B L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
William H. Heafner, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe 
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 
Hubert E. Olive, Jr., Lexington 

23 Ralph Davis, North Wilkesboro 
John T. Kilby, Jefferson 
Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 

24 J. Ray Braswell, Newland 
Robert H. Lacey, Newland 

25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory 
Bill J. Martin, Hickory 

L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 

* The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



District 

26 



Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 
Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte 
Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte 



27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 
George W. Hamrick, Shelby 

28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr. Arden 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 

29 Robert C. Cash, Brevard 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville 
John J Snow, Jr., Murphy 



32 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 
136 district court judges serving in 33 judicial districts 
during 1979-80, elected to four-year terms by the voters 
of their respective districts. 

A total of 598 magistrate positions (some part-time) 
were authorized in 1979-80. Magistrates are appointed 
by the senior resident superior court judge from 
nominations submitted by the clerk of superior court of 
their county, and they are supervised by the chief district 
court judge of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to vir- 
tually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in 
most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary 
commitments and re-commitments to mental hospitals, 
domestic relations cases, and to general civil cases where 
the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less. Upon the 
plaintiff's request, a civil case where the amount in con- 
troversy is $800* or less may be denominated a "small 
claims" case and assigned by the chief district court 
judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are also 
empowered to try worthless check criminal cases when 
the value of the check does not exceed $400** and the 
offender has fewer than four previous worthless check 
convictions; magistrates may also accept waivers of ap- 
pearance and pleas of guilty in certain traffic cases. 
Magistrates conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of 
release for arrested offenders, and are empowered to 
issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub- 
ject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief 
judge exercises administrative supervision and authori- 
ty over the operation of the district courts and 
magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is responsi- 
ble for: scheduling sessions of district court and assign- 
ing judges; supervising the calendaring of civil cases; 
assigning matters to magistrates; making arrangements 
for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and 
supervising the discharge of clerical functions, in the dis- 
trict courts, of the clerks of superior court of the district. 

The 33 chief district court judges meet in conference 
at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual 



conference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses 
and fines for their violation for use by magistrates and 
clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of ap- 
pearance and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1980) 

John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, Chairman 
James O. Israel, Jr., Candler, Vice Chairman 



Resources 

A total of $14,269,622 was expended for operating ex- 
penses of the district courts in 1979-80, an increase of 
twelve percent over 1978-79 expenditures of 
$12,745,520. Included in the total are expenses of court 
reporters for district courts as well as personnel costs of 
district court judges and magistrates. The 1979-80 total 
is 20. 1% of the General Fund expenditures for operation 
of the entire Judicial Department. This is approximately 
equal to the district courts percentage share of the total 
Judicial Department expenditures for the previous fiscal 
year. 



1979-80 Caseload 

Including most civil and all criminal cases, a total of 
1,458,647 cases were filed in the district courts from July 
1, 1979 through June 30, 1980. This total is 1.8% higher 
than 1978-79 filings of 1,432,067 cases. The relatively 
small increase in the combined (civil and criminal) figure 
results from a sharp increase in district court civil case 
filings (315,867 cases in 1979-80 -- 13.0% above the 
1978-79 total of 279,548 cases) which is offset in part by 
a decline in filings of district court criminal cases (from 
1,152,519 cases filed in 1978-79 to 1,142,780 in 1979-80). 

Total district court dispositions in 1979-80 (1,415,924 
cases) lagged slightly behind the filings total, with the 
result that the number of cases pending rose over the 
course of the year. A total of 243,039 cases were pending 
on June 30, 1980. This is an increase of 21.3% over the 
number pending at the end of the previous year. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this Report. 



* Increased from $500, effective October 1, 1979. 
** Increased from $300, effective October 1, 1979 



33 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The District Courts 



Educational Activity 



Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department 
sponsored the following educational activities for dis- 
trict court judges in 1979-80: 

• two orientation sessions for new judges, August 31- 
September 1 and September 21-22 at the Institute of 
Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 5 new 
judges; 

• a course on Juvenile Code revision and communi- 
ty-based alternatives,, September 14-15, 1979 in 
Chapel Hill, attended by 37 judges; 

• the district judges' Fall Seminar, November 2-3 in 
Asheville, attended by 97 judges; 

• two orientation sessions for new judges, November 
30-December 1 and January 19 at the Institute of 
Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 6 new 
judges; and 

• the Summer Seminar of the Association of District 
Court Judges, June 22-25 in Southern Pines, at- 
tended by 77 judges. 



Grant funds were also used to sponsor court reporters 
attending the North Carolina Shorthand Reporters 
Association seminar that was held in Fayetteville on 
February , 1980. A total of 6 district court reporters at- 
tended this session. 

By statute, new magistrates are required to satisfac- 
torily complete a course of basic training of at least 40 
hours within six months of taking office. Two sessions 
of this course were offered at the institute of Govern- 
ment in Chapel Hill in 1979-80. The first (July 23-27 and 
August 6-10) was attended by 34 new magistrates; the 
second (January 28-February 1 and February 4-8) was 
attended by 29 new magistrates. 

The Judicial Department also sponsored five refresh- 
er course sessions for magistrates, September 10-11 in 
Chapel Hill (107 magistrates), September 12-13 in 
Chapel Hill (65 magistrates), October 8-10 in Fontana 
Village (91 magistrates), October 15 in Charlotte (18 
magistrates), and October 25-26 in Kinston (67 
magistrates). 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1980) 

George F. Bason, Raleigh, President 

Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte, Vice President 
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton, Secretary- 
Treasurer 

George Britt, Tarboro, 

William G. Pearson, II, Durham, and 

Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton, 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



34 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 
(As of June 30, 1980) 



District 

1 THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City 

2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston 

3 ELI BLOOM, Greenville 

4 WILLIAM H.ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 W.ALLEN COBB, Wilmington 

6 W. H.S. BURGWYN, JR., Woodland 

7 HOWARDS. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

11 JOHNW.TWISDALE,Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 LEEJ.GREER,Whiteville* 

14 DAN K.EDWARDS, JR., Durham 
15A HERBERT F.PIERCE, Graham 
15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17 FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Reidsville 

18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro 
19A JAMES E.ROBERTS, Concord 

19B RUSSELL G.WALKER, JR., Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K.TISDALE, Winston-Salem 

22 H.W.ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 CLYDE M. ROBERTS, Marshall 

25 DONALD E.GREENE, Newton 

26 PETER S.GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 

29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



35 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into prosecutorial districts which 
correspond to its judicial districts, and a district attor- 
ney is elected by the voters of each of the 33 districts for 
four-year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all 
criminal actions brought in the superior and district 
courts in his district. In addition to his prosecutorial 
functions, the district attorney is responsible for calen- 
daring criminal cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ, on a 
full-time basis, the number of assistant district attorneys 
specified by statute for his district. As of June 30, 1980, a 
total of 197 assistant district attorneys were authorized 
for the 33 districts. The district attorney of District 26 
(Mecklenbury County) had the largest staff — 19 assis- 
tants - - and the district attorney of District 24 the 
smallest — two assistants. 

Each district attorney is also authorized to employ, on 
a full-time basis, an administrative assistant to assist in 
preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal 
court docket. The district attorney in 19 of the 33 dis- 
tricts is empowered to employ an investigative assistant, 
to aid in the investigation of cases preparatory to trial. 

1979-80 Caseload 

A total of 61,824 criminal cases were filed in superior 
courts from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980; 36,830 
of these cases were felonies and 24,994 were mis- 
demeanors on appeal from district courts. Combined 
with the 17,000 cases pending on July 1, 1979, the dis- 
trict attorneys' superior court caseload for the year 



totalled 78,824 cases. Of these, a total of 61,216 cases 
(36,169 felonies and 25,047 misdemeanor appeals) were 
disposed of, 77.7% of the caseload. Still pending in 
superior courts on June 30, 1980 were 17,608 cases (10,- 
803 felonies and 6,805 misdemeanor appeals), which is 
an increase of 3.6% over the number pending on July 1, 
1979.* 

In district courts, a total of 1,142,780 criminal cases 
were filed during 1979-80 (777,264 motor vehicle cases 
and 365,516 other criminal cases). The total is virtually 
identical to the 1978-79 total of 1,152,519 criminal cases 
filed, the result of a slight decrease in motor vehicle case 
filings that was nearly offset by an increase in other 
criminal case filings. A total of 121,645 criminal cases 
were pending as of July 1, 1979; this figure, combined 
with cases filed during the year, totalled 1,264,425 cases 
to be handled in district court. This cannot be regarded 
as the district attorneys' ''caseload," however, since 
many district court criminal cases are disposed of by 
defendant's waiver of appearance and plea of guilty 
before a magistrate or clerk of superior court staff, and 
these cases do not require the district attorneys' atten- 
tion. A total of 495,642 cases were disposed of by waiver 
in 1979-80 (44.6% of all district court criminal case dis- 
positions), and an additional 28,813 cases which were 
filed in 1979-80 were disposed of by waiver after June 
30, 1980. When these are excluded, the district attor- 
ney's district court caseload for the year totalled 739,970 
cases. Of these, 614,883 cases were disposed of, 83.1% of 
the caseload. This percentage is very slightly above the 
comparable figure (82.5%) for 1978-79. As of June 30, 
1980, 153,900 criminal cases were pending in the district 
courts of the State, an increase of 26.5% over the num- 
ber pending on July 1, 1979.* 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
the superior and districts courts is included in Part IV of 
this Report. 



As noted in Part I, specific figures on cases pending at the end of the fiscal year may have to be revised as additional information is 
received from the 100 clerks of superior court offices. 



36 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The District Attorneys 



Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department 
sponsored the following educational activities for dis- 
trict attorneys and their staffs in 1979-80: 

• a conference for administrative assistants, Septem- 
ber 19-21 at the Institute of Government in Chapel 
Hill, attended by 21 administrative assistants, four 
witness-attendance coordinators, and one in- 
vestigator; 

• the Fall Conference of the District Attorneys 
Association, September 27-29 in Raleigh, attended 
by 22 district attorneys and 82 assistant district at- 
torneys; 



an orientation session for new prosecutors, October 
15-19 at the Institute of Government in Chapel 
Hill, attended by 30 new assistant district attorneys; 
the state-wide conference for juvenile court coun- 
selors and judges, November 4-5 in Asheville, was 
attended by six assistant district attorneys; 
a seminar on rape and sex offenses, March 18-21 in 
Chapel Hill, attended by four district attorneys and 
46 assistant district attorneys; and 
the June Conference of the District Attorneys 
Association, June 22-25 in Southern Pines, atten- 
ded by 13 district attorneys and 72 assistant district 
attorneys. 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1980) 

Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City, President 

Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton, Vice President 

Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro, Vice President, 
Legislative Affairs 

Ronald J. Bowers, Salisbury, Secretary-Treasurer 



37 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

(As of June 30, 1980) 



COUNTY 

Alamance 

Alexander 

Alleghany 

Anson 

Ashe 

Avery 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Buncombe 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Cherokee 

Chowan 

Clay 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Currituck 

Dare 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Graham 

Granville 

Greene 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Hyde 

Iredell 

Jackson 



CLERK OF COURT 

Louise B. Wilson 
Martha J. Adams 
Joan B. Atwood 
R. Frank Hightower 
Virginia W. Johnson 
Billy J. Vance 
Bessie J. Cherry 
Thomas S. Speight 
Smithy S. Harris 
K. Gregory Bellamy 
J. Ray Elingburg 
Major A. Joines 
Estus B. White 
Mary Hood Thompson 
Catherine W. McCoy 
Mary Austin 
J. P. Moore 
Eunice W. Mauney 
Janice Oldham 
Rose Mary Crooke 
Lena M. Leary 
Ralph A. Allison 
Ruth S. Dedmon 
Lacy R. Thompson 
Dorothy Pate 
George T. Griffin 
Wiley B. Elliot 
C. S. Meekins 
Hugh Shepherd 
Delores C. Jordan 
John A. Johnson 
James Leo Carr 
Curtis Weaver 
A. E. Blackburn 
Ralph S. Knott 
Betty B. Jenkins 
Tobe Daniels, Jr. 
O.W. Hooper, Jr. 
Mary Ruth C. Nelms 
Cleo W. McKeel 
Joseph E. Slate, Jr. 
J. C. Taylor 
Georgia Lee Brown 
William G. Henry 
Thomas H. Thompson 
Richard T. Vann 
Juanita Edmund 
W. Allen Credle 
Carl G. Smith 
Frank Watson, Jr. 



COUNTY 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

McDowell 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Perquimans 

Person 

Pitt 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

Transylvania 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R. Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Sion H.Kelly 
M. E. Creech 
Nellie L. Bess 
A. W. Perry 
James W. Cody 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B.Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ray Ledford 
Charles M.Johnson 
Charles M. McLeod 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Louise D. Rehder 
R. Jennings White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Sadie W. Edwards 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances N. Futch 
W.J.Ward 

W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Ben G. Floyd, Jr. 
FrankieC. Williams 
Francis Glover 
Joan M. Jenkins 
Charlie T. McCullen 
J. Mason McGregor 
Joe H. Lowder 
Robert Miller 
DavidJ.Beal 
Harold H. Sandlin 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
Nola H. Cunningham 
Mary Lou M. Barnett 
J. Russell Nipper 
Anne F. Davis 
Louise S. Allen 
John T. Bingham 
Shelton Jordan 
Wayne Roope 
William G. Stewart 
Harold J. Long 
Arnold E. Higgins 



38 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for four-year 
terms by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 
counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide 
special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, 
in addition to performing record-keeping and ad- 
ministrative functions for both the superior and district 
courts of his county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece- 
dents' estates. It also includes such "special 
proceedings" as adoptions, condemnations of private 
property under the public's right of eminent domain, 
proceedings to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and 
certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors 
and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the 
clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments en- 
tered in the superior and district courts of his county. 
For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is 
authorized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance 
and plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance 
with a schedule established by the Conference of Chief 
District Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of 
court records and indexes, the control and accounting of 
funds, and the furnishing of information to the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continued to perform cer- 
tain functions related to preparation of civil case calen- 
dars, and in many counties the clerk's staff assisted the 
district attorney in preparing some criminal case calen- 
dars as well. Ending with fiscal year 1979-80, ultimate 
responsibility for civil case calendaring was vested in 
"calendar committees" chaired by the clerk and com- 
prised of members of the county bar. (As of July 1, 1980, 
these committees were abolished by the Supreme Court 



and ultimate responsibility for civil case calendaring was 
vested in the State's senior resident superior court judges 
and chief district court judges.) Day-to-day calendar 
preparation is the clerk's responsibility in all districts ex- 
cept those served by "trial court administrators." 

Resources 

A total of $24,283,713 was expended in 1979-80 for 
operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an 
increase of 13.2% over 1978-79 expenditures of $2 1,457, - 
921. Included in the total were expenditures for jurors' 
fees, supplies, postage, telephone and office expenses for 
all local Judicial Department personnel, and the salaries 
and benefits of the clerks and their staffs. The 1979-80 
total made up 34.1% of General Fund expenditures for 
operating expenses of the entire Judicial Department; 
this percentage share of the total is approximately equal 
to the percentage expended for operations of the clerks' 
offices in 1978-79. 



1979-80 Caseload 

Filings of estates cases totalled 34,670 cases in 
1979-80, an increase of 5.3% over the number (32,926) 
filed in 1978-79. Estates case dispositions totalled 32,093 
cases in 1979-80, or 2.3% more than the 1978-79 total of 
21,378 cases. As has been usual in recent years, however, 
filings outnumbered dispositions in 1979-80 and the 
number of pending estates cases at the end of the year 
(50,534 cases) was larger than the number pending at the 
beginning (47,957 cases), an increase of 5.4%; 

There were 29,830 special proceedings filed in 1979- 
80, an increase of 7.3% over 1978-79 filings of 27,799 
cases. Special proceedings case dispositions also rose, 
although at a slower rate: the 1979-80 total of 27,925 
cases disposed of is 4.5% above the previous year's total 
of 26,717. The result was a widening gap between filings 
and dispositions and an increase in the number of cases 
pending, from 19,453 cases pending on July 1, 1979 to 
21,358 cases pending on June 30, 1980. This represents 
an increase of almost ten percent. 

More detailed information on the clerks' estates and 
special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of 
this Report. 



39 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Clerks of Superior Court 



Educational Activity 



Utilizing State appropriations, the Judicial Depart- 
ment sponsored the following educational activities for 
clerks of superior court in 1979-80: 

• the Annual Conference of the Association of Clerks 



of Superior Court, July 25-27 in Winston-Salem, at- 
tended by 81 clerks; and 
• the Annual Conference of the Association of Assis- 
tant and Deputy Clerks of Superior Court, July 18- 
20 in Asheville, attended by 287 assistant and 
deputy clerks. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1980) 

A.E. Blackburn, Forsyth County, President 

Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County, 
First Vice President 

Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County 
Second Vice President 

George T. Griffin, Cumberland County, 
Secretary 

Nola H. Cunningham, Union County, Treasurer 

Major Joines, Burke County, 
Shelton Jordan, Wayne County, and 
Ruth B. Williams, McDowell County (ex officio), 
Additional Executive Committee Members 



40 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



Public Defenders 



In 1979-80 there were five public defenders in North 
Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A and 
28. (By action of the 1979 General Assembly in its 
second session in 1980, a sixth public defender will begin 
serving District 3 on January 1, 1981.) These officials 
and their assistants provide legal representation for per- 
sons in designated categories who are determined to be 
indigent. The public defender for District 28 is appoin- 
ted by the senior resident superior court judge from 
recommendations submitted by the district bar; for the 
other districts, the appointment is by the Governor from 
recommendations of the respective district bars. Their 
terms are four years. Each public defender is by statute 
provided one full-time assistant; additional full-time or 
part-time assistants may be authorized by the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. 

Duties 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is 
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any 
proceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief 
from) confinement, a fine of $500 or more, or extradi- 
tion to another State; a proceeding alleging mental il- 
lness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization, 
sterilization, or the loss of certain property rights; and 
juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, 
transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or a transfer 
of custody upon a finding of abuse or neglect. 

Most cases of State-paid representation of indigents 
in these five districts are handled by the public defen- 
ders. In unusual circumstances — such as the existence 
of a conflict of interests — an indigent in one of these 
districts may be represented by private counsel, appoin- 
ted by the court and paid a fee by the State for his legal 



services. In the other 28 districts the assigned private 
counsel system is the only one used. 

Resources 

A total of $1,404,715 was expended for the operation 
of the five public defenders' offices in 1979-80, an in- 
crease of 22.2% over 1978-79 expenditures of $1,149,780. 
The 1979-80 total is two percent of all General Fund ex- 
penditures for the operating expenses of the entire 
Judicial Department. This percentage share is slightly 
above the percentage of total Judicial Department ex- 
penditures spent for the public defenders' offices in 
1978-79. 

1979-80 Caseload 

The five public defenders' offices handled a total of 
11,558 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 1979- 
80. This represents an increase of 5.3% over the 10,972 
cases handled by these offices during the 1978-79 fiscal 
year. Additional information on the operation of these 
offices is contained in Part III, "Cost and Case Data on 
Representation of Indigents." 

Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department 
sponsored the following educational activities for public 
defenders in 1979-80: 

• a Fall training session, October 24-26 in Boone, at- 
tended by the five public defenders and 37 assistant 
public defenders; and 

• the Public Defenders Association Spring Con- 
ference, May 28-30 in Wrightsville Beach, attended 
by four public defenders and 30 assistant public 
defenders. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 

(As of June 30, 1980) 

District 12 
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 18 
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 

District 27A 
Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia 

District 28 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1980) 

Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville, President 
Lawrence B. Langston, Gastonia, Vice President 
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte, Secretary 
Deno G. Economou, Greensboro, Treasurer 



41 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Administrative Office of the C ourts 



The Director of the Administrative Office of the 
Courtsand staff perform a variety of functions for the 
Judicial Department; these are enumerated in Article 
29 of Chapter 7A of the North Carolina General Stat- 
utes. The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice of 
the North Carolina Supreme Court and serves at his 
pleasure. 

Effective January 1, 1980, the Administrative Office 
was reorganized as reflected in the chart below. The pur- 
pose of the reorganization was to provide a more unified 
centralized management structure along functional lines. 
The Assistant Director for Legal Services, in addition to 
assisting the Chief in making assignments of superior 
court judges and assisting the Supreme Court in prepara- 



tion of calendars of superior court trial sessions, now has 
responsibility for Juvenile Services, the Office of Coun- 
sel, and the Research and Planning Office. 

The Assistant Director for Management Services (a 
new position) has responsibility for Fiscal Services, Per- 
sonnel, and Records Management. 

The activities of the various components of the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts during 1979-80 are 
summarized in the following pages. 

A total of $1,800,869 was expended from the State's 
General Fund for operating expenses of the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts during 1979-80, which 
amounts to 2.5% of General Fund expenditures for the 
Judicial Department. 



Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 
(As of June 30, 1980) 





Director 




























Assistant Director for Management Services 




Assistant Director for Legal Services 


























Information Services 






Trial Court Services 
























































Fiscal Services 






Juvenile Services 


































Records Management 






Personnel 




Counsel 




Research & Planning 



42 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Administrative Office Of the Courts 



Fiscal Services 

The Controller supervises this component of manage- 
ment services which includes budgeting, payroll and 
other disbursements and related accounting, auditing, 
purchasing, printing, and warehousing of forms and sup- 
plies. 

During the 1979-80 fiscal year, expenditures for the 
operation of the Judicial Department totaled $71,862,- 
275. Judicial Department receipts, consisting of courts 
costs, fees, fines and forfeitures, and recovery of pay- 
ments in judgments for indigent representation totalled 
$49,31 1,081. As required by State statutes these receipts 
were disbursed as follows: $21,467,077 to the State 
Treasurer for the General Fund and $2,439,492 for the 
Law Enforcement Officers' Retirement Fund; $24,588,- 
139 distributed among the 100 counties; and $816,373 
distributed among various municipalities throughout the 
State. 

An important aspect of fiscal operations in the 
Judicial Department is the handling of funds by the clerk 
of superior court located in each of the 100 counties of 
the State. Uniform accounting rules and procedures are 
prescribed for these activities in the clerks' offices, which 
include receipt and disbursement of court costs, fees, 
fines, bond forfeitures, and cash bonds, as well as pay- 
ments in accord with court judgments. 

During 1979-80 a pilot project featuring an electronic 
cash register/validating system was implemented in the 
clerk's office in Cumberland county, to complement the 
mini-computer accounting system that has been opera- 
tional for some years. Results of this experimental pro- 
ject indicate that the cashier's operation in the clerk's of- 
fice is thereby made more efficient. 

Records Management 

The Records Management Officer monitors the 
record-keeping procedures applicable to the activities of 
the office of clerk of superior court in each of the 100 
counties, and develops recommendations for improved 
clerk office operations, providing assistance to in- 
dividual offices as required. He reviews issues of staffing 
adequacy and job duties pertaining to the clerks' offices 
and participates in training activities for clerk personnel. 
Liaison is maintained with other governmental agencies 
which have working relationships with clerks' offices: the 
Division of Archives and History on records manage- 
ment and retention, the Division of Motor Vehicles on 
traffic case reports, and county governments on space re- 
quirements for clerks' offices. He participates in review 
of new legislation affecting the clerks' offices, in dis- 
seminating information on such changes in the laws and 
in developing record-keeping procedures required by 
new legislation. 



In addition, the Records Management Officer super- 
vises a records management program for the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. 

During 1979-80 a criminal card index system was in- 
stalled in the clerk's office in three counties, bringing to a 
total of 40 counties in which this system is now used. The 
criminal card index system has replaced a more cumber- 
some indexing system, providing a more convenient 
source for ready information. 

Personnel 

The Personnel Officer supervises a comprehensive per- 
sonnel program for the approximately 3,400 employees 
of the Judicial Department, including administration of 
a classification and pay plan for the large majority of em- 
ployees, certification of employee salaries, administra- 
tion of fringe benefits (including longevity and 
workmen's compensation payments) and administration 
of an employee relations program for personnel of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts. He is also responsi- 
ble for the assignment of court reporters for the trial 
courts. 

During the 1979-80 year, in addition to administration 
of regular personnel activities, the following were accom- 
plished: 

(1) Procedures were developed for implementation, as 
of July 1, 1980, of changes in granting perfor- 
mance salary increases to employees whose 
salaries are at step 3 or above in their respective 
salary grades. Instead of having such merit salary 
increments based on the anniversary date of em- 
ployment, a new policy established four quarterly 
dates (the first day of the months of August, 
November, February and May) on which perfor- 
mance salary increases would be effective. 

(2) Comprehensive classification and pay reviews 
were conducted in the clerks' offices in 12 coun- 
ties; and the planning and scheduling of similar 
reviews in other clerks' offices to take place dur- 
ing the coming year were completed. 

(3) A special review of the classification and pay plan 
for the 31 chief court counselor positions in the 
Juvenile Services Division was begun. 

Juvenile Services 

The Juvenile Services Division administers the state- 
wide juvenile court counselor program for children al- 
leged or adjudicated to be delinquent or undisciplined. 
Services include intake (pre-hearing studies of children 
alleged to be delinquent or undisciplined and determi- 
nation whether or not a petition should be filed in dis- 
trict court); probation (supervision within the com- 
munity for those adjudicated to be delinquent or un- 



43 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Administrative Office Of The Courts 



disciplined and who have not been committed to train- 
ing school); and aftercare (supervision within the com- 
munity for children conditionally released from a train- 
ing school). The services are delivered locally by court 
counselors assigned to each judicial district, under the 
immediate supervision of a chief court counselor. 

As of January 1 , 1 980 a new Juvenile Code became ef- 
fective for the State. The new code specifies several 
categories of non-divertible felony offenses for intake 
and introduced a new category of supervision for un- 
disciplined and delinquent children. The new category, 
"protective supervision," is the status of a juvenile who 
has been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined and is 
placed under the supervision of a court counselor but is 
not on probation. The new category does not remove or 
replace that for undisciplined children, and may be used 
in lieu of probation for delinquent children. The dis- 
positional alternatives for delinquent children were ex- 
panded and include restitution, fines, community ser- 
vices, confinement on an intermittent basis in an ap- 
propriate detention facility, and restriction of driving 
privileges. The disposition of probation was limited to a 
length of one year with the provision for a one-year ex- 
tension after a hearing to determine the need for such ex- 
tension. 

During the 1979-80 fiscal year a total of 8,306 new 
cases were added to the court counselors' probation 
caseloads and a total of 8,752 cases were terminated. 
The daily average probation caseload, statewide, was 5,- 
884 during the year, compared with a daily average 
caseload during 1978-79 of 6,378 cases. The precise 
reasons for the 7.75% decrease in daily average statewide 
caseload handled by the court counselors cannot be 
identified. However, it appears that this development 
was due, at least in part, to the various changes in the 
Juvenile Code described above. 

Program reviews and evaluations were conducted in 
each judicial district during the year to determine the 
level of services being delivered and adherence to 
minimum standards of the Division which are uniformly 
applicable across the State. 

Training continued to receive major emphasis during 
the year, including the following activities: 

• one orientation session for 12 new court counselors; 

• a required course in seven sessions for court coun- 
selors, counselor trainees, intake counselors, and 
supervisory counselors, with a total of 230 persons 
attending; 

• a required course for chief court counselors and ad- 
ministrative personnel, attended by 30 persons; 

• a one-day session on the Juvenile Code attended by 
14 chief counselors; 

• a course on the Juvenile Code revisions and the 



community-based alternatives programs, attended 
by 37 judges; 

• Third N.C. Conference for Juvenile Court Coun- 
selors and Judges, on the theme of "Juvenile 
Justice — Treatment and Prevention Perspectives", 
with 270 in attendance; and 

• nine special interest courses in counseling tech- 
niques and theories, presented as optional training 
in a total of 10 sessions across the State, with a total 
attendance of 132. 

During the year, tuition fees were reimbursed for a 
total of 19 Division employees, and a total of 105 Divi- 
sion employees participated in individual learning 
projects. 

Counsel 

The Counsel for the Administrative Office of the 
Courts provides legal advice and assistance to clerks of 
court, magistrates, and other directly concerned with 
courtroom proceedings, as well as to administrative 
personnel in the Judicial Department. While most fre- 
quently this service is by telephone response, often the 
need for guidance is met through memoranda for gen- 
eral distribution. 

Forms for use in the trials courts and in the offices of 
the clerks of superior court are prepared and up-dated, 
usually upon need arising from new legislation or recent 
court decisions. 

The Counsel participates in educational and training 
activities for the clerks of superior courts and their assis- 
tants and deputies, including special programs for new 
clerks and for new employees in the clerks' offices. 

During the 1979-80 year, requests for legal assistance 
by telephone averaged 10 to 15 per day; and requests for 
legal assistance requiring written responses averaged 
about 15 per week. 

Research and Planning 

This division has responsibility for conducting 
research and preparing reports and papers on problems 
or issues relevant to the courts of North Carolina. Staff 
assistance is provided for the North Carolina Judicial 
Planning Committee. In addition, the division has 
responsibilities for the LEAA grants management func- 
tions for the Judicial Department, and for the compila- 
tion, printing and distribution of the Annual Reports of 
the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

During the first part of the 1979-80 year, work was 
completed on the production and distribution of the 
1978 Annual Report. The Annual Report was then com- 
piled on a calendar-year basis. The policy decision was 
then made by the Director of the Administrative Office 
of the Courts to change the annual reporting period 



44 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Administrative Office Of The Courts 



from a calendar year to a fiscal year basis (July 1 
through June 30). Thus, during the latter months of the 
1979-80 year a second annual report was compiled, prin- 
ted and distributed, covering the period July, 1978 
through June 30, 1979. 

During the Fall of 1979 the Research and Planning 
staff conducted studies regarding the principal problems 
and issues confronting the North Carolina court system 
and, on behalf of the Judicial Planning Committee, sur- 
veyed some 600 Judicial Department officials and mem- 
bers of the North Carolina Bar, to obtain their views on 
this subject. The results of that survey were reported to 
the Judicial Planning Committee. Thereafter, in 
February, 1980, the Committee adopted an "Agenda for 
1980-83", comprising its priority list of issues and 
problems confronting the North Carolina courts which 
should receive attention during the next three years. 
Copies of that Agenda were produced and distributed to 
officials of the Judicial Department, members of the 
State Bar and to various officials in the Executive and 
Legislative branches of government. 

The Research and Planning staff developed proposed 
LEAA fund allocations for the Judicial Department for 
the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, for the consideration of 
the Judicial Planning Committee in April, 1980. 
Thereafter, the decision became final at the Federal level 
that the LEAA grant program would not be continued. 
Thus, new LEAA grant funds for the 1980-81 Federal 
fiscal year were not received. 

Although new LEAA grant funds were not received in 
1980, several LEAA projects will remain active for 
another year or two, from funds previously ap- 
propriated by the Congress. The LEAA Grants 
Management Section was involved during 1979-80 in the 
on-going administration of 16 LEAA-fund projects. Ap- 
plications for 13 projects were prepared and approved 
for LEAA funding by the Governor's Crime Commis- 
sion, the State Planning Agency for LEAA purposes. In 
addition, the LEAA Grants Manager participated with 
representatives of the Governor's Crime Commission in 
a total of 11 monitoring visits for review of various 
Judicial Department projects supported by LEAA 
funds. 

Information Services 

This division has responsibility for collecting case 
data and for implementing an automated information 
system for the Judicial Department. 

Case data is reported manually by the Clerks of Court 
of the 100 North Carolina counties to this division for 
data entry and computer processing. Case volume 
statistics are generated from this information and 
produced on a quarterly basis. In addition, juvenile case 
data are reported and processed, thus bringing the num- 



ber of transactions processed during the fiscal year over 
the three million mark. 

Additional progress was made on the automated in- 
formation system during the 1979-80 year. Four coun- 
ties, Franklin, Vance, Nash, and Warren, are now re- 
porting case data through the information system for 
district and superior court criminal cases. The Informa- 
tion Services Division has provided to these counties 
computer-produced district and superior court indexes, 
district court calendars, and automatic (computer) 
transfer of appeal cases for cases appealed from district 
court to superior court. Services in the design and de- 
velopment stage include computer-produced superior 
court calendars, warrants, orders for arrest, and sub- 
poenas. 

Training of clerk office personnel in the area of 
automation has not yet begun in other counties but is 
anticipated in the near future. 

Trial Court Services 

This division is responsible for directing the trial court 
administrator program. From 1977 to 1979 this 
program was operated as a pilot project in three judicial 
districts (10th, 22d and 28th) under an LEAA grant. In 
1979 the General Assembly provided full state funding 
for the program and expanded it from three to ten posi- 
tions. The responsibilities of the trial court ad- 
ministrator as defined in G.S. 7A-355 include assisting 
in the administration of the civil dockets of the judicial 
district, management of the jury system, and such other 
general management functions as may be assigned by 
the court. 

The State Supreme Court in its recently revised Rule 2 
of the Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure provided 
for the delegation of civil case management respon- 
sibility by the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge, to the trial court ad- 
ministrator in those districts having such position. The 
trail court administrator is appointed by and is responsi- 
ble to the senior resident superior court judge of the 
district. 

With the exception of the three pilot judicial districts, 
the trial court administrator program is still in its in- 
fancy. Thus far, administrators have been employed in 
an additional three districts (3d, 18th, and 26th). 

As of June 30, 1980, the three pilot judicial districts 
having a trial court administrator were among the top 
four districts in the state having the lowest average age 
of superior court civil cases. These three districts also 
ranked among those with the highest ratio of disposi- 
tions to caseload, with the metropolitan pilot districts 
(the 10th and 28th) consistently ranking ahead of other 
metropolitan districts in these measures of case manage- 
ment efficiency. 



45 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Administrative Office Of The Courts 



Although statewide figures on jury utilization are not 
currently maintained, trial court administrators have 
made significant improvements in their own judicial dis- 
tricts in this area of court operations. The percentage of 
jurors who are summond but not used for a trial has 
been significantly reduced along with the cost per jury 
selected. The "one-day, one-trial jury system" operated 
by trial court administrators in Wake and Buncombe 
Counties have proved popular with the public as well as 
economical. The mandate of the program is to achieve 
in every judicial district served by a trial court ad- 
ministrator the level of performance attained in the pilot 
districts. The Division also provides assistance in civil 
case management to judges without trial court ad- 
ministrators. This service was provided to more than a 
third of the senior resident superior court judges during 
the 1979-80 year. Plans are being made to extend this 
program to chief district court judges and to develop 
management assistance programs to address other areas 
of local court administration. 



Two jury-management projects were initiated during 
the 1979-80 year. One project will produce a set of 
guidelines to assist counties interested in computerizing 
the jury selection and summoning process. Two docu- 
ments will be prepared and published under this project, 
with one document outlining in general terms the overall 
design and operation of a computer-aided jury selection 
system and the other containing software documenta- 
tion. The completion of this project is scheduled to coin- 
cide with preparation of the 1982-83 master jury lists by 
the 100 counties of the State. 

Another project begun during the year is the produc- 
tion of audio-visual orientation programs for jurors in 
six metropolitan courts. A model script was drafted, and 
arrangements were made with other state agencies to 
provide technical support for this project, which is ex- 
pected to be completed during the coming year. 



4b 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 



The Judicial Planning Committee 
(Members as of June 30, 1980) 



Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Raleigh, Chairman 

Magistrate C.E. Baker, Holly Springs 

District Court Judge Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., 
Burlington* 

District Attorney Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Reidsville 

Public Defender Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro 

Representative Edward S. Holmes, Pittsboro 

Clerk of Superior Court Rachel M. Joyner, Nashville 

Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., 
Lumberton 

Administrative Officer of the Courts Bert M. Montague, 
Raleigh 

* Deceased, August 30, 1980 



Chief Court of Appeals Judge Naomi E. Morris, 
Raleigh 

Senator Willis P. Whichard, Durham 



Ex-Officio Members 

President of the N.C. State Bar E.K. Powe, Durham 

President of the N.C. Bar Association Dewey W. Wells, 
Elizabeth City 

President of the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers Alfred 
S. Bryant, Jr., Charlotte 

President of the N.C. Association of Black Lawyers 
Charles L. Becton, Chapel Hill 

President of the N.C. Association of Women Attorneys 
Carolyn McAllaster, Durham 



The Judicial Planning Committee 1979-80 



The North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee was 
appointed by the Supreme Court in 1977, as one of the 
adjunct committees of the Governor's Crime Commis- 
sion, the LEAA State Planning Agency. The Committee 
considers problems and issues affecting States's courts 
and provides recommendations to the State Supreme 
Court as well as to the Governor's Crime Commission. 
The Committee has a special role in the allocation of 
LEAA funds available to the court system. (As the Con- 
gress decided not to continue the LEAA grant program 
for the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, no new grants funds 
were received beyond the 1979-80 fiscal period. Activity 
under various projects funded by prior-year LEAA 
funds will continue for another year or two until those 
projects have run their course.) 

Staff assistance for the Judicial Planning Committee 
is provided by the Research and Planning Division of 
the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

During the period from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 
1980, the Judicial Planning Committee had a total of 
five meetings: August 7, 1979; September 7, 1979; 
November 2, 1979; February 29, 1980 and April 25, 
1980. 

The meetings in August and September, 1979 were 
joint meetings with the Corrections Committee of the 
Governor's Crime Commission, to consider issues of 



common interest to the courts and the correction agen- 
cies. At the August meeting the two committees heard 
reports on prison population projections, alternatives to 
incarceration, deferred prosecution programs, regula- 
tion of bail bondsmen and sentencing. At the Septem- 
ber, 1979 joint meeting the committees considered alter- 
natives to incarceration and adopted several recommen- 
dations to be forwarded to the Governor's Crime Com- 
mission, relating to financial restitution for victims of 
crime, community service programs, citizen dispute 
mediation, and improved probation services. 

At the November, 1979 and February 2, 1980 
meetings, the Judicial Planning Committee approved 
revisions to 1979-80 allocations of LEAA funds to the 
Judicial Department, necessitated by reductions in the 
amount of Federal funds received; and considered a 
broad range of issues and problems identified as con- 
fronting the court system, making conclusions on a list 
of such issues regarded as of priority importance which 
would be incorporated in an "agenda" to be further 
considered during the 1980-83 period. Copies of this 
special agenda report were thereafter distributed to 
about 600 Judicial Department officials, members of the 
North Carolina State Bar, and various officials of the 
Legislative and Executive Branches of State Govern- 
ment. 



47 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 

The Judicial Planning Committee 

At its April, 1980 meeting the Committee adopted a result that no new LEAA funds were received for the 

schedule of proposed LEAA allocations for various 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, beginning October 1, 1980. 

Judicial Department projects, in anticipation of receipt Thus, for all practical purposes, the Judicial Planning 

of LEAA funds for the 1980-81 fiscal year. Some Committee's special role in the allocation of LEAA 

months thereafter, a final decision was made in the Con- funds for court system projects has ended, 
gress to discontinue the LEAA grant program, with the 



48 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1980) 



Appointed by the Governor 

Hon. H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman 

Charles L. Becton, Chapel Hill 

Hon. David M. Britt, Raleigh 

I.T. Valentine, Jr., Nashville 

Hon. Louise B. Wilson, Graham 
Appointed by the President of the Senate 

Hon. Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem 

Becky Hundley, Thomasville 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Hon. Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
William G. Smith, Wilmington 
Jim Van Camp, Southern Pines 
(Vacancy) 1 

Ex officio 

John W. Campbell, Lumberton, N.C. State Bar 

Robert M. Clay, Raleigh, N.C. Bar Association 

Bert M. Montague, Raleigh, Administrative Officer 
of the Courts 



John R. Jordan, Jr., of Raleigh, resigned his membership on the commission prior to June 30, 1980; a successor had not been appointed by 
the Speaker of the House by the end of the fiscal year. 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was esta- 
blished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make con- 
tinuing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdic- 
tion, procedures and personnel of the Judicial Depart- 
ment and of the General Court of Justice and to make 
recommendations to the General Assembly for such 
changes therein as will facilitate the administration of 
justice. " 

The new Commission met first on March 17, 1980, 
and again in April and May. It has begun to invite all 
State officials and agencies dealing with the courts to 
make presentations to the Commission of their sugges- 
tions for improving the court system. From these 



suggestions the Commision is establishing a priority list 
of items for study, and it will make its recommendations 
from its list. Topics under consideration by the Courts 
Commission include: 

— possible expansion of the Public Defender System; 

- relief for the Appellate Division; 

— the office of the district attorney; 

— the office of the clerk of superior court 

- decriminalization of minor traffic offenses, and 

— the trial court administrator project. 

Specific legislation is being formulated for presentation 
to the 1981 General Assembly. 



49 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 

The Judicial Standards Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1980) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Edward B. Clark, Raleigh, 
Chairman 

Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, 
Greensboro 

District Court Judge L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 



Appointed by the Governor 

Marvin B. Koonce, Jr., Raleigh, Secretary 
Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro 

Appointed by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville 
Robert G. Sanders, Charlotte, Vice Chairman 
Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



The Judicial Standards Commission 
July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec- 
tion in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the 
Supreme Court may censure or remove any judge for 
wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure 
to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction 
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct pre- 
judicial to the administration of justice that brings the 
judicial office into disrepute. In addition, upon recom- 
mendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may 
remove any judge for mental or physical incapacity in- 
terfering with the performance of his duties, which is, or 
is likely to become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal in- 
volves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda- 
tion and supporting record is filed with the Court of Ap- 
peals which has and proceeds under the same authority 
for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of Ap- 
peals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the 
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or 
removal, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary 
measure know as a reprimand. The reprimand is a 
mechanism administratively developed for dealing with 
inquires where the conduct involved does not warrant 
censure or removal, but where some action is justified. 
Since the establishment of the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission in 1973, reprimands have been issued in nine in- 
quiries. 



During the 1 July 1979 — 30 June 1980 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following 
dates: 5 October 1979, 14 December 1979, 8 February 
1980, 11 April 1980, and 30 May 1980. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission acting on its own motion, is designated as 
an "Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Two such inquiries 
were pending as of 1 July 1979, and 85 inquiries were 
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a 
total workload of 87 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 71 
inquiries and 16 inquiries remained pending at the end 
of the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission with regard to 
the 71 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

(1) 55 inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter not within the Commission's jurisdiction; 

(2) 12 inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but 
not warranting further proceedings; and 

(3) 4 inquiries were determined to warrant no further 
action following completion of preliminary in- 
vestigations. 

Of the 16 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal 
year: 

(1) 9 inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 
Commission; and 

(2) 7 inquiries were still under investigation or subject 
to further action by the Commission. 



50 



PART III 
COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses 
of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be 
paid from State funds. It is customary legislative prac- 
tice for the General Assembly to include appropria- 
tions for the operating expenses of all three branches of 
State government in a single budget bill, for a two-year 
period ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. In 
recent years, the General Assembly has customarily 
held a "short" session in even-numbered years and the 
budget for the second year of the biennium is generally 
modified during these short sessions. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provid- 
ed by State funds, but by statute the county govern- 
ment are required to provide from county funds for 



adequate facilities for the trial courts within each of the 
100 counties. 

State appropriations from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for fiscal 
year July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980 totalled $71,- 
616,057. General Fund appropriations for the operating 
expenses of all State agencies and departments, in- 
cluding the Judicial Department, totalled $2,761,002,- 
481 for fiscal year, 1979-80. (These do not include ap- 
propriations for capital construction or appropriations 
from the Highway Fund for highway construction and 
repair.) 

As is illustrated in the chart below, General Fund ap- 
propriations for the operating expenses of the Judicial 
Department comprised 2.6% of the General Fund ap- 
propriations for the operating expenses of all State 
agencies and departments. 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

APPROPRIATION 

$71,616,057 




53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the 
past five fiscal years are shown in the table below and in 
the graph at the top of the following page. For com- 
parative purposes, appropriations from the general fund 



for operating expenses of all State agencies and depart- 
ments (including the Judicial Department) for the last 
five fiscal years are also shown in the table below and in 
the second graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 

1975-1976 
1976-1977 
1977-1978 
1978-1979 
1979-1980 

AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE, 1975-1980 





% Increase over 




% Increase over 


Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


$42,908,242 


7.35% 


$1,737,659,496 


2.68% 


47,218,782 


10.05% 


1,962,976,606 


12.97% 


56,319,115 


19.27% 


2,193,405,714 


11.74% 


63,685,178 


13.08% 


2,452,011,095 


11.79% 


71,616,057 


12.45% 


2,761,002,481 


12.60% 



.2.44% 



10.36% 



During the past decade, including the five-year period 
covered by the above table, inflation has been a signifi- 
cant factor in the national economy. For example, dur- 
ing 1 979-80 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 
the average person spent for goods and services more 
than twice the amount required for the same goods and 
services in 1967. 



The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during the last five years was for the 
1977-78 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in 
large measure to a significant increase in the number of 
superior court judges (20%) and an increase in the num- 
ber of assistant district attorneys (18%). 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



$80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses Of 
The Judicial Department, 1975-76 — 1979-80 

$71,616,057 




1975-76 



1976-77 



1977-78 



979-80 



$3,000. 

2,750 

2,500. 

2,250. 

2,000, 

1,750. 

1,500. 

1,250. 

1,000, 
750. 
500 
250 



000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 




General Fund Appropriations For Operating Expenses Of All 
State Agencies And Departments, 1975-76 — 1979-80 

$2,761,002,481 




979-80 



55 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Expenditures, 7/1/79—6/30/80 

General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest cations as shown below. Expenditures for LEAA- 

dollar, for operating expenses of the Judicial Depart- funded projects in the Judicial Department totalled 

ment during the 1979-80 fiscal year totalled $784,714, for a grand total of $71,862,275 in expendi- 

$71,077,561, divided among the major budget classifi- tures. 

%of 
Amount Total 

SupremeCourt $ 1,185,967 1.7% 

Court of Appeals 1,641,918 2.3% 

Superior Courts 14,042,696 19.8% 

(This classification includes judges, district 

attorneys, assistant district attorneys, court 

reporters, and staff personnel.) 
District Courts 14,269,622 20.1% 

(This classification includes judges, 

magistrates, and court reporters.) 
Clerks of Superior Court 24,283,713 34.1% 

(This classification includes all 100 clerks 

and their staffs, juror fees, witness fees, 

and such support services as supplies, 

postage, telephone expenses, and office 

equipment for all local Judicial Department 

personnel.) 
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 5,918,435 8.3% 

Legal Representation for Indigents 7,861,724 11.1% 

Assigned private counsel ($5,989,71 5) 

Public defenders ($1,404,715) 

Special counsel at mental hospitals ($141,401) 

Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) ($325,893) 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
Judicial Council 
Judicial Standards Commission 

Total General Fund Expenditures 

LEAA-Funded Projects 

GRAND TOTAL 



1,800,869 


2.5% 


-0- 




72,617 


0.1% 


$71,077,561 


100.0% 


784,714 




$71,862,275 





56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Expenditures, 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 



DISTRICT COURTS 
20.1 



NDMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THF COURTS 

2.5 



CLERKS 

OF 

SUPERIOR 

COURT 
34. 




SUPERIOR COURTS 

19.8% 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.3% 
SUPREME COURT 1.9% 



I EGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 11.1% 



JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.1% 
JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 8.3% 



As the chart illustrates, the bulk of Judicial Depart- 
ment expenditures goes for operation of the State's trial 
courts. Operation of the superior courts took 19.8% of 
total expenditures; this category includes expenditures 
for district attorneys and their staffs as well as superior 
court judges and court reporters. Operation of the dis- 
trict courts (including magistrates as well judges and 
court reporters) took 20.1% of the total. An additional 
34.1% went to operate the offices for the 100 clerks of 



superior court, to pay jurors' and witnesses' fees and to 
provide office equipment and supplies and postage and 
telephone service for all judicial Department personnel 
at the local level. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $71,077,561 
for 1979-80 represents a 14% increase over expenditures 
of $62,245,923 in 1978-79, an increase in keeping with the 
trend in recent years, as illustrated in the chart below. 



General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
Fiscal Years 1975-76 — 1979-80 



$80,000,000 
$70,000,000 
$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 




$71,077,561 




1975-76 



1976-77 



1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Department Receipts 
July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1979-80 
fiscal year totalled $49,3 1 1 ,080.74. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
previous years, the major source of receipts is the assess- 
ment of "court costs' 1 in superior and district courts, 
paid by litigants in accordance with the schedule of costs 
and fees set out in G.S. 7A-304 et seq.\ these payments 



constituted 60.94% of the total receipts during 1979-80. 
Fines and forfeitures made up 37.71% of the total. 
Receipts in the remaining categories — Supreme Court 
and Court of Appeals filing fees, sales of Supreme Court 
and Court of Appeals Reports and payments on indigent 
representation judgments — made up less than two per- 
cent of the total. 







%of 


Source of Receipts 


Amount 


Total 


Supreme Court Fees 


$ 17,489.50 


.03% 


Court of Appeals Fees 


27,553.07 


.06% 


Superior and District 






Court Costs 


30,048,730.91 


60.94% 


Fines and Forfeitures 


18,594,031.90 


37.71% 


Sales of Appellate 






Division Reports 


115,177.35 


.23% 


Payments on Indigent 






Representation 






Judgments 


508,098.01 


1 .03% 


Total 


$49,311,080.74 


100.00% 



This total of $49,31 1,080.74 is an increase of 2.6% over below illustrates increases in recent years in total Judicial 

total 1978-79 receipts of $48,060,916.45. The graph Department receipts. 



Judicial Department Receipts, 1975-76—1979-80 



$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 




$41,250,936 



$46 



204<962 $48,060,916— M9.3 11,080.74 




979-80 



58 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Distribution Of Judicial Department Receipts 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties 
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases 
are distributed to the respective counties in which the 
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties 
for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and 
criminal cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by 
statute for cases filed in the superior and district courts. 
Statutes prescribe the distribution of these fees and 
provide that certain fees shall be devoted to specific uses. 
For example, a facilities fee is included in court costs 
when costs are assessed, and this fee is paid over to the 
respective county or municipality which provided the 
facility used in the case. These fees must be utilized by the 
counties and municipalities to provide and maintain 
courtrooms and related judicial facilities. 

Officer Fees (for arrest or service of process) are in- 
cluded, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed in 
the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these 
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective 
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the 
respective counties in which the cases are filed. 



A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where ap- 
plicable; and these fees are distributed to the respective 
county or municipality whose facilities were used. Most 
jail facilities in the State are provided by the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs 
when costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required by 
statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to the 
State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement Of- 
ficers Benefit, and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned 
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case the 
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered. 
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered 
against him for such amount. Collections on these judg- 
ments are paid into the State's General Fund, as are ap- 
pellate court fees and proceeds from the sales of ap- 
pellate division reports. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 
Supreme Court Fees 
Court of Appeals Fees 
Sales of Appellate Division Reports 
Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments 
Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 
Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 
Total to Municipalities 

GRAND TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


17,489.50 


.03% 


27,553.07 


.06% 


115,177.35 


.23% 


508,098.01 


1.03% 


2,439,492.17 


4.95% 


20,798,758.77 


42.18% 


23,906,568.87 


48.48% 


18,594,031.90 


37.71% 


3,730,532.92 


7.56% 


1,773,104.37 


3.60% 


490,469.98 


.99% 


24,588,139.17 


49.86% 


180,833.50 


.37% 


621,030.45 


1.26% 


14,508.75 


.03% 


816,372.70 


1 .66% 



$49,311,080.74 



100.00% 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts Of Fees, Fines And Forfeitures Collected By The Courts And 

Distributed To Counties And Municipalities* 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


$ 59,509.34 $ 


26,679.00 $ 


12,976.50 $ 


313.159.41 


$ -0- 


$ 11.850.00 


$ -0- $ 


424,174.25 


Alexander 


11,280.00 


5,792.41 


2,931.00 


67,183.55 


-0- 


156.00 


-0- 


87,342.96 


Alleghany 


4,754.00 


1,486.00 


1,217.00 


19,775.00 


-0- 


231.00 


-0- 


27,463.00 


Anson 


18,082.00 


8,671.00 


1,822.20 


70,256.00 


-0- 


888.00 


-0- 


99,719.20 


Ashe 


9,946.00 


8,294.00 


2,348.00 


52,217.00 


-0- 


78.00 


-0- 


72,883.00 


Avery 


8,151.00 


6,257.00 


1,070.00 


37,219.00 


-0- 


30.00 


-0- 


52.727.00 


Beaufort 


32,331.00 


23,076.00 


7,351.00 


172,313.64 


-0- 


4,909.00 


-0- 


239,980.64 


Bertie 


14,089.00 


11,789.00 


2,322.00 


61,905.00 


-0- 


606.00 


-0- 


90,711.00 


Bladen 


25,665.00 


20,863.18 


2,735.00 


139,072.50 


2,883.00 


734.00 


-0- 


191,952.68 


Brunswick 


19,108.00 


10,279.00 


3,914.00 


110.884.50 


2,070.00 


376.00 


-0- 


146,631.50 


Buncombe 


96,136.00 


57,087.50 


9,559.50 


493,524.27 


-0- 


17.725.50 


-0- 


674.032.77 


Burke 


42,960.00 


17,183.00 


3,183.50 


182,295.51 


-0- 


3.042.00 


-0- 


248,664.01 


Cabarrus 


55.913.00 


39,532.11 


6,284.25 


235,685.47 


-0- 


3,304.00 


-0- 


340,718.83 


( 'aldwell 


37,123.50 


13,124.00 


5,623.00 


155,778.00 


-0- 


3,194.00 


-0- 


214,842.50 


Camden 


3,129.00 


2,294.00 


55.00 


18,970.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


24,448.00 


Carteret 


30,977.00 


15,760.00 


2,062.00 


211,436.73 


-0- 


4,564.00 


-0- 


264,799.73 


Caswell 


9.323.50 


7.467.00 


1,192.00 


43.094.39 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


61,076.89 


Catawba 


31,258.00 


18,606.00 


5,637.00 


283,115.05 


36,009.00 


11,917.00 


2,833.00 


389,375.05 


Chatham 


13,739.00 


15,385.00 


1,255.00 


90.273.70 


7,545.00 


863.00 


260.00 


129,320.70 


Cherokee 


9,321.00 


5,533.00 


1,797.00 


77,289.75 


-0- 


308.00 


81.00 


94,329.75 


Chowan 


10,296.00 


6,629.00 


571.00 


37,298.00 


-0- 


1,490.00 


-0- 


56,284.00 


Clay 


2,900.00 


1,990.00 


390.00 


19,667.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


24,947.00 


Cleveland 


44,490.25 


16,516.20 


8,529.00 


197,054.69 


-0- 


5.050.00 


-0- 


271,640.14 


Columbus 


37,810.00 


32,163.00 


8,134.00 


215.266.10 


2,481.00 


2,130.00 


275.00 


298,259.10 


Craven 


51,498.00 


18,606.00 


8,162.00 


283,900.02 


-0- 


7,594.00 


-0- 


369,760.02 


Cumberland 


172,408.50 


54,820.00 


28,992.26 


924,577.04 


-0- 


36,930.00 


-0- 


1.217,727.80 


Currituck 


12.772.00 


9,709.84 


982.50 


87,623.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


111.087.34 


1 hire 


18.430.00 


9.304.15 


3,141.00 


175.520.00 


-0- 


2,396.00 


-0- 


208.791.15 


Davidson 


42,995.25 


23,025.99 


6,557.55 


238,967.76 


5,948.00 


2,102.00 


-0- 


319,596.55 


Davie 


16,839.00 


10,324.00 


2,015.00 


72.784.70 


-0- 


1,118.00 


-0- 


103,080.70 


Duplin 


29,456.00 


12,547.00 


2,310.00 


155,376.99 


-0- 


987.00 


475.00 


201,151.99 


Durham 


113.536.00 


39,147.21 


2,743.00 


309,557.80 


-0- 


22,984.85 


-0- 


487,968.86 


Edgecombe 


29,349.00 


33,158.00 


7,286.00 


126,971.80 


12,291.00 


5,016.00 


790.00 


214,861.80 


Forsyth 


168,597.00 


23,688.00 


14,876.00 


579,807.62 


2,114.00 


56,907.00 


-0- 


845,989.62 


Franklin 


18,417.00 


8,780.18 


1,955.50 


238,845.04 


-0- 


252.00 


25.00 


268,274.72 


Gaston 


81,139.00 


47,008.00 


12,544.50 


373,796.57 


-0- 


12,367.00 


-0- 


526,855.07 


Gates 


7,925.00 


4,911.00 


330.00 


48.996.00 


-0- 


122.00 


-0- 


62,284.00 


Graham 


2,705.00 


1,769.00 


625.00 


17.855.00 


-0- 


121.00 


-0- 


23,075.00 


Granville 


25,080.00 


11,117.75 


3,343.00 


132,441.16 


-0- 


1,811.00 


330.00 


174.122.91 


Greene 


7,296.00 


4,721.00 


1,593.00 


38,675.75 


-0- 


44.00 


-0- 


52,329.75 


Guilford 


217,708.00 


31,619.00 


19,080.00 


708,129.46 


-0- 


62,029.00 


-0- 


1.038,565.46 


Halifax 


37.626.00 


30,460.31 


8,395.00 


285,721.51 


5,662.00 


3,901.00 


515.00 


372,280.82 


Harnett 


31,370.00 


15,822.00 


3,871.26 


202,316.66 


6,920.00 


2,676.00 


675.00 


263.650.92 


Haywood 


24.144.00 


16,597.00 


499.00 


189,815.17 


661.00 


1,516.00 


-0- 


233,232.17 


Henderson 


27,834.00 


13,701.00 


6,866.00 


143,950.60 


18.00 


2,168.00 


-0- 


194,537.60 


Hertford 


20,988.00 


14,250.52 


4.141.55 


103,779.45 


-0- 


1,790.00 


-0- 


144,949.52 


Hoke 


14,069.00 


6,603.00 


2,725.00 


83,220.50 


-0- 


654.00 


-0- 


107,271.50 


Hyde 


3,158.00 


2,097.00 


177.00 


48,225.44 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


53,657.44 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts Of Fees, Fines And Forfeitures Collected By The Courts And 

Distributed To Counties And Municipalities* 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Iredell 


$ 44.917.00 $ 


21,356.00 $ 


3,384.00 $ 


270,359.82 


$9,263.00 $ 


5,871.00 


$ 565.00 $ 


355,715.82 


Jackson 


14,246.00 


9,716.00 


1,898.00 


101,576.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


127,436.00 


Johnston 


46,159.00 


30,569.10 


7,475.00 


282,091.50 


8,978.00 


3,829.00 


455.00 


379,556.60 


Jones 


6,459.00 


3,346.00 


425.00 


25,933.75 


-0- 


382.00 


-0- 


36,545.75 


Lee 


27,598.00 


15,131.53 


8,491.23 


107,921.50 


-0- 


5,043.00 


-0- 


164,185.26 


Lenoir 


40,512.00 


13,680.00 


6,406.00 


216,406.50 


-0- 


4,700.00 


-0- 


281,704.50 


Lincoln 


21,708.00 


15,225.00 


965.00 


91,126.00 


-0- 


824.00 


-0- 


129,848.00 


Macon 


10,624.00 


7,910.32 


1,056.00 


88,941.97 


-0- 


300.00 


-0- 


108,832.29 


Madison 


5,688.00 


4,176.00 


1,026.00 


29,072.08 


-0- 


42.00 


-0- 


40,004.08 


Martin 


17,653.00 


12,078.00 


327.00 


91,895.32 


-0- 


1,125.00 


-0- 


123,078.32 


McDowell 


20,639.00 


12,423.00 


4,727.00 


148,544.29 


-0- 


1,088.00 


-0- 


187,421.29 


Mecklenburg 


309,438.00 


130,901.65 


170.00 


1,127,515.01 


-0- 


84,837,00 


-0- 


1,652,861.66 


Mitchell 


5,678.00 


3,697.00 


549.00 


27,167.00 


-0- 


234.00 


-0- 


37,325.00 


Montgomery 


23,501.00 


18,465.50 


3,521.00 


80.855.20 


-0- 


836.00 


-0- 


127,178.70 


Moore 


32,370.00 


23,747.00 


2,073.00 


197,318.13 


4,521.00 


3,652.00 


425.00 


264,106.13 


Nash 


32,830.00 


31,269.04 


5,420.00 


217,998.00 


17,100.00 


6,437.00 


1,073.00 


312,127.04 


New Hanover 


81,145.00 


18,820.33 


11,877.00 


447,399.49 


-0- 


16,711.00 


935.00 


576,887.82 


Northampton 


19,408.00 


14,384.50 


2,253.00 


120,180.25 


-0- 


770.00 


-0- 


156,995.75 


Onslow 


75,879.53 


32,102.45 


35,767.61 


580,237.35 


-0- 


11,729.00 


-0- 


735,715.94 


Orange 


32,401.00 


17,059.00 


2,247.00 


185,803.10 


8,768.00 


8,267.00 


238.00 


254,783.10 


Pamlico 


4,189.00 


3,111.00 


1,745.00 


23,204.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


32,249.00 


Pasquotank 


19,264.00 


7,484.00 


2,620.00 


137,732.50 


-0- 


4,959.00 


-0- 


172,059.50 


Pender 


13,524.50 


8,080.00 


2,339.00 


91,956.00 


-0- 


873.00 


-0- 


116,772.50 


Perquimans 


6,687.00 


4,027.00 


965.00 


42,311.00 


-0- 


880.00 


-0- 


54,870.00 


Person 


16,414.00 


1,460.00 


1,527.50 


77,631.00 


30.00 


1,460.00 


-0- 


98,522.50 


Pitt 


52,775.14 


19,168.00 


7,975.00 


359,124.42 


5,749.00 


9,068.00 


885.00 


454,744.56 


Polk 


6,548.00 


4,677.00 


1,239.00 


62,388.00 


-0- 


296.00 


-0- 


75,148.00 


Randolph 


43,081.50 


37,270.97 


1,330.00 


173,969.24 


1,437.00 


3,280.00 


-0- 


260,368.71 


Richmond 


29,217.00 


13,715.00 


5,544.00 


152,698.66 


-0- 


1,296.00 


-0- 


202,470.66 


Robeson 


66,319.00 


38,491.82 


16,797.06 


502,337.84 


23,005.00 


9,505.00 


1,295.00 


657,750.72 


Rockingham 


41,167.59 


24,887.00 


6,490.51 


249,432.70 


13,681.50 


8,530.00 


665.00 


344,854.30 


Rowan 


53,882.30 


37,219.91 


5,922.00 


225,425.55 


-0- 


7,258.50 


-0- 


329,708.26 


Rutherford 


22,365.92 


13,357.00 


6,271.00 


123,813.72 


-0- 


1,952.00 


-0- 


167,759.64 


Sampson 


47,058.82 


35,479.00 


7,094.00 


241,530.85 


-0- 


1,338.00 


-0- 


332,500.67 


Scotland 


24,666.00 


15,284.00 


3,310.00 


119,359.00 


-0- 


3,457.00 


-0- 


166,076.00 


Stanly 


30,366.00 


9,057.00 


3,445.00 


142,572.42 


-0- 


3,270.00 


-0- 


188,710.42 


Stokes 


17,216.50 


10,611.00 


1,348.00 


74,633.00 


-0- 


272.00 


-0- 


104,080.50 


Surry 


38,822.00 


32,719.30 


5,007.00 


192,094.95 


558.00 


3,588.00 


415.00 


273,204.25 


Swain 


6,984.00 


3,738.00 


-0- 


37,238.16 


-0- 


210.00 


817.75 


48,987.91 


Transylvania 


11,799.00 


11,157.27 


2,100.00 


58,517.54 


-0- 


804.00 


-0- 


84,377.81 


Tyrrell 


2,502.00 


1,855.00 


145.00 


9,527.60 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


14,029.60 


Union 


36,609.50 


25,267.00 


10,611.00 


186,582.00 


-0- 


4,215.00 


-0- 


263,284.50 


Vance 


28,522.00 


11,693.00 


1,664.00 


118,635.66 


-0- 


2,386.00 


-0- 


162,900.66 


Wake 


229,039.28 


46,511.25 


34,873.00 


998,294.61 


2,109.00 


74,705.00 


481.00 


1,386.013.14 


Warren 


13,393.00 


8,445.00 


1,000.00 


73,098.00 


-0- 


244.00 


-0- 


96,180.00 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



61 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts Of Fees, Fines And Forfeitures Collected By The Courts And 

Distributed To Counties And Municipalities* 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Washington 


9,268.00 


6,669.00 


420.00 


38,865.22 


-0- 


442.00 


-0- 


55,664.22 


Watauga 


15,324.00 


9,600.00 


2,260.00 


112,883.00 


-0- 


1,970.00 


-0- 


142,037.00 


Wayne 


61,875.00 


18,758.00 


2,767.00 


216,011.60 


1,032.00 


7,621.00 


-0- 


308,064.60 


Wilkes 


39,485.00 


17,560.12 


6,995.00 


170,200.47 


-0- 


942.00 


-0- 


235,182.59 


Wilson 


46,757.00 


28,016.96 


6,413.00 


162,193.63 


-0- 


9,720.60 


-0- 


253,101.19 


Yadkin 


16,631.00 


10,503.00 


2,930.00 


75.362.00 


-0- 


502.00 


-0- 


105.928.00 


Yancey 


6,295.00 


4.931.00 


1,095.00 


30,476.00 


-0- 


378.00 


-0- 


43,175.00 


State Totals 


$3,730,532.92 


$1,773,104.37 


$490,469.98 


$18,594,031.90 


5180,833.50 $ 


621,030.45 


$14,508.75 $ 


25,404,511.87 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons 
in a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in 
the North Carolina General Statutes, Section 7A-450 et 
seq. These include criminal proceedings, judicial hos- 
pitalization proceedings, juvenile proceedings which 
may result in commitment to an institution to transfer 
to superior court for trial as an adult. Legal representa- 
tion for indigents may be by assignment of private 
counsel, by assignment of special public counsel (in- 
volving mental hospital commitments) or by assign- 
ment of a public defender. 

Five of North Carolina's judicial districts have an of- 
fice of public defender: Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A, and 28. 
The other 28 districts utilize only assignments of private 
counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in the five 
districts which have a public defender in the event of a 
conflict of interests involving the public defender's office 
and the indigent and in the event of unusual cir- 
cumstances when, in the opinion of the court, the proper 
administration of justice requires the assignment of 
private counsel rather than the public defender in those 
cases. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special 
counsel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to 
represent patients in commitment or recommitment 



hearings before a district court judge. Under North 
Carolina law, each patient committed to a mental hos- 
pital is entitled to a judicial hearing (before a district 
court judge) within 90 days after the initial commit- 
ment, a further hearing within 180 days after the initial 
commitment, and thereafter a hearing once each year 
during the continuance of an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged in juvenile petitions to be neglected un- 
less the court finds that the child is not in need of and 
cannot benefit from such representation. 1 By statute the 
guardian ad litem is a licensed attorney and is com- 
pensated for his services in the same way as compensa- 
tion is provided for representation of an indigent person. 

The cost of the entire program of indigent represen- 
tation, rounded to the nearest dollar, was $7,861,724 in 
the 1979-80 fiscal year, compared to $6,124,288 in the 
1978-79 fiscal year, an increase of 28.4 percent. The total 
amount expended for representation of indigents was 
11.1% of total Judicial Department expenditures in the 
1979-80 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents, for the fiscal year, July 1, 
1979 through June 30, 1980. 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 

As guardian ad litem for juveniles 
Totals 

Public Defender Offices 

District 12 
District 18 
District 26 
District 28 
Totals 

Special counsel at mental hospitals 
Transcripts, records and briefs 
Expert witness fees 
Grand Total 



Number 


Total 


Average Cost 


of Cases 


Cost 


Per Case 


315 


$ 472,399 


$1,499.67 


28,282 


4,985,500 


176.27 


3,891 


271,854 


69.86 


2,246 


259,962 


115.74 


34,734 


$5,989,715 


172.45 


1,956 


$ 299,359 


$153.05 


2,127 


378,710 


177.22 


4,803 


390,680 


81.34 


1,416 


153,543 


108.43 


11,558 


$1,404,715 


121.54 


10,707 


$ 141,401 

308,979 

16,914 

$7,861,724 


13.21 



1 G.S. 7A-283. Effective January 1, 1980, this section was repealed and replaced by a new section, G.S. 7A-546, which provided for the ap- 
pointment of a guardian ad litem in all cases in which a petition alleges neither neglect or "abuse." 1979 Session Laws, Chapter 815. 



63 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental hospitals, to represent patients in 
commitment or recommitment hearings, was $141,401 
for the 1979-80 fiscal year. There were a total of 10,707 
hearings held during the year, for an average cost per 
hearing of $13.21. 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 

Commitment to outpatient clinic 

Discharge 
Totals 



The following presents data on the hearings held at 
each of the mental hospitals in 1979-80. The total num- 
ber of hearings held in 1979-80 represents an increase of 
1.2% compared to the 10,575 hearings held in 1978-79. 







Dorothea 


John 




oughton 


Cherry 


Dix 


Umstead 


Totals 


675 


1,263 


491 


829 


3,258 


183 


164 


5 


132 


484 


2,139 


1,393 


569 


983 


5,084 


2,997 


2,820 


1,065 


1,944 


8,826 


67 


184 


81 


228 


560 


10 


1 


3 


21 


35 


64 


69 


31 


88 


252 


141 


254 


115 


337 


847 


108 


279 


256 


260 


903 











1 


1 


8 


20 


16 


30 


74 


116 


299 


272 


291 


978 


1 


IS 





5 


24 


15 








1 


16 





10 





6 


16 


16 


28 





12 


56 


851 


1,744 


828 


1,322 


4,745 


208 


165 


8 


155 


536 


2,211 


1,492 


616 


1,107 


5,426 


3,270 


3,401 


1,452 


2,584 


10,707 



The table on the following page compares the number 
of assigned private counsel cases and expenditures in 
each county and judicial district for fiscal years 1978-79 
and 1979-80. There was a substantial increase in the 
number of cases for the State as a whole, from 28,998 
cases in 1978-79 to 34,734 in 1979-80, an increase of 
19.8%. Expenditures increased by 31.1%, from $4,568,- 
495.45 in 1978-79 to $5,989,715.08 in 1979-80. 



The largest district increase in the number of cases 
occurred in District 17, which had a total of 974 cases 
in 1978-79 and 1,403 cases in 1979-80, an increase of 
44.1%. 

The largest district increase in the amount of expen- 
ditures occurred in District 8, which had expenditures of 
$188,640.33 in 1978-79, compared with $444,817.95 in 
1979-80, an increase of 135.8%. 



64 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers Of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1978-79 and 1979-80 





Number of Cases 


% Increase 




Expenditures 


















% Increase 




1978-79 


1979-80 


or Decrease 




1978-79 




1979-80 


or Decrease 


District 1 


















Camden 


20 


17 


- 15.0% 


S 


3,571.96 


$ 


4,822.06 


+ 35.0% 


Chowan 


61 


91 


+ 49.2% 




11,235.18 




17,078.33 


+ 52.0%, 


Currituck 


58 


48 


- 17.2% 




10,828.42 




9,035.63 


- 16.6% 


Dare 


61 


60 


1.6% 




14,401.75 




14,063.98 


2.4% 


Gates 


30 


22 


26.7% 




5,837.68 




5,919.12 


+ 1.4% 


Pasquotank 


158 


184 


+ 16.5% 




23,369.97 




33,162.34 


+ 42.0% 


Perquimans 


47 


64 


+ 36.2% 




9,185.00 




12,469.28 


+ 35.8%, 


District Totals 


435 


486 


+ 11.7% 


$ 


78,429.96 


S 


96,550.74 


+ 23.1% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


178 


221 


+ 24.2% 


$ 


29,948.50 


$ 


40,050.15 


+ 33.7% 


Hyde 


16 


25 


+ 56.3% 




2,624.03 




5,753.73 


+ 119.3% 


Martin 


122 


155 


+ 27.1% 




16,222.79 




23,501.72 


+ 44.9% 


Tyrrell 


19 


31 


+ 63.2% 




2,355.00 




7,954.20 


+237.8% 


Washington 


44 


9K 


+ 100.0% 




7,476.83 




13,137.61 


+ 75.7% 


District Totals 


384 


530 


+ 38.0% 


$ 


58,627.15 


$ 


90,397.41 


+ 54.2% 


District 3 


















Carteret 


204 


284 


+ 39.2% 


$ 


32,866.52 


s 


61,707.96 


+ 87.8%, 


Craven 


377 


418 


+ 10.9% 




64,466.44 




90,737.75 


+ 40.8% 


Pamlico 


33 


50 


+ 51.5% 




4,671.95 




11,974.95 


+ 156.3% 


Pitt 


680 


888 


+ 30.6% 




140,514.57 




190,720.53 


+ 35.7% 


District Totals 


1,294 


1,640 


+ 26.7% 


$ 


242,519.48 


$ 


355,141.19 


+ 46.4% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


183 


299 


+ 63.4% 


s 


39,405.00 


$ 


80,302.75 


+ 103.8% 


Jones 


92 


64 


- 30.4% 




14,697.98 




14,826.00 


+ 0.9%, 


Onslow 


633 


677 


+ 7.0% 




119,004.20 




145,078.22 


+ 21.9% 


Sampson 


277 


390 


+ 40.8% 




51,212.60 




77,459.62 


+ 51.3% 


District Totals 


1,185 


1,430 


+ 20.7% 


$ 


224,319.78 


$ 


317,666.59 


+ 41.6% 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


454 


590 


+ 30.0% 


s 


101,470.03 


s 


145,204.75 


+ 43.1%, 


Pender 


54 


89 


+ 64.8% 




8,533.69 




14,626.21 


+ 71.4% 


District Totals 


508 


679 


+ 33.7% 


$ 


110,003.72 


$ 


159,830.96 


+ 45.3% 


District 6 


















Bertie 


113 


161 


+ 42.5% 


s 


14,295.02 


s 


22,487.49 


+ 57.3% 


Halifax 


350 


420 


+ 20.0% 




48,214.17 




67,862.71 


+ 40.8%, 


Hertford 


156 


197 


+ 26.3% 




19,521.30 




25,072.78 


+ 28.4% 


Northampton 


67 


108 


+ 61.2% 




9,285.80 




13,563.20 


+ 46.1%, 


District Totals 


686 


886 


+ 29.2% 


$ 


91,316.29 




$128,986.18 


+ 41.3% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


441 


427 


3.2% 


$ 


87,228.50 


s 


64,835.72 


- 25.7% 


Nash 


393 


430 


+ 9.4% 




77,253.52 




69,296.15 


- 10.3% 


Wilson 


383 


498 


+ 30.0% 




73,407.51 




85,367.51 


+ 16.3% 


District Totals 


1,217 


1,355 


+ 11.3% 


$ 


237,889.53 


$ 


219,499.38 


7.7% 



65 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers Of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1978-79 and 1979-80 





Number o 


f Cases 


% Increase 
or Decrease 




Expenditures 






1978-79 


1979-80 




1978-79 




1979-80 


% Increase 
or Decrease 


District 8 


















Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 


71 

558 

707 

1,336 


98 

767 

864 

1,729 


+ 38.0% 
+ 37.5% 
+ 22.2% 
+ 29.4% 


$ 
S 


12,300.02 

67,926.07 

108,414.24 

188,640.33 


S 

$ 


15.708.63 

89,193.41 

339,915.91 

444,817.95 


+ 27.7% 
+ 31.3% 
+213.5% 
+ 135.8% 


District 9 


















Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 


180 
210 
134 
287 
115 
926 


164 
267 
164 
260 
78 
933 


8.9% 
+ 27.1% 
+ 22.4% 

9.4% 
- 32.2% 
+ 0.8% 


S 
$ 


29.568.65 
36,866.98 
25,196.08 
42,964.76 
16,921.17 
151,517.64 


S 

$ 


28.641.18 
42,959.98 
25,489.70 
41,674.44 
18.435.50 
157,200.80 


3.1% 
+ 16.5% 
+ 1.2% 

3.0% 

+ 9.0%; 

+ 3.8% 


District 10 


















Wake 


1,897 


1,851 


2.4% 


$ 


271,289.92 


s 


314,815.92 


+ 16.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 


236 
491 
224 
951 


296 

609 

264 

1,169 


+ 25.4% 
+ 24.0% 
+ 17.9% 
+ 22.9% 


s 


37,447.62 

48,197.60 

27,004.50 

112,649.72 


s 
$ 


41,975.02 

75,798.27 

34.018.64 

151,791.93 


+ 12.1% 
+ 57.3% 
+ 26.0% 
+ 34.8% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 


180 

22 

202 


224 

16 

240 


+ 24.4%. 
- 27.3% 
+ 18.8% 


s 


53,730.57 

3,100.00 

56,830.57 


$ 

$ 


65,632.55 

2,275.00 

67,907.55 


+ 22.2% 
- 26.6% 
+ 19.5% 


District 13 


















Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 


228 
117 
471 
816 


289 
192 
508 
989 


+ 26.8% 
+ 64.1% 
+ 7.9% 
+ 21.2% 


$ 
$ 


29,172.70 

17.552.41 

57,501.15 

104,226.26 


$ 


34.370.73 

24,635.77 

61,092.65 

S120.099.15 


+ 17.8% 
+ 40.4% 

+ 6.3% 
+ 15.2% 


District 14 


















Durham 


1,401 


1,967 


+ 40.4% 


s 


228,282.50 


s 


278,449.41 


+ 22.0% 


District 15 A 


















Alamance 


622 


782 


+ 25.7%. 


s 


103,094.96 


s 


118,353.77 


+ 14.8% 


District 15 B 


















Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 


1 15 

459 

574 


133 
516 
649 


+ 15.7% 
+ 12.4% 
+ 13.1% 


s 
$ 


17,913.14 

93,151.86 

111,065.00 


$ 

s 


30.321.45 

89,180.18 

119,501.63 


+ 69.3% 

4.3% 

+ 7.6% 


District 16 


















Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 


697 
260 
957 


963 

373 

1,336 


+ 38.2% 
+ 43.5% 
+ 39.6% 


s 


118,943.20 

36,314.33 
155,257.53 


$ 
s 


147,543.98 

52,754.40 

200,298.38 


+ 24.1% 
+ 45.3% 
+ 29.0% 



66 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers Of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1978-79 and 1979-80 





Number of Cases 


% Increase 




Expenditures 


% Increase 




1978-79 


1979-80 


or 


Decrease 




1978-79 




1979-80 


or Decrease 


District 17 




















Caswell 


117 


176 


+ 


50.4% 


$ 


24,515.19 


$ 


26,833.13 


+ 9.5% 


Rockingham 


428 


680 


+ 


58.9% 




73,387.01 




97,878.76 


+ 33.4%: 


Stokes 


X2 


100 


+ 


22.0% 




12,949.30 




18,441.46 


+ 42.4% 


Surry 


347 


447 


+ 


28.8% 




56,073.45 




78,690.29 


+ 40.3% 


District Totals 


974 


1,403 


+ 


44.1% 


5 


166,924.95 


$ 


221,843.64 


+ 32.9% 


District 18 




















Guilford 


489 


599 


+ 


22.5% 


s 


110,285.33 


$ 


203,227.11 


+ 84.3%, 


District 19 A 




















Cabarrus 


487 


547 


+ 


12.3% 


$ 


87,676.91 


$ 


130,048.55 


+ 48.3% 


Rowan 


838 


1,013 


+ 


20.9% 




95,556.85 




137,009.00 


+ 43.4%, 


District Totals 


1,325 


1,560 


+ 


17.7% 


$ 


183,233.76 


$ 


267,057.55 


+ 45.8% 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


165 


219 


+ 


32.7% 


s 


24,467.05 


$ 


37,759.06 


+ 54.3%, 


Randolph 


367 


389 


+ 


6.0% 




83,353.65 




63.203.10 


- 24.2%, 


District Totals 


532 


608 


+ 


14.3% 


$ 


107,820.70 


$ 


100,962.16 


6.4% 


District 20 




















Anson 


244 


204 


- 


16.4% 


$ 


34,778.24 


$ 


34,835.20 


+ .2% 


Moore 


318 


427 


+ 


34.3% 




39,128.40 




53,786.61 


+ 37.5% 


Richmond 


418 


481 


+ 


15.1% 


s 


54,576.85 




82,503.39 


+ 51.2% 


Stanly 


322 


334 


+ 


3.7% 




48,561.88 




46,827.40 


3.6% 


Union 


390 


435 


+ 


11.5% 




43,850.94 




66,825.38 


+ 52.4%, 


District Totals 


1,692 


1,881 


+ 


11.2% 


$ 


220,896.31 


$ 


284,777.98 


+ 28.9% 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,245 


2,714 


+ 


20.9%, 


$ 


271.589.92 


$ 


360,829.83 


+ 32.9% 


District 22 




















Alexander 


95 


176 


+ 


85.3% 


$ 


19,893.30 


s 


24,069.60 


+ 21.0%, 


Davidson 


480 


515 


+ 


7.3% 




75,362.98 




77,195.44 


+ 2.4%, 


Davie 


85 


162 


+ 


90.6% 




15,238.16 




25,671.67 


+ 68.5%, 


Iredell 


338 


520 


+ 


53.9% 




51,180.14 




74,267.78 


+ 45.1%, 


District Totals 


998 


1,373 


+ 


37.6% 


$ 


161,674.58 


$ 


201,204.49 


+ 24.5% 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


26 


47 


+ 


80.8% 


$ 


4,127.00 


$ 


5,850.00 


+ 41.8%, 


Ashe 


XX 


106 


+ 


20.5% 




9,495.00 




13,684.15 


+ 44.1%, 


Wilkes 


287 


312 


+ 


8.7% 




32,626.53 




38,632.22 


+ 18.4%, 


Yadkin 


103 


141 


+ 


36.9% 




10,017.90 




15,518.61 


+ 54.9% 


District Totals 


504 


606 


+ 


20.2% 


$ 


56,266.43 


$ 


73,684.98 


+ 31.0% 


District 24 




















Avery 


103 


126 


+ 


22.3% 


$ 


21,330.07 


s 


18,774.07 


- 12.0% 


Madison 


67 


96 


+ 


43.3% 




8,148.57 




16,419.54 


+ 101.5% 


Mitchell 


71 


65 


- 


8.5% 




12,100.00 




8,167.60 


- 32.5% 


Watauga 


112 


177 


+ 


58.0% 




17,592.00 




34,779.04 


+ 97.7% 


Yancey 


34 


25 


- 


26.5% 




4,216.75 




3,086.95 


- 26.8% 


District Totals 


387 


489 


+ 


26.4% 


$ 


63,387.39 


% 


81,227.20 


+ 28.1% 



67 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers Of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1978-79 and 1979-80 



District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 



Mecklenburg 
District 27 A 



Number of Cases 


% Increase 


1978-79 


1979-80 


or Decrease 


472 

409 

603 

1,484 


426 

471 

809 

1,706 


9.8% 
+ 15.2% 
+ 34.2% 
+ 15.0% 



91 



Gaston 



622 



12; 



- 31.79? 



+ 38.6%. 



Expenditures 


% Increase 


1978-79 




1979-80 


or Decrease 


$ 83,115.39 


S 


65,278.97 


- 21.5% 


61,840.00 




67,448.55 


+ 9.1% 


90,393.19 




131,963.64 


+ 46.0%, 


$ 235,348.58 


5 


264,691.16 


+ 12.5% 


$ 167,082.22 


$ 


157,983.09 


5.5% 



$ 19,173. 



$ 31,546.75 



+ 64.5% 



District 27 B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 



Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 
District Totals 

District 30 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

STATE TOTALS 



285 
184 
469 



121 



334 

193 

48 

[88 

II I 
874 



7") 
21 
IS 

240 
52 
76 
2* 

514 

28,998 



320 


+ 12.3% 


237 


+ 28.8% 


557 


+ 18.8% 



150 



+ 24.0% 



326 


2.4% 


261 


+ 35.2% 


71 


+ 47.9% 


284 


+ 51.19? 


112 


+ .9% 


1,054 


+ 20.6% 


103 


+ 30.4%. 


29 


+ 38.1% 


22 


+ 22.2% 


260 


+ 8.3% 


85 


+ 63.5%. 


108 


+ 42.1% 


32 


+ 14.3% 


639 


+ 24.3% 



34,734 



+ 19.8% 



$ 


49,681.29 


S 


76,508.18 


+ 


54.0% 




25,997.50 




36,533.63 


+ 


40.5% 


$ 


75,678.79 


$ 


113,041.81 


+ 


49.4% 


$ 


20,947.12 


$ 


23.968.04 


+ 


14.4% 


$ 


45.067.41 


$ 


50.655.56 


+ 


12.4% 




26,900.45 




63,060.69 


+ 


1 34.4%. 




5,718.61 




10,816.75 


+ 


89.2% 




23,767.34 




39,983.13 


+ 


68.2% 




13,019.86 




23,701.80 


+ 


82.0% 


$ 


114,473.67 


$ 


188,217.93 


+ 


64.4% 


$ 


11,328.50 


$ 


12,771.30 


+ 


12.7% 




4,984.87 




4,557.00 


- 


8.6% 




2,413.50 




2,523.42 


+ 


4.6% 




30,557.66 




28,950.47 


- 


5.3% 




6,514.00 




9,123.63 


+ 


40.1% 




7,031.37 




11,318.75 


+ 


61.0% 




4,921.66 




4,897.85 


- 


.5% 


$ 


67,751.56 


% 


74,142.42 


+ 


9.4% 


$4,568,495.45 


$5,989,715.08 


+ 


31.1% 



68 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 



Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1980; 



Positions 
authorized 

SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices 
23 Staff Personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 
law clerks, library staff) 
7 Secretarial personnel 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges 

29 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) 
18 Secretarial personnel 

SUPERIOR COURT 

66 Judges 

67 Staff personnel 

34 Secretarial personnel 

DISTRICT COURT 

133 Judges 
603 Magistrates 
34 Staff personnel 
5 Secretarial personnel 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

33 District Attorneys 
245 Staff personnel 
66 Secretarial personnel 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court 
1367 Staff personnel 
7 Secretarial personnel 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

5 Public Defenders 
48 Staff personnel 
16 Secretarial personnel 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals 

4 Secretarial personnel 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

281 Court counselors 
46 Secretarial personnel 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts 
1 Assistant Director for Legal Services 
1 Assistant Director for Management Services 
98 Staff personnel 



Salary ranges 

$49,356-$50,400 

$ 6,492-$34,404 
$13,500-$14,100 

$46,728-$47,784 

$ 7,308-528,776 
$12,900-513,500 

$41,484 
512,900-523,532 
$ 8,004-$ 12,324 

$33,600-534,920 
$ 2,160-$13,308 
$ 9,108-512,324 
$ 8,004-512,324 

538,592 
510,380-535,496 
5 8,004-512,324 

513,656-532,556 
5 7,020-520,388 
5 8,004-512,324 

538,592 
511,940-531,860 
5 8,004-512,324 
515,504-524,936 
5 8,004-510,836 

510,836-522,428 
5 8,004-510,836 

544,100 

531,500 

539,708 

5 8,364-532,820 



69 



PART IV 
TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 



This part of the Annual Report is designed to present 
the flow of cases through the State's trial courts by dis- 
playing pertinent data on a district-by-district and 
county-by-county basis. For ease of reference, this part is 
subdivided into a superior court division section and a 
district court division section. 

The data within the two sections parallel each other in 
terms of organization. Total caseloads in each division 
are subdivided into criminal and civil case categories. 
Within each case category are three basic data tables: a 
"Caseload Inventory;" a table on the "Manner of Dis- 
position" of the case disposed of during the year; and a 
table on the "Ages" of cases disposed of during the year 
and of cases pending at the end of the year. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical pic- 
ture of caseflow during the year. Items recorded in this 
table include the number of cases pending at the begin- 
ning of the year, the number of new cases filed, the num- 
ber of cases disposed of during the year, and the number 
of cases left pending at the end of the year. For each 
category, the caseload inventory shows the total caseload 
(the number pending at the beginning of the year plus the 
number filed during the year) and the percentage of that 
caseload which was disposed of. A separate summary 
table at the end of Part IV shows the 33 districts' and the 
100 counties' comparative rankings (from 1 to 33 or from 
1 to 100) in respect of this percentage of all case 
categories. 

The manner of disposition table depict a breakdown 
of all cases disposed of. The types of dispositions in- 
cluded in these tables depend upon the case category in 
question. The aging tables show both the ages of the 
cases pending of June 30, 1980, as well as the ages of the 
cases disposed of during 1979-80. These tables also show 
both "mean" (average) and median ages for each set of 



cases — those pending at the end of the year and those 
that were disposed of during the year. Both of these sum- 
mary statistics may be helpful in assessing data on ages 
of cases pending or cases disposed of, and in comparing 
data for a particular county or district with data for the 
State as a whole or data for previous years. The median 
age — by definition the age of a hypothetical case which 
is older than 50% of the total and younger than the other 
50%. 

The mean age — the total of all the ages divided by the 
number of cases — provides a statistic for all the cases in 
a set. Unlike the median, the mean age can be substan- 
tially raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very 
old (or very young) cases are included among the cases 
pending or the cases disposed of. (For example, if only a 
single 2-year old case were included among ten cases 
aged 3 months, the median age would be 90.0 days and 
the mean age would be 148.2 days.) In any district or 
county, then, a substantial difference between the mean 
age and the median age indicates the presence of a num- 
ber of rather long-pending (or short-pending) cases. 

The statistics in this section have been calculated from 
case reports submitted to the Administrative Office of 
the Courts by the 100 clerks of superior court across the 
State. The present case reporting system is essentially a 
manual one: weekly reports from each clerk's office are 
mailed to Raleigh, where they are computer-coded, en- 
tered and processed. A system such as this one makes it 
difficult to achieve up-to-date accuracy, in all respects, at 
the end of any reporting period, and it should be 
recognized that additional information on the cases dis- 
posed of during 1979-80 not received in time for inclu- 
sion in the statistics presented here may necessitate revi- 
sions in the numbers shown for cases pending at the end 
of the year. 



73 



PART IV, Section 1 

Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



■ 



■■ 



H 



■ 




THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1979-80 of cases 
pending, filed and disposed of in the State's superior 
courts (cases which must be handled by one of the State's 
superior court judges), and cases pending, filed and dis- 
posed of before the 100 clerks of superior court, who, as 
ex officio judges of probate, have original jurisdiction 
over estates cases and special proceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three 
kinds of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases; 
felony cases within the original jurisdiction of the 
superior courts; and misdemeanor appeals to superior 
court from the district court for trial de novo. In 1979-80, 
as the chart on the following page illustrates, filings of 
felony cases were the most common of these three 
categories; the 36,830 felony cases filed comprise about 
half of all case filing. Filings of misdemeanor appeals 
constituted about a third of the total, and filings of 
superior court civil cases about a sixth. 

As the graph indicates, there are differences among 
the case types in the relationships between numbers of 
cases filed and disposed of during the year and the 
numbers of cases which remained pending at the end of 
the year. For the two criminal case categories (felony 
cases and misdemeanor appeals), the numbers filed and 
disposed of during the year are considerably larger 
than the numbers pending at year's end; on the other 
hand, there are more civil cases pending at year's end 
than were filed or disposed of during the year. These 
summary figures suggest that the "typical" superior 
court civil case takes longer to dispose of than the 
"typical" felony case or misdemeanor appeal. 



This conclusion is reinforced by the data on the ages of 
the superior court cases pending on June 30, 1980 and 
the ages of the superior court cases disposed of during 
1979-80. The chart on the second of the following pages 
summarizes these data by presenting median ages for 
each of the three case types. The superior court civil cases 
pending on June 30, 1980 has a median age of 297.0 days 
(almost ten months), while the felony cases pending had 
a median age of 72.6 days and the misdemeanor appeals 
a median age of 66.4 days (between two and two and a 
half months). Similarly, the superior court civil cases dis- 
posed of during 1979-80 had a median age of 298.3 days 
at the time of their disposition, while the median age of 
the felony cases disposed of during the year was 68.2 
days and the median age of the misdemeanor appeals 
was 59.2 days. 

The differences in the ages of civil cases disposed of or 
still pending in superior courts, and the ages of criminal 
cases disposed of or still pending in superior courts, can 
be attributed in part to the priority given criminal cases. 
The right of a criminal case defendant to a "speedy trial" 
is guaranteed in both the U.S. and North Carolina Con- 
stitutions, and current North Carolina statutes prescribe 
that criminal cases must be tried within 120 days of filing 
unless there has been justifiable delay for one or more of 
the good causes specified in the statutes. No comparable 
"standard" for the speedy disposition of civil cases has 
been adopted in North Carolina, although the North 
Carolina Constitution does provide that "right and 
justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or 
delay" in the section declaring every person's right to 
legal remedy for injury "in his lands, goods, person or 
reputation" (Article I, Section 18; emphasis added). 



77 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

Superior Court Caseload 
1979-80 



511 



T 
H 
O 
U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 

() 
I 

c 

A 

s 
I 

S 



4(1 



30 _ 



20 _ 



10 _ 



!_ 



Filings 
Dispositions 



||j End Pending 



3,075 




15,664 



1,767 



Civil 



36,830 



36,169 



10,803 



Felonies 



24 994 25,047 



6.805 



Misdemeanors 



Felony cases accounted for almost half of the caseload 
before the superior courts during the 1979-80 year. 



49.2% of the cases filed in superior court and 49.6% of 
those disposed were felony cases. 



78 



T 
H 



u 

s 

A 
N 
D 

S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
I970-198O 



80 



70 _ 



60. 



50 i 



40. 



30. 



k * FILINGS 

B c DISPOSITIONS 

9- — end PENDING 




.«—# 



• 



>-* 



'"0 



a Os 



/ 



s 



'•9- 



""» 



X 






70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-7979-80 

The upward trend of filings and dispositions and the recent downward trend of 
pending cases in this graph are a direct reflection of criminal case domination 
in the superior courts. Of the total superior court case volume during the 
1979-80 year, 82.5% of the filings and 83.9% of the dispositions were criminal 
cases. 



79 



T 

H 



u 
s 

A 

N 
D 

S 

C 
F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1979-1980 



25 



20. 



15. 



10. 



5. 



4 A FILINGS 

3 G DISPOSITIONS 

9- — qd PENDING 



a 



>- -9- 



,J6 — -&•• 



.--0 




..$ -fi ff 



70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-7979-80 



Civil cases in the superior courts do not exhibit the same trends as will be seen 
for criminal cases. Between the 1978-79 and 1979-80 years, filings increased 
8.7%, while cases disposed increased by only 3.9%. This relationship between 
filings and dispositions has helped to boost the pending caseload by 2.6% during the 
past year. 



so 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 



Lifetimes of Superior Court Cases 
Median Ages of Cases Pending 6/30/80 and of Cases Disposed During 1797-80 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




297.0 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 



59.2 



H 



Pending Cases 
Disposed Cases 



100 



200 
Median Age (Days) 



300 



The median age of a case category is a value such 
that 50% of all cases are younger and 50% of all cases 
are older than this value; it is the 50th percentile of 
ages. As shown in this graph, the median age of civil 
cases pending at year-end was 297.0 days, while the 
median age at disposition of all civil superior cases dis- 



posed during the year was 298.3 days. Criminal cases 
must generally take less time through the courts, and 
their lifetimes can be viewed in light of the speedy trial 
statute. Of the pending cases on June 30, 1980, 33,7% 
of the felonies and 32.6% of the misdemeanors were 
over 120 days old. 



81 



Camden 


11 


Chowan 


13 


Currituck 


37 


Dare 


86 


Gates 


12 


Pasquotank 


44 


Perquimans 


22 


District Totals 


245 


District 2 




Beaufort 


92 


Hyde 


lh 


Martin 


37 


Tyrrel 1 


9 


Washington 


36 


District Totals 


L90 


District 3 




Carteret 


134 


Craven 


214 


Paml ico 


27 


Pitt 


176 


District Totals 


551 


District 4 




Dupl in 


77 


Jones 


20 


Onslow 


L61 


Sampson 


67 


District Totals 


125 


District 5 




New Hanover 


231 


Pender 


43 


District Totals 


274 


District 6 




Bertie 


43 


Ha 1 i fax 


'il 


Hertford 


62 


Northampton 


40 


District Totals 


236 


District 7 




Edgecombe 


116 


Nash 


170 


Wil son 


155 


District Totals 


441 


District 8 




Greene 


18 


Lenoi r 


151 


Wayne 


187 


District Totals 


356 


District 9 




Frankl in 


73 


Granville 


43 


Person 


',!'. 


Vance 


L0 1 


Warren 


56 


District Totals 


333 


District 10 







% Caseload 


Pending 


osed 


Disposed 


6/30/80 


12 


48.0 


13 


26 


43.3 


14 


33 


55.9 


26 


92 


57.1 


69 


1(3 


72.7 


6 


54 


57.4 


40 


28 


60.8 


18 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 

Pending Total 

District 1 7/1/79 Hied Caseload 

14 25 

27 60 

22 59 
75 161 

10 22 

50 94 

24 46 

222 467 261 55.8 206 

51 143 70 48.9 73 

11 27 8 29.6 19 
33 70 34 48.5 36 

9 5 55.5 4 

23 59 19 32.2 40 

118 308 136 44.1 172 

143 277 131 47.2 146 
140 354 155 43.7 199 

28 55 26 47.2 29 
210 386 186 48.1 200 

521 1,072 498 46.4 574 

71 148 70 47.2 78 

27 47 11 23.4 36 

121 282 137 48.5 145 

92 159 91 57.2 68 

311 636 309 48.5 327 

144 375 120 32.0 255 

25 68 11 16.1 57 

169 443 131 29.5 312 

27 70 34 48.5 36 

70 161 68 42.2 93 

42 104 58 55.7 46 

40 80 40 50.0 40 

179 415 200 48.1 215 

91 207 110 53.1 97 

112 282 104 36.8 178 

120 275 133 48.3 142 

323 764 347 45.4 417 

12 30 14 46.6 16 
149 300 124 41.3 176 
152 339 170 50.1 169 

313 669 308 46.0 361 

46 119 45 37.8 74 

45 88 28 31.8 60 

56 114 41 35.9 73 

59 162 42 25.9 120 

26 82 11 13.4 71 

232 565 167 29.5 398 

Wake 957 1,163 2,120 1,078 50.8 1,042 



82 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



District 11 



Pending 

7/1/79 



Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


125 

155 

71 


District Totals 


351 


District 12 




Cumberland 
Hoke 


381 
12 


District Totals 


393 


District 13 




Bladen 

Brunswick 
Col umbus 


30 

95 

160 


District Totals 


285 


District 14 




Durham 


684 


District 15A 




Alamance 


164 


District 15B 




Chatham 
Orange 


6 b 

114 


District Totals 


180 


District 16 




Robeson 
Scotland 


74 
30 


District Totals 


104 


District 17 




Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


15 

140 

35 

135 


District Totals 


325 


District 18 




Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 


887 
289 


District Totals 


1,176 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 
Rowan 


193 
127 


District Totals 


320 


District 19B 




Montgomery 
Randol ph 


35 
153 


District Totals 


188 


District 20 





Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



91 

130 

84 

67 

157 

52 9 



Filed 

127 
179 

9 7 

403 



290 
15 

305 



43 
37 
88 

168 



40 3 



184 



65 

164 

229 



113 

22 

135 



16 
108 

23 
115 

262 



760 

171 

931 



107 
126 

233 



19 
126 

145 



52 

1 30 
75 
40 

1 >,'-') 

436 



Total 
Caseload 

252 
S34 
168 

754 



671 
27 

698 



73 

132 
248 

453 



1,087 



348 



131 

2/8 
4 09 



187 
52 

2 39 



31 
248 

58 
250 

687 



1,647 
460 

2,107 



300 
253 

55 i 



54 

2/9 

333 



143 

260 
159 
107 
296 

965 



Disposed 

99 

116 

69 

274 



291 
10 

101 



197 



449 



169 



71 

117 

188 



10., 

21 
127 



98,11 



626 

l ;2 
657 



141 
1 '.') 

280 



29 

165 

194 



7c Caseload 
Disposed 

39.2 
34.7 
35.1 

36.3 



43.3 

37.0 

43.1 



31 


42.4 


60 


45.4 


nit, 


42.7 



43.4 



40.9 



i.5 



54.1 
42.0 

45.9 



56.6 
40.3 

53.1 



8 


25.8 


128 


51.6 


il 


53.4 


11 i 


45.2 



47.7 



31.8 
28.6 

31.1 



47.0 
54.9 

50.6 



53.7 
59.1 

58.2 



57 


39.8 


74 


28.4 


53 


33.3 


4 1 


38.3 


137 


46.2 



Pending 

6/30/80 

153 
218 
109 



380 
17 

397 



42 

72 

142 

256 



•;t>6 



37.5 



642 



179 



60 
161 

221 



81 
31 

112 



2 3 
120 

2 7 
137 

307 



1,122 
328 

1,450 



159 

114 

27 3 



25 
114 
139 



186 

106 

66 

159 

603 



83 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 

District Total 
District 23 



Burke 
Cal dwel 1 
Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



Buncombe 
District 29 



Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


7/1/79 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/80 


767 


670 


1,437 


616 


42.8 


821 


19 


37 


56 


23 


44.6 


31 


134 


176 


310 


1 !4 


43.2 


176 


19 


33 


52 


12 


61.5 


20 


126 


153 


279 


148 


53.0 


111 



Al leghany 


15 


Ashe 


50 


Wilkes 


150 


Yadkin 


33 


District Total s 


248 


District 24 




Avery 


4 3 


Madison 


38 


Mitchell 


39 


Watauga 


66 


Yancey 


21 


District Totals 


207 


District 25 





199 
135 

311 

345 



1,£ 



457 



Cleveland 


155 


Lincol n 


46 


District Totals - 


201 


District 28 





3 04 



399 



27 

20 

183 

33 

263 



32 
26 

39 
55 
71 

32 3 



125 
189 
285 

599 



1,842 



369 



159 
74 

233 



SOD 



Henderson 


151 


113 


McDowel 1 


50 


46 


Polk 


25 


15 


Rutherford 


74 


71 


Transyl vania 


52 


43 


District Totals 


352 


288 


District 30 






Cherokee 


34 


25 


Clay 


8 


8 


Graham 


18 


11 


Haywood 


99 


80 


Jackson 


11/ 


86 


Macon 


Hfl 


49 


Swain 


27 


45 


District Totals 


383 


504 


STATE TOTALS 


14,356 


13,075 



697 



42 

70 

333 

66 

511 



64 

78 

121 

92 

430 



334 
334 
496 

1,144 



3,724 



826 



314 
120 

434 



404 



264 
96 
40 

145 

MS 



94 

If. 

3') 

179 

20 3 

124 

72 

687 

27,431 



33 9 



231 



I'll') 



. 554 



1,320 



372 



157 

58 

31', 



456 



,"):•; 



48.6 



17 


40.4 


13 


17.1 


161 


48.3 


41 


62.1 



45.2 



51 


68.0 


30 


46.8 


if, 


46.1 


63 


52.0 


29 


31.5 



S.6 



145 


44.7 


158 


48.7 


251 


50.6 



48.4 



35.4 



45.0 



50.0 
48.3 

49.5 



50.1 



127 


48.1 


4 3 


46.8 


14 


35.0 


70 


48.2 


42 


44.2 



46.5 



18 


30.5 


7 


43.7 


12 


41.3 


72 


40.2 


'- 


26.1 


t,4 


49.6 


23 


30.5 



24.3 
11,767 



36.0 



42. 



333 



25 
58 

172 
25 

230 



24 

34 

42 

53 
63 

221 



179 
166 
245 

390 



2,404 



454 



157 

62 

31Q 



433 



137 

51 
26 
75 
53 

342 



41 

9 

17 
107 
150 

65 

50 

4 34 

15,664 



84 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES 

1979-80 



JUDGE 



CLERK 




VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 



JURY 



OTHER 



As indicated by the above graph, voluntary dismissals 
account for the largest segment of dispositions of 
superior court civil cases, with the next largest segment 



consisting of those cases handled before a judge without 
a jury. Jury trials accounted for only 6.0% of the total 
number of dispositions. 



85 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



District 1 


Total 
Disposed 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


12 

;'h 

<3 

<!,' 

16 
54 
28 


District Totals 


261 


District 2 




Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


70 

o 

34 
5 
L9 


District Totals 


136 


District 3 
Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


lil 

155 

26 

186 


District Totals 


498 


District 4 




Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


70 

11 

137 

91 


District Totals 


.109 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


120 

11 


District Totals 


131 


District 6 




Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


:4 
68 
58 
40 


District Totals 


200 


District 7 




Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


111] 
104 

i ■;■; 


District Totals 


347 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


14 

U'4 
I/O 


District Totals 


308 


District 9 




Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


4', 
28 

-11 
4,' 
11 


District Totals 


167 


District 10 





Wake 



1,078 



Judge 

5 

7 
18 
44 

4 
17 
11 

106 



34 
2 

10 
3 
5 

54 



39 
41 

5 
56 

141 



24 

1 

38 

19 

82 



59 

4 

63 



24 
23 
20 

75 



44 
35 
51 

1 30 



7 
42 
86 

135 



15 

8 

."1 

13 

5 

i.;' 



44 6 



Jury 




1 



1 

3 

2 



9 

7 

1 

11 

28 



1 i 

4 
8 

25 



2 
4 
5 

1 

12 



7 
1 

12 

20 



o 

13 
7 

20 



M 





Voluntary 


erk 


Dismissal 


1 


5 


■1 


12 


4 


9 


1/ 


29 


5 


6 


L5 


7 


> 


5 



55 



r. 

2 
8 


4 
20 



12 

22 

4 
17 

55 



9 

7 
22 
1/ 

55 



11 
3 

1 4 



2 

5 

10 

5 

22 



in 
5 

Ki 

25 



1 

2 5 

24 
42: 



105 



7 ■:. 



21 
4 

10 
1 
6 

42 



65 
82 

1! 
85 

24 3 



22 
3 

72 
41 

138 



45 
2 

47 



18 

12 

19 
2 

51 



4 Q 

61 

60 

l 7 o 



46 
M 

103 



2 

15 

ll. 

22 

2 

57 



467 



Other 

1 
3 
1 
2 

12 
1 

20 



9 

3 
1 
2 

15 



6 

3 
5 

17 
31 



4 
2 3 

1 
12 

40 



26 
2 
3 
4 
3 

;s 



86 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



District 11 


Total 
Disposed 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


9Q 

116 

59 


District Totals 


274 


District 12 




Cumberland 
Hoke 


291 

10 


District Totals 


301 


District 13 




Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


31 

60 

106 


District Totals 


L97 


District 14 




Durham 


445 


District 15A 




Alamance 


169 


District 15B 




Chatham 
Orange 


71 

117 


District Totals 


188 


District 16 




Robeson 
Scotland 


L06 

21 


District Total s 


127 


District 17 




Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


8 

128 

31 

113 


District Totals 


280 


District 18 




Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 


525 

132 


District Totals 


657 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 

Rowan 


141 
139 


District Totals 


280 


District 19B 




Montgomery 
Randolph 


29 
L65 


District Totals 


194 


District 20 




Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


57 

74 

53 

41 

137 



Judge 

34 
34 
17 

85 



L18 
3 

121 



10 
21 

28 

59 



District Totals 



362 



50 



78 
40 

78 



49 

7 

56 



6 

52 
10 
13 



173 
52 

225 



36 
41 

77 



11 
91 

102 



34 
29 
28 
12 
44 

147 



Jury 

7 
5 




3 
6 

in 

19 



4 2 



10 



4 
10 

14 



11 


11 




15 


14 

29 



41 

7 

48 



12 
12 

24 




3 


12 

15 



Clerk 

5 

15 

5 

25 



15 
1 

16 



39 



16 



10 

li> 



3 

11 



1 

6 
1 

1') 

18 



hfl 

19 

7') 



1 i 
8 

21 



3 
9 

12 



2 

10 
14 

3 
15 

44 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 

49 

44 

9 

102 



151 

3 

154 



13 
8 

61 

82 



284 



23 
39 

62 



28 
11 

39 




55 
18 
62 

135 



24/ 
51 

298 



78 

74 

152 



4 

61 

55 



l 7 

1 

1 

21 

62 

IN,' 



Other 

9 

18 

•r. 

55 



5 

2 3 

1 

29 



62 



(1 
18 

18 



10 


10 



1 


2 

14 

17 



11 
3 

14 



4 

31 

in 
5 

4 
54 



S7 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



District 21 



Total 
Disposed 



Forsyth 


616 


District 22 




Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


25 

134 

32 

148 


District Totals 


339 


District 23 




Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


17 
12 

161 
41 


District Totals 


231 


District 24 




Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


51 
30 
36 
63 
29 


District Totals 


209 


District 25 




Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


145 
158 
251 


District Totals 


554 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


1,320 


District 27A 




Gaston 


372 


District 27B 




Cleveland 
Lincoln 


157 
58 


District Totals 


215 


District 28 




Buncombe 


456 


District 29 




Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


127 
45 
14 
70 
42 


District Totals 


298 


District 30 





Judge 

193 



46 
6 

30 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 



18 
7 
12 
IV 
53 
64 
22 

248 



')0 



9 

63 

9 



22 
17 
15 
15 
14 

83 



40 
41 
87 

168 



376 



132 



47 
20 

67 



1/2 



50 
19 
3 
26 
16 

114 



3 

4 

32 

26 

22 
8 

103 



Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


33 


72 


305 


13 


1 
7 
1 
8 


3 

2 
31 


11 
71 
23 

55 


2 

4 


44 



17 



1 
1 

in 
7 

19 



16 

13 
7 

36 



78 



!') 



6 

4 

10 



6] 



f. 
ii 
2 
6 

5 

19 



42 



2 



19 

3 

24 



3 

1 

12 
11 

3 
24 



10 
24 
47 

81 



144 



24 



21 

7 
28 



18 



9 

'. 

2 
2 

18 



1 
2 
1 

'. 

•; 

n 

l 

24 



14(1 



4 

2 

63 

22 

91 



L5 

4 

15 

21 
11 

78 



75 

65 

110 

250 



251 



192 



75 

25 

100 



170 



58 
18 
7 
15 
19 

137 





2 

2 

31 

17 

10 

'i 

71 



5(1 



9 
7 


2 


18 



4 

15 


19 



471 



2 
10 

15 



4 
3 

2 
1 


10 



9 

ii 
2 
4 

7 

2(1 

3 

4 5 



STATE TOTALS 



11,767 



4,060 



704 



1,212 



4,655 



1,136 



£} C\J CO CO CO < 

^" CM 

A 



i co lO CXS 



"3" CM LO LO 



i cm co CM 



CO CM CT\ r—i ,— t 



O «— i ^ 



O O co 



CO CM LO *-h uo r-» 



CTi co tO LO 



I t-H *H- 



J2J o «3- lo o co i 



i_n .— < un o •— i 



lo co cm "=3- 



co o r^- co ro 



o i-i en o i 



CO CM LO 



r-. o <d- r-. co 






lo lo o lo lo lo lo co 

NNOinLnoin lo 

m o co (^^ Did lo 

CM CM CM ^3- CM CM •— 1 CM 



LO LD LD O O CO 

CM r-» LO LO CM CM 

r-. t— • LO LO CO Cn 

*^t" CO CM CTi CM CO 



O O LO LO 



on r^- r^- o 

fON ION 
CO CO t-H CM 



LO o o o 



LO LO LO LO LO 

«3- r*. cm lo lo 

r-- r-^ r^ lo co 

CM CO CM ^J" CO 






1- * 
©x 

c 



3 

o 

u 



3 

Q 



LO LO LO CM Cn CO •Sf 

r»- CM CM CO CM LO CO 

in n <* co ^t in cn 

CO CM CO LO CO CM CM 



ISC^ <H<3-c\J 

co •— 1 lo r^ co 

CTi CM LO LO ^J" 

COLO nN^ 



ooD^incri lo 



r-. r-* cn co <3r 



<-i LO LO LO co 
CO LO CM CO (T> 



CXi CM *3" CO 


-' 


«-H «^f 


■-* 


en co en 


LO 


Cn CM r-~. LO 
CTi CM CO LO 
CO CM ^j- CM 


O 


co r*- 

Cn .— 1 
CO <^j- 


LO 

cn 

CO 


LO <— i LO CM 

oinHO 

LO LD ^ LO 


LO 
LO 


O ■-• r-- i-h 





<— I 

CM <— < 


CO 


«d- CO CO 

CO LO LO «d- 


O 



a> 





Q. 

3 


a 

in 


If) 


5 




vi 


a* 


u 


J= 


if) 


"*■* 


U 


c 


<•- 


•■■ 





10 


Bfl 


<K 


V 


(0 


OH 


« 


< 


U 


■a 




c 


ns 


a: 



OhlH^WCnJO 



co cn co lo o < 



t-H LO 



a - 



LO CO LO CM i— I CO CO 



CM CO CO O LO Cn 



•Hcococn lo 



CM 1— * LO 



r-» r— 1 co lo «— < 



CO LO LO LO CO CO «3" 



CO CM LO O CO CO 



^r en lo lo lo 



C/5 

a* 






CM •— * CO CM O LO LO CTi 
1— t r-i CO 



LO O LO CO 



LO LO LO Ci LO 






.2 U I — LOLOOLOLOlO lo 

•aft* 

V V LOLOCOCMr^-LOLO LO 

g O LO LO CO LO -— « LO 



CM ^3" CO CM - 



1— I ■— t CM 



O O LO LO LO LO 

cm r~-- o lo cm r-^ 

CM O *^j- LO CO •— t 



cn lo o co 
CM co cn LO 

CM CO CM CM 



LO LO O LO O 

CO "3- CM LO <3" 

CM «^r LO O CM 

CO CO CO CM CO 



t— I ^ 

•3" LO 



LO O LO LO P-- 

CM CO «-h O CM 

lo en >^i- lo ro 

CO CM CO CM CO 



CO CM CO LO 1 



) LO i-H LO 



ox 

< 



CM CO «3" «=f «3f CM CM 



— c ro <^- lo cn lo o co lo 

2^5 t-HCOCMLO ^--h o 



•^J- CM O CO t-H 

<3- <—< o co cn 

LO *^t" lO OS lO 



en o en co 
co r-- lo cn 

cm *=j- cm co 



O O t-H ^ cn 



o lo lo en 



LO <^T LO CM 
CO CM t— 1 CTv 
LO LO ^J- CO 


LD 


CM CO 
CO CM 
^J- LO 


CO 



LO 


en <— 1 cm 

r^ coo n 

*r «^- ^j- co 


CO 


CO LO LO CO 
f-» CO «h^ LO 


CM 


lo r^- 

LO LO 


CM 


LO CO LO O 

co cn <3- <ht 


LO 



C 


C 


+-> 







^~ 


<u 


rn 




to 


1 




T) 


< 


S- 


CD cu 


CT 


CT 


h 


O 


L- 


S_ -!-> 


t/1 


U 


T} 


_C 


3 


(0 fD 


fO 


OJ 



L_J) CD (_) O IS O- O- 





r— Ol 


-t-J 


-M 


cu 







r - 


1— c 


U 


t > 


S- 


C" 


u 




CD T- 






0) 


a j 






s. c 


S- 


L_ 


+J 


> 




v_ 


S- m 


4-> 


+-> 


S- 




t- 


.'' u 


>*> fD 


tn 


1/1 


tQ 


S- 


T) 



U UCL Q. 



LO O LO •■— •(— 



3 O C T3 LO 
Q ,- D O LO -i- 



TO s- 


u 


1 > 


QJ (D O (D 


D= LU 






-^ 4- M_ ^ 


"O 


S- 


V- 




3 c 






S» r— S- S- 


CU cu 


to 


to 


Ql (D (U O 


^: o_ 


( t- 


■1- 


cor iz 



89 



oi n^rj-^ lo 



ncors co 



LO »-D O O r— i CO 



LO CNJ CO <X> 



c 



3 


r~ o —i 

CO CM CSJ 


CO 


.-H ^H CO 
^H CM 


CO 


0~> CO CNJ O CNJ 


=3- 




e 














5 


7 


CNJ CO CO 


ID 

•=3- 


CM CO CO 


«3 
ro 


m c\j ir> co t— i 


r^ 



O *3- O ■* 



I 
©s 



o o 



± < 



O LO O LO 

«3- cr> lo <j- 

co cnj en co 

ro cnj co co 



LO LO LO CO 

lo «d- *— i ro 

LO ON CO CO 

^ CO CO CO 



co en CO CNJ CO 



r-» co o vo en 

"stOCSJ r-Ht 
*3" CNJ CO CNJ CNJ 



O LO O O 



O LO CNJ 



CO ^ o 


LO 


LO *? 


LO CM LO 


LO 


*tf- CO 


CNJ 1— < f-H 


>— * 


CO CNJ 



o ld en c\j 

en cnj on on 

CO «3- -h i-h 

cnj co co en 






■„,, 


\Ti 


4* 
fcs 


£ 


3 


M 


© 


s 


u 


la 

3 


8= 


Q 


© 


■e 




cu 


ha 


tig 


4) 


© 


a 
s 




m 


5 




tA 


V 


^ 


£ 


98 


-*-< 


u 


B 


<•> 


«« 


© 


t/3 


«i 


^ 


(U 


m 


Pi 


« 


< 


u 


-e 




c 


ss 


ad 


> 


© 




0© 


U 


e 


id 


Ol 


© 


s© 


in 


M 


<U 


B 






38 

o a 

H .2 

Q 



OCT* (Ti CNJ 

*d- en cnj o 

.—■ lo o r^v 

*d- co lo *a- 



o «a- co r^ 

«— • O co ^J- 

r~ I r- 1 .— « CO 



«< e 

PL, 

in 
«l 

v> 
M 
U 



on 



a 


II 


O LO 


tn 


■o 


DC 






^ 


<f 


^- *± 


Oi 


s 






^t 




co *d- 


(-o 



co «=j- o co 

O <3" CNJ C3N 

O *-H *zf CNJ 

LO LO M" LO 



■5 .5 



O O LO t-H 

CO O t— I LO 

LO CO i— I CO 

<£> *3- LO «d" 



1— I «— I CO 



CNJ O LO CO 



■ 


m 


un *3- ro 


CNJ 


rHUl«t 


Q 




i—t CNJ CM 


'X) 


ro ro 




00 








S 










a 










U 


o 












«3- .-! .-1 


CO 


cnj ro co 


c 


. 


.—i cm ro 


CD 


ro cnj 



LO lo o r^ 

o CO LO co 

co «3- co «3- 

CNJ CNJ CNJ 



<3" LO CO 

oinvt 

CO CO «3" 



cn o en co co lo 

lo en cnj co o lo 

ooiDHLn o 

uo co co co r*» *^- 



•—* co lo en •— < en 



CNJ CNJ LO «^t- r-* 



LO LO O LO CO LO 

i— I CO LO LO LO LO 

co co «3- r*- ud «^- 

*3- co co <^- lo <3- 



vj- lo vt in m 

co r-~ co r^ cnj 
o cm <3- o «^r 
r^ *^- ^ <yO r-. 



i— I CO 



co rs,^- en 

lo co en co 

«—! t-H r-t LO 

*3- CO CO CO 



■-H CNJ ^-t «^- 



CNJ CO LO 



CO CNJ LO 



r»~ lo o 


lo 


LO O 


o co en 

i— 1 CO LO 

CO CO CNJ 


CO 

m 


r-- en 
cnj r-* 

CO CNJ 


lo co r^- 


^j- 


lo en 


«— < en ^j- 

^J" CNJ LO 
^J- LO ^J" 


CO 


LO CO 

en r-- 

CO CO 


co co en 

LO i— 1 o 


o 


o r-» 

CO T-l 



cnj co r^ 
cnj co CO 
^ r-^ lo 



co r-^ CNJ CNJ 



LO LO LO LO 



LO o o 
CO CO CO 
CNJ «3" CO 



lo r-. lo co 



r-^ r^. lo 

CNJ LO 00 
CO LO ^J" 



o •<- ■<- 



jk; > o CD <D 

C C CO U S- 

<T3 <0 S- C S- 

i. 1- HI (O <T3 

U.OQ. >3 



ro O CD 

:x '-73 _j 



r— -M 



c 


^ ^ 


CU 


w E 


■a 


C 3 


r-D 


13 . — 




S- O 


CO 


CQ C_J 



90 



1 r-. -^r >^- lo 



LO CM CTi 



a 7 



U © 



■sj- co lo lo 



CTi CO 

<3- lo 

m cm 



LO O O LO 



r-. CM LO CT^ o 

NHQ3N «— i 
ro ^ CO «3" *^f 



HH «3- 



ro c\j 
r-*. ro 



co ej> 
o <* 
co ro 



l/l 


Efl 


•** 


iZ 


3 


CUD 


O 


_c 


r \ 


°c 


U 


3 


■- 


Q 


o 


■a 




ai 


k. 


i/> 


0* 


© 


e, 

3 


a. 


en 


Q 




i/i 


o> 


u 


£ 


its 


-*-> 


u 


C 


V. 


•■■ 


o 


t/i 


</> 


4* 


o 


l/l 


SUO 


« 


< 


u 


T3 




C 


~ 


SJ 


> 


O 




90 


u 


e 


lM 


r<1 


o 


^O 


t/i 


OJC 


<D 


C 


WD 


■5 


< 


c 



a -: 

w 00 



u S 

0i ~ 



LO CD 

ro O 
<— ' *d- 
<3- ro 



<— « <3" LO 



CO r-^ lo 



LO O LO 



ro on cm 



«— I C\J 



ro o ro 



■3- cm ro **• 
ro *3- ro «3- 



cn ro o O cm 



nroino CT> 



CM CTt LO 

CO CTt O 

ID is ai 

ro «^- ro 



to cm 

<nj ro 

LO i— I 



^1- LO 

ro «— < 



r-H CM 



i-H CM (Tt 

LO CTt CO 

LO CM CT) 

r^ «sf LO 



ro cr> cm 



CO ^j- 

CM CM 

r-- en 
ro ro 



ro i—i *zf 



O lo O O O 



93 



OX 



r 



CM •— * •— « 



«**■ CO 
<3- ro 
ro cm 



LO LO CM 



"^ CO 

en -3- 

«— i ro 


CO 
CJ 


ro 


en cm 

CM CO 
CM CM 


ro 

CM 


CM 


f-* CM 
CO LO 
ro LO 


o> I— 1 


ro 


ro 


CO <=i- 


«sr 


^ 


ro lo 


t— i r»- 

^J- O 

ro lo 


LO 


LO 

CO 


CM ro 

.— 1 LO 

ro ro 


LO 
CM 
CO 


LO 

CM 
CO 


LO CO 

O «— i 

lo en 


CO ro 


C J 


ro 

CM 


O r- 

CM CM 


r-. 
co 


O 
CO 


CM CO 
CM CM 

.-h ro 



LO LO 

CO o 
ro CM 



.-h CO 

r^ cm 

«3" ro 



<y\ «=j- ro 



<* CO 
«=f O 
ro cm 



m t- 



(0 -r- 



<0 <0 

o o 



£ 




o 


CO 


ro 








jr. 








r— O0 




+J 




r- C W 




u 




O) -i- CD 


>1 






3 J* ^ 


S- 


s» 


L- 


LO (J O 


s_ 






ro O -M 


Z3 


LO 


tfl 


(_) CXL O0 


oo 










Q 


o 



M- dJ CT) 
^ CO X 



ro O 



91 



LD «— i ^ u3 CTi 



en cm *3- cm < 



*a- to en en 



co en to o co 



«3- «3- co en r-- cm 



>— (*1 CO in CM tO LO tO 



to cm «3- en 



HOHCOO 



to r-- to «3- co \jz> 



rHrH OlCO CTl 



O <— I CM UO LT) 



co -3- cr. <=t en 



I i — i en to to 



r- 



i < 



o Ln o o r- to 

CO cm to <=r co co 

CO^OrHNCn *3- 

m cm co <^- cm co 



o in m in co 

CO LT) CO CM CO 

LO CO O CM LO 

CM CM CM CM CM 



O LT) NO 

CM U") <—* CTi 
hONCO 
CO «d" CM CM 



co r-» r- < in to 
co co cm cm cm 



O ITi O CM 

LO CM CO LT) 

h- m co cm 

CM CM ■— t CM 



If 



UD 

B 



3 


u 



3 
Q 



«3- co CO *3- O 

co «^- in to O 

<?noioo 
to ro«y- in^t 



S o 

O Q. 

H .2 
Q 



O cm CO r-> to 

to in r-^ co cm 

m <3- «=j- co O 

CM CO CM CM CO 



in r^. co cr» 

co cm o~> LO 

m CO r-H i— » 

CM *3" CO CO 



tO i— I CTi O CO CTi 

O «—• to ^j- co in 

CM CO CM CO tO CO 

<3" CO CO CM CM CO 



CO tO CM CO 

r- CTl r- 1 *J- 

OMD O 

^3- CM CM CO 



m co <— i 

<— I •— ' CM 



<u 


o 


3 


Q. 


(f) 


5 




vi 


a 


u 


„s 




•** 


u 


B 


v« 


oca 





!/) 


Gft 


a 


41 


& 


M 


M 


< 


u 


"O 




s 


rsi 


CD 



Q 4. 



t« ^" 



«— i o >— < cr. 



co en co r-. CM 



N UDrON CO 



.— < in co in en 



in co cri to co 



S/3 



DJD •- 

c 



co o to co 



in en co to co 



to en en cm r^ co 






in in in in CD 

*3- r-» <3- co en 

HO'* CO(X) 

«qj- CO CO CO CM 



OLfiino in 

CO CO in CM CTt 

O CO CM CO CM 

•— I CM t—t CM CM 



ocriino 
en cm in in 

CTv -^T >— < ^h 
•— I tO CM CM 



iDLnmifio 
to r—. in o en 

H(s,HtS.CTl 

CM CM i— i CM <— • 



CO «— I ■— I 
un in cm 

<3~ i— < CM 



i CO ^ to 



< 



en in to co en 
^ o <=r co cm 
to «3- <3- to «=f 



in cm o r-. o 

m) «3- to <3- ^ 

en to <— * •— i r-. 

i— • cm cm co CM 



in in co i 



co to co «3- in to 

t-H o r-^ to to co 

to o in cm cm o 

CO CO CO CO CM CO 



in o cm 

CO CO to 

tO CM CM 



en to tn 
hs to -sf 

HHCVJ 



-O O r— 



a> > > cu 

r- tO TJ i~ 

<; o a — i 



CTi CU -r- -<~ -f- 

<D QJ -*: -^ ^- i- 

i — _C < — "O -t-> -4-J 

. — t/1 •«— <T3 1/1 I/) 

d ct 3 >- -r- »f- 



> fO -r- <T3 rt3 

<C E ^ 3 ^ 



3 fT3 HD 

CO O CJ 



02 



en «d- lo lo ro lo 



i<t is CTuJU) m «—• 



en o en 



CM O st «£) <? LO U3 is 



q -r 



r- < CM 



.—i ro 



«J O C\J CD U3 fO rH LO 



w * 



CTt i— t ro >d ro CM 



I 

ON 



CM CO 

en cm 

CM <— I 



O O LO O LO CM 

LO LO O rs •— I r-t 

n r-i rocrno co 

«3- ro ro ro ro ro 



lo o lo lo o lo lo 

n -^ ld n cd co u: 
cm LO *3- lo lo is ro 

cm ro tj ^ in n 






«3 






u, 


3 


M 





e 


u 


3 


&=> 








13 




V 


Im 


X 


a* 


o 


3 


a. 


C/3 


Q 




vi 


a» 


u 


=e 


l/> 


*"< 


U 


c 


— 


• — 


o 


v) 


i« 


4) 


V 


</) 


Ml 


« 


< 


U 


"O 




c 


^i 


M 



5< 



3 o 
o a 
H .2 

Q 



vO ^ 



■ « S 
Q A S 



o <d- 

cm Ln 
ro cm 



r-t r-H CM 



«^f LO ^J- CO O r-t 

rO CTv CO CO LO CM 

O ro cm CO rs co 

lo ro ro ro «^- <y- 



ro <d" en O <d" CO CO CO 

coiriOHNnN cm 

NLnroiriHOCM en 

CO CM CO 'd- ID N CO LO 



I O CTi LD fs«3- LO 



00 r-« 



en en co 



WD ~ 



lo en lo 



rs CM ^ is CO CO st 



u 



rs rs 
ro en 

CM r-t 



CM O LO O CM UO 

corsHro<t lo 

lo en <— t cm co rs 

CM CM -^- CMCM CM 



O o CD o rs cm lo 

^ O^D LD ^ CM LD 
CO O CO CM <3" CO LO 

ro *^- cm ro «^f ro «—« 



DA 
< 



is en 

CM LO 

ro cm 



*D CM CM ro i— I O 

ld <d- lo en ro cm 

O lo lo co lo er> 

«3~ <3- ro cm «3* ro 



r-l>^J-LOr-trO<d-r-< |S. r-l 

r-HOOLOCsirOrs <d" H 

ro o en lo lo «=j- co rs <^- 

Lf) ^ CM n ID LO CM -^j- «5}- 



r- ( CM 



r— r— U 



ro O LO C C -r- 



ai u o 3 s- 
n: s: a. cxl \— 



c_) t_j o ^ r o s: CO 



93 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1974-1988 



T 
H 

U 

s 

A 

N 
P 

S 



F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



60 



ESTATE CASES 



50 . 



40 . 



30 _ 



20 



A- 
9— 



"* FILINGS 

"° DISPOSITIONS 

"0 END PENDING 



Q 



©■- 



^.^o 



. . — 9- 



. «r* 



74 




75 



76 



~r 1 1 1 — 

77 78 78-79 79-8e 



1 
H 


u 

S 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
3 



35 . 



30 _ 



25 



20 . 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



A A FILINGS 

Q "D DISPOSITIONS 

o .<, END PENDING 




,-B 



-EJ-* 



©--■ — 



"fr- 



a- 



74 



75 



76 



77 



78 



78-79 79-80 



The volume of estate cases increases each year, with current year filings showing 
1,744 more cases than the previous year. Although a strong trend has not been 
established for special proceedings cases, the 1979-80 year shows increases over 
the 1978-79 year in all aspects of caseload, including the number of pending cases 
at year end. 

94 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


45 
157 
111 
398 
126 
190 
129 


56 

111 
78 

107 
36 

214 
77 


101 
268 
189 
505 

162 
404 
206 


63 
88 
61 
76 
55 
182 
63 


62.3 
32.8 
32.2 
15.0 
33.9 
45.0 
30.5 


38 

180 
128 
429 

107 
222 

143 


8 

84 
79 
108 
31 
58 
27 


16 
51 
53 

71 
19 
91 
47 


24 

135 
132 
179 

50 
149 

74 


13 
43 

56 
99 
17 
94 
32 


54.1 
31.8 
42.4 
55.3 
34.0 
63.0 
43.2 


11 
92 

76 

80 
33 
55 
42 


District Totals 


1,156 


679 


1,835 


588 


32.0 


1,247 


395 


348 


743 


354 


47.6 


389 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


502 

54 

204 

31 

93 


361 

101 

159 

26 

91 


863 
155 

363 

57 

184 


335 

90 

106 

24 

64 


38.8 
58.0 
29.2 
42.1 
34.7 


528 
65 

257 
33 

120 


383 

31 

102 

10 

79 


118 
23 

125 
24 

65 


501 
54 

227 
34 

144 


88 
23 
118 
16 
97 


17.5 
42.5 
51.9 
47.0 
67.3 


413 
31 

109 
18 
47 


District Total s 


884 


738 


1,622 


619 


38.1 


1,003 


605 


355 


960 


342 


35.6 


618 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


347 

354 

88 

609 


255 

487 

71 

457 


602 

841 

159 

1,066 


255 

358 

85 

490 


42.3 
42.5 
53.4 
45.9 


347 

483 

74 
576 


226 

201 

47 

170 


159 

297 

28 

441 


385 

498 

75 

611 


253 

278 

38 

469 


65.7 
55.8 
50.6 
76.7 


132 

220 

37 

142 


District Totals 


1,398 


1,270 


2,668 


1,188 


44.5 


1,480 


644 


925 


1,569 


1,038 


66.1 


531 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


361 

71 

523 

370 


352 

66 
281 
309 


713 
137 

804 

679 


326 

79 

314 

307 


45.7 
57.6 
39.0 
45.2 


387 

58 

490 

372 


341 

51 

378 

150 


374 

41 

5 38 

297 


715 

92 

916 

447 


297 

38 

538 

298 


41.5 
41.3 
58.7 
66.6 


418 

54 

378 

149 


District Totals 


1,325 


1,008 


2,333 


1,026 


43.9 


1,307 


920 


1,250 


2,170 


1,171 


53.9 


999 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


986 

144 


597 
135 


1,583 
279 


540 
115 


34.1 
41.2 


1,043 
164 


457 
219 


733 

95 


1,190 

314 


710 
147 


59.6 
46.8 


480 

167 


District Totals 


1,130 


732 


1,862 


655 


35.1 


1,207 


6 76 


828 


1,504 


857 


56.9 


647 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


208 

609 
181 

195 


173 
339 
132 

136 


381 
948 
313 
331 


170 

360 
135 
129 


44.6 
37.9 
43.1 
38.9 


211 
588 
178 
202 


119 

610 
103 
103 


93 

327 

101 

79 


212 
937 

204 
182 


147 

391 

89 

85 


69.3 
41.7 
43.6 
46.7 


65 

546 

115 

97 


District Totals 


1,193 


780 


1,973 


794 


40.2 


1,179 


935 


600 


1,535 


712 


46.3 


823 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


381 

467 
504 


342 

369 

367 


723 
836 
871 


328 

339 

358 


45.3 
40.5 
41.1 


395 

497 

513 


172 
284 

199 


208 
224 
324 


380 
508 
523 


196 

166 
278 


51.5 
32.6 
53.1 


184 
342 
245 


District Totals 


1,352 


1,078 


2,430 


1,025 


42.1 


1,405 


655 


756 


1,411 


640 


45.3 


771 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoi r 
Wayne 


113 
392 

706 


109 

395 
551 


222 

787 

1,257 


115 

395 
465 


51.8 
50.1 
36.9 


107 
392 
792 


79 
253 
288 


86 

457 
670 


165 
710 
958 


79 

411 
614 


47.8 
57.8 
64.0 


86 
299 
344 


District Totals 


1,211 


1,055 


2,266 


975 


43.0 


1,291 


620 


1,213 


1,833 


1,104 


60.2 


729 


District 9 


























Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


353 

238 
234 
309 
243 


163 
271 
170 
276 
143 


516 
509 
404 
585 
386 


169 
239 
130 
233 

158 


32.7 
46.9 
32.1 
39.8 
40.9 


347 

270 
274 

352 
228 


119 
102 
129 
108 
124 


206 

292 
132 
168 

99 


325 
394 

261 
276 
223 


151 
278 

102 

149 

76 


46.4 
70.5 
39.0 
53.9 
34.0 


174 
116 
159 
127 
147 


District Totals 


1,377 


1,023 


2,400 


929 


38.7 


1,471 


582 


897 


1,479 


756 


51.1 


723 


District 10 



























Wake 



2,572 1,431 4,003 1,222 



30.5 



2,781 
95 



851 



1,168 2,019 



1,033 



51.1 



Q86 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 11 


7/1/79 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/80 


7/1/79 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/80 


Harnett 


471 


343 


814 


372 


45.7 


442 


386 


179 


565 


210 


37.1 


355 


Johnston 


689 


496 


1,185 


490 


41.3 


695 


145 


610 


755 


544 


72.0 


211 


Lee 


380 


221 


601 


183 


30.4 


418 


202 


198 


400 


144 


36.0 


256 


District Tota 


s 1,540 


1,060 


2,600 


1,045 


40.1 


1,555 


733 


987 


1,720 


898 


52.2 


822 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


7 37 


745 


1,482 


720 


48.5 


762 


479 


1,300 


1,779 


1,353 


76.0 


426 


Hoke 


160 


96 


256 


135 


52.7 


121 


69 


67 


136 


92 


67.6 


44 


District Tota 


s 897 


84 1 


1,738 


855 


49.1 


883 


548 


1,367 


1,915 


1,445 


75.4 


470 


District 13 


























Bladen 


141 


142 


283 


131 


46.2 


152 


127 


172 


299 


182 


60.8 


117 


Brunswick 


224 


2 37 


461 


L97 


42.7 


264 


378 


315 


69 3 


240 


34.6 


453 


Columbus 


!82 


282 


664 


871 


40.8 


393 


290 


252 


542 


190 


35.0 


352 


District Tota 


s 747 


661 


1,408 


599 


42.5 


809 


7 95 


739 


1,534 


612 


39.8 


922 


District 14 


























Durham 


1,567 


1,063 


2,630 


98 7 


35.6 


1,693 


626 


783 


1,409 


764 


54.2 


645 



Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



580 



295 

648 

94 3 



658 1,238 



184 
388 

572 



479 
1,036 

1,515 



601 



213 
374 

587 



48.5 



44.4 
36.1 

38.7 



6 37 



266 
662 

928 



186 



861 

360 



501 



93 
586 



687 



192 

8,4 / 



679 1,039 



454 



103 
512 

615 



66.0 



53.6 
60.4 

59.1 



233 



335 
424 



District 16 



Robeson 


505 


496 


1,091 


530 


48.5 


661 


211 


401 


612 


325 


53.1 


287 


Scotland 


221 


184 


405 


167 


41.2 


238 


122 


104 


226 


75 


33.1 


151 


District Totals 


816 


680 


1,496 


697 


46.5 


799 


333 


505 


838 


400 


47.7 


438 


District 17 



























Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 
Guilford 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 



134 
708 

179 
4 60 



138 
686 
168 
353 



649 

868 



563 

754 



272 

1,294 

347 

812 



1,480 1,245 2,725 



2,605 1,768 4,373 



1,212 
1,606 



District Totals 1,501 1,317 2,818 



94 
559 
163 

3 32 

1,148 



1,706 



522 
68 3 

1,205 



34.5 
43.1 
46.9 
40.8 

42.1 



39.0 



43.0 
42.5 

42.7 



178 
785 
184 
480 

1,577 



2,667 



690 
923 

1,613 



66 


98 


164 


57 


34.7 


107 


^60 


334 


694 


316 


45.5 


376 


70 


115 


185 


110 


59.4 


75 


147 


284 


431 


304 


70.5 


127 



643 



689 



187 
180 

367 



831 



358 
925 

1,283 



1,474 



1,758 2,447 



545 
1,105 

1,650 



787 



1,820 



3 38 
856 

1,194 



53.3 



74.3 



62.0 
77.4 

72.3 



687 



627 



207 
249 

456 



District 19B 



Montgomery 


199 


1/4 


373 


146 


39.1 


28/ 


96 


135 


2 31 


108 


46.7 


12 3 


Randolph 


550 


509 


1,059 


491 


46.3 


568 


189 


352 


541 


340 


62.8 


201 


District Totals 


749 


683 


1,432 


637 


44.4 


7 96 


285 


487 


772 


448 


58.0 


824 


District 20 



























Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 

Union 



4 ! 3 

616 

669 
948 

476 



155 
371 
296 
280 

162 



688 

98,/ 

855 

1,228 



112 
334 
200 
234 

106 



District Totals 3,032 1,464 4,496 1,185 



19.0 
33.8 
23.3 
19.0 
36.3 

26.3 



4/9, 
653 
666 
994 

3,311 



102 
1 34 

328 

204 
1 56 

904 



64 
283 
177 
256 
227 

1,007 



166 
417 
505 
460 
363 

1,911 



55 
281 

122 
198 
189 

84 5 



33.1 
67.3 
24.1 
43.0 
52.0 



111 
136 
383 
262 

174 



44.2 1,066 



% 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 21 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseloar. 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Forsyth 


1,888 


1,386 


3,274 


1,313 


40.1 


1,961 


260 


1,390 


1,650 


1,325 


80.3 




District 22 


























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 


113 
699 
116 
686 


122 
648 
129 
552 


235 
1,347 

245 
1,238 


118 
573 
135 
555 


50.2 
42.5 
55.1 
44.8 


117 
7 74 
1 1 
683 


69 
238 

51 
159 


132 
339 
102 
433 


201 
577 
153 
592 


94 
416 
113 
414 


46.7 
72.0 
73.8 
69.9 


107 

161 

40 

178 


District Totals 


1,614 


1,451 


3,065 


1,381 


45.0 


1,684 


517 


1,006 


1,523 


1,037 


68.0 


486 


District 23 


























Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


81 
169 
273 
221 


97 
146 
255 

222 


178 
315 
528 
443 


86 
155 
232 
216 


48.3 
49.2 
43.9 
48.7 


92 
160 
296 
227 


13 

32 

150 

59 


57 
106 
350 
135 


70 

138 
500 
194 


55 

99 

292 

133 


78.5 
71.7 
58.4 
68.5 


15 
39 

208 
61 


District Totals 


744 


720 


1,464 


689 


47.0 


7 75 


254 


648 


902 


579 


64.1 


323 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


121 
269 

298 
178 

107 


89 

93 

123 

159 

99 


210 
362 
421 
337 
206 


80 

213 

53 

98 
78 


38.0 
58.8 
12.5 
29.0 
37.8 


1 30 
149 
368 
2 39 
128 


63 

88 

125 

85 

56 


86 
69 
64 
1 48 
68 


149 
157 
189 
233 
124 


77 

59 

22 

132 

75 


51.6 
37.5 
11.6 
56.6 
60.4 


72 

98 

167 

101 

49 


District Totals 


973 


563 


1,536 


522 


33.9 


1,014 


417 


4 35 


852 


365 


42.8 


48 7 


District 25 


























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


591 

522 

1,007 


3 35 
366 

587 


926 

888 

1,594 


316 
310 
509 


34.1 
34.9 
31.9 


610 

578 

1,085 


108 

4 1 3 
3 37 


479 
331 
403 


587 
744 

'4 


418 

272 
339 


71.2 
36.5 
45.8 


169 
472 
401 


District Totals 


2,120 


1,288 


3,408 


1,135 


33.3 


2,273 


858 


1,213 


2,071 


1,029 


49.6 


1,042 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


3,543 


2,413 


5,956 


2,395 


40.2 


3,561 


1,091 


1,999 


3,090 


1,652 


53.4 


1,438 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


1,028 


994 


2,022 


62 3 


30.8 


1,399 


635 


995 


1,630 


925 


56.7 


705 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 
Lincoln 


46 7 
254 


436 

248 


903 
502 


440 
244 


48.7 
48.6 


463 
258 


119 
47 


4 1 9 
217 


518 
264 


429 

214 


79.7 
81.0 


109 
50 


District Totals 


721 


684 


1,405 


684 


48.6 


721 


166 


636 


802 


643 


80.1 


159 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


2,161 


1,212 


3,373 


1,252 


37.1 


2,121 


556 


780 


1,336 


621 


46.4 


715 


District 29 


























Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transyl vania 


492 
256 

213 

394 
310 


460 
169 

159 
363 
172 


952 
425 
372 
757 
482 


446 
188 
167 
313 
137 


46.8 
44.2 
44.8 
41.3 
28.4 


506 
2 37 
205 

444 
34 5 


308 

156 

23 

144 
119 


258 

189 

58 

241 

126 


666 

345 

81 

!85 

245 


458 

161 
55 

174 
90 


80.9 
46.6 
67.9 
45.1 
36.7 


108 
184 
26 
211 
155 


District Totals 


1,665 


1,323 


2,988 


1,251 


41.8 


1,737 


750 


872 


1,622 


938 


57.8 


684 


District 30 


























Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 


204 

44 
72 

397 

307 
320 
101 


119 
31 
41 

330 

111 

148 

50 


323 
75 

113 
727 
418 
468 
151 


66 

36 

30 

280 

58 

113 
42 


20.4 
48.0 
26.5 
38.5 
13.8 
24.1 
27.8 


257 
39 

83 
447 
360 
355 
109 


40 

16 
21 
135 
150 
189 
46 


65 
23 

24 
167 
125 
130 

55 


105 
39 
45 
302 
275 
319 
101 


71 

19 

26 

139 

114 
104 

49 


67.6 
48.7 
57.7 
46.0 
41.4 
32.6 
48.5 


34 
20 

19 
163 
161 
215 

62 


District Totals 


1,445 


830 


2,275 


625 


27.4 


1,650 


597 


589 


1,186 


522 


44.0 


664 


STATE TOTALS 


47,957 


34,670 


82,627 


32,093 


38.8 


50,534 


19,453 


29,830 


49,283 


27,925 


56.6 


21,358 



97 



T 
H 


u 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



70 



60. 



50. 



40. 



30. 



20. 



10 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1970-1988 



4 4 FILINGS 

a- — A DISPOSITIONS 
* — * END PENDING 




S 



r 



.•o— . 



.4. x A — r 



•<k. 



V 



''•0 



70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-7979-80 



During the 1979-80 year, only 608 more criminal superior court cases were filed 
statewide than were disposed. This fact is mirrored in the downward trend in 
pending cases which began the previous year. 



98 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980 











Felonies 










Misti 


emeanors 






District 1 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/80 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


12 

21 

4 

19 
32 
23 
12 


18 
112 

40 

1 

21 

202 

72 


30 

133 
44 
20 
53 

225 
84 


30 
127 
32 
20 
44 
190 
59 


100.0 
95.4 
72.7 

100.0 
83.0 
84.4 
70.2 



6 

12 



9 

35 

25 


5 

15 
53 

96 
22 

/4 
19 


32 
223 

22 3 

323 

86 

519 

100 


3 7 
238 
276 
419 
108 
593 
119 


28 
219 
246 
362 

9':! 

511 

106 


75.6 
92.0 
89.1 
86.3 
91.6 
86.1 
89.0 


9 
19 
30 
57 

9 
82 
13 


District Totals 


123 


466 


589 


502 


85.2 


87 


284 


1,506 


1,790 


1,571 


87.7 


219 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


80 
40 
65 

21 


293 
20 

126 
18 

113 


373 
60 

191 
18 

134 


285 
48 

164 
15 
91 


76.4 
80.0 
85.8 
83.3 
67.9 


88 
12 
27 
3 
43 


6 7 
19 
37 
25 
31 


239 
32 
61 
23 

49 


306 
51 
98 
48 
80 


254 
38 
71 
46 

64 


83.0 
74.5 
72.4 
95.8 
67.5 


52 
13 
27 
2 
26 


District Total s 


206 


570 


776 


603 


77.7 


173 


179 


404 


583 


463 


79.4 


120 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


56 

97 

8 

195 


285 
489 

112 

736 


341 
586 
120 
931 


277 

462 

107 

777 


81.2 
78.8 
89.1 
83.4 


64 

124 

13 

154 


31 
73 
21 

157 


166 

392 

34 

472 


19/ 

465 

55 

629 


154 

379 

44 

512 


78.1 
81.5 
80.0 
81.3 


4 3 
86 

11 
117 


District Totals 


356 


1,622 


1,978 


1,623 


82.0 


355 


282 


1,064 


1,346 


1,089 


80.9 


257 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


112 

5 

174 

33 


306 

54 

1,137 

373 


418 

59 

1,311 

406 


318 

57 

1,114 

376 


76.0 
96.6 
84.9 
92.6 


100 

2 

197 
30 


76 
4 

37 
10 


120 

15 

172 

116 


196 

19 

209 

126 


108 

14 
18,5 
106 


55.1 
73.6 
88.5 
83.3 


88 

5 

24 

21 


District Totals 


324 


1,870 


2,194 


1,865 


85.0 


329 


127 


423 


550 


412 


74.9 


138 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


389 
38 


1,161 
179 


1,550 
217 


1,350 
142 


87.0 
65.4 


200 

75 


102 
28 


670 
73 


772 

101 


620 
59 


80.3 
58.4 


152 
42 


District Totals 


427 


1,340 


1,767 


1,492 


84.4 


275 


130 


743 


873 


679 


77.7 


194 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


9 
89 

21 
42 


88 

342 
95 
81 


97 
431 
116 
123 


69 
248 

64 
76 


71.1 
57.5 
55.1 
61.7 


28 

183 
52 

47 


55 
67 
75 
48 


69 
166 
190 

74 


124 

233 
265 

122 


84 
118 
224 

95 


67.7 
50.6 
84.5 
77.8 


40 
115 

41 
27 


District Totals 


161 


606 


767 


457 


59.5 


310 


245 


499 


744 


521 


70.0 


223 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


66 
134 

126 


261 

423 

411 


327 
557 
537 


231 
438 
365 


70.6 
78.6 
67.9 


96 

119 
172 


65 

120 
79 


388 
494 

618 


453 

614 
697 


317 
438 
475 


69.9 
71.3 

68.1 


136 
176 
222 


District Totals 


326 


1,095 


1,421 


1,034 


72.7 


387 


264 


1,500 


1,764 


1,230 


69.7 


5 34 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


22 
36 
99 


124 
348 

651 


146 
384 
750 


118 
320 
583 


80.8 
83.3 
77.7 


28 

64 

167 


15 
35 
30 


60 
416 
291 


75 
451 
321 


57 
373 
243 


76.0 
82.7 
75.7 


18 
78 
78 


District Totals 


157 


1,123 


1,280 


1,021 


79.7 


259 


80 


767 


847 


673 


79.4 


1/4 


District 9 


























Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


107 
50 
37 

115 
44 


147 
243 
239 
282 
101 


254 
293 
276 
397 
145 


137 
191 
172 
255 
60 


53.9 
65.1 
62.3 
64.2 

41.3 


117 
102 

104 

142 

85 


119 
77 
93 

95 
43 


234 
18,4 
171 
2 32 
101 


353 
261 
264 
327 
144 


169 
181 
144 

18,0 
100 


47.8 
69.3 
54.5 
55.0 
69.4 


184 

80 
120 
147 

44 


District Totals 


353 


1,012 


1,365 


815 


59.7 


550 


427 


922 


1,349 


774 


57.3 


575 


District 10 



























Wake 



967 2,686 3,653 2,908 



79.6 



74 6 



480 



1,877 2,357 



1,954 



82.9 



403 



99 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 











"elonies 










Misd 


emeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 11 


7/1/79 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/80 


7/1/79 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/80 


Harnett 


44 


280 


824 


275 


84.8 


49 


10 


84 


94 


75 


79.7 


19 


Johnston 


40 


il4 


354 


07S 


77.6 


7 


48 


20 7 


275 


220 


80.0 


55 


Lee 


13 


156 


169 


74 


43.7 


95 


97 


93 


1 90 


137 


72.1 


53 


District Totals 


97 


750 


04 / 


604 


73.6 


223 


155 


404 


554 


432 


77.2 


127 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


206 


049 


1,155 


876 


75.8 


279 


160 


448 


608 


5 30 


87.1 


78 


Hoke 


28 


119 


147 


116 


78.9 


31 


35 


70 


107 


86 


80.3 


21 


District Totals 


234 


1,068 


1,302 


992 


76.1 


310 


195 


520 


715 


616 


86.1 


gq 


District 13 


























Bladen 


44 


108 


152 


106 


69.7 


46 


51 


111 


160 


94 


58.0 


60 


Brunswick 


113 


151 


264 


185 


70.0 


79 


19 


105 


124 


83 


66.9 


41 


Col umbus 


50 


367 


417 


328 


78.6 


89 


27 


104 


221 


122 


55.2 


99 


District Totals 


207 


006 


833 


619 


74.3 


214 


97 


410 


507 


299 


58.9 


208 


District 14 



























Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 



244 1,028 1,272 



070 



704 



74 



1,082 



763 



85.0 



78.3 



190 



Oil 



Chatham 
Orange 


3,9 
91 


102 

406 


141 
576 


128 

497 


90.7 
86.2 


13 
79 


District Totals 


130 


587 


717 


625 


87.1 


92 


District 16 














Robeson 
Scotland 


195 
100 


700 
234 


975 

336 


816 
162 


83.6 
48.2 


159 

174 


District Totals 


097 


1,014 


1,311 


978 


74.5 


333 


District 17 














Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


35 

155 
17 

99 


82 

597 

86 

4 00 


11/ 
752 
103 
521 


96 
527 

;-;4 
427 


82.0 
70.0 
86.4 
81.9 


21 

005 
14 
94 


District Totals 


306 


1,187 


1,493 


1,139 


76.2 


354 


District 18 














Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 


693 

271 


2,241 
530 


2,934 
801 


1,856 
483 


63.2 
60.2 


1,078 

318 


District Totals 


964 


2,771 


3,735 


2,339 


62.6 


1,396 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 
Rowan 


107 

114 


431 
550 


538 
664 


404 
560 


75.0 
84.3 


1 34 
L04 


District Totals 


001 


981 


1,202 


964 


80.1 


238 


District 19B 














Montgomery 
Randol ph 


50 
58 


1 6 3 
274 


00 3 
132 


191 

oo. 


94.0 
71.0 


12 

96 


District Totals 


108 


427 


535 


427 


79.8 


108 


District 20 














Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


28 
167 

196 
30 

16!'- 


01)4 
574 

506 
069 


C 
741 
721 

;"<><) 
/'in 


016 
6/1, 
6119 
06 i 

631 


92.6 
91.2 
84.4 
84.6 
79.8 


17 
65 

110 
46 
L59 



75 



122 



462 



District Totals 



589 



2,194 2,783 



2,384 



85.6 



;,)<i 



298 



35 
184 

219 



39 

57 

103 

00 

60 
347 



334 



54 6 



253 1,065 



993 



167 
456 

623 



147 
346 
373 

05b 
404 



409 



668 



343 



510 



1,747 2,209 



1,842 



1,318 



990 



1,291 



000 
640 

040 



186 
403 

4/6 
344 
404 



1,546 1,893 



1,020 



181 
52] 

700 



161 
374 
395 
288 
430 

1,648 



83.8 



76.6 



83.3 



•0 9 



79.0 



89.6 
81.4 

83.3 



86.5 
92.8 
82.9 
83.7 
88.8 

87.0 



66 



156 



5 
26 


40 
Ob 


53 
122 


41 
103 


77.3 
84.4 


12 
19 


31 


144 


175 


144 


82.2 


31 


183 
66 


376 
168 


659 
234 


461 
120 


82.4 

51.2 


90 
114 


249 


544 


793 


581 


73.2 


212 


33 
206 

23 
200 


161 
670 
140 
776 


194 
876 
163 

976 


165 
730 
1 J4 
813 


85.0 
83.3 
82.2 
83.2 


29 

146 

29 

16 3 



36/ 



01 


823 


1,024 


697 


68.0 


327 


50 


242 


294 


010 


72.1 


82 



409 



207 


550 


757 


5 90 


78.2 


165 


91 


44 3 


534 


428 


80.1 


106 



271 



21 

119 

140 



25 
29 

81 
56 
54 

245 



100 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 
District 23 



Pending 

7/1/79 

208 



28 

151 

28 
209 

416 



Filed 

1,538 



65 
359 

59 
360 

843 



Total 
Caseload Disposed 

1,746 1,419 



93 

510 
87 

569 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



118 

49 

290 



177 
309 

723 



295 
358 

1,013 



75 

393 

81 

527 



1,259 1,076 



District Totals 457 1,209 1,666 



259 
289 

787 

1,335 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

81.2 



80.6 
77.0 
93.1 
92.6 

85.4 



Alleghany 


14 


25 


39 


31 


79.4 


Ashe 


14 


71 


85 


57 


67.0 


Wilkes 


46 


260 


806 


214 


69.9 


Yadkin 


48 


134 


182 


90 


49.4 


District Totals 


122 


490 


612 


392 


64.0 


District 24 












Avery 


74 


68 


142 


87 


61.2 


Madison 


38 


16 


54 


22 


40.7 


Mitchell 


14 


36 


50 


39 


78.0 


Watauga 


20 


164 


184 


104 


56.5 


Yancey 


9 


19 


28 


14 


50.0 


District Totals 


155 


303 


458 


266 


58.0 


District 25 













87.7 
80.7 
77.6 

80.1 



Pending 
6/30/80 

327 



18 

117 

6 

42 

183 



28 
92 

92 

220 



55 

32 
11 
80 
14 

192 



36 

69 

886 

331 



Pending 

7/1/79 

219 



21 
49 
40 
73 

183 



5 

14 
48 
46 

113 



Filed 

1,331 



99 
321 

88 
351 

859 



30 

97 
332 
127 

586 



Total 
Caseload Disposed 

1,550 1,374 



ft Caseload Pending 
Disposed 6/30/80 



120 
370 
128 

424 

1,042 



35 

111 
380 
173 

699 



104 

259 
118 

368 

848 



24 
90 

804 
126 

444 



1.6 



86.6 
70.0 
92.1 
86.7 

81.4 



68.5 
81.0 
53.6 
72.8 

63.5 



176 



16 

111 
10 
56 

193 



11 

21 

176 

47 

255 



26 


17 


43 


27 


62.7 


16 


17 


41 


58 


48 


72.4 


16 


11 


15 


26 


25 


96.1 


1 


6 


51 


57 


49 


85.9 


8 


15 


19 


34 


18 


44.1 


19 


75 


143 


218 


158 


72.4 


60 


53 


155 


208 


172 


82.6 


36 


35 


243 


278 


224 


80.5 


54 


36 


384 


520 


425 


81.7 


95 



824 



782 



1,006 



821 



81.6 



185 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 



505 



363 



58 



106 



212 



1,867 



1,439 



2,372 



1,802 



1,784 



1,469 



75.2 



11.5 



588 



333 



358 



78 



943 1,301 1,153 



357 



435 



371 



1.6 



85.2 



148 



fv'l 



427 


485 


358 


73.8 


127 


22 


124 


147 


98 


66.6 


49 


316 


364 


343 


94.2 


21 


5 


63 


68 


67 


98.5 


1 


743 


849 


701 


82.5 


148 


28 


187 


215 


165 


76.7 


50 



1,063 



1,275 



962 



75.4 



313 



123 



4 35 



558 



490 



87.8 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
STATE TOTALS 



64 
32 

45 

114 

39 

294 



44 
10 

6 
61 
70 
38 

8 

237 



342 
128 
198 
231 
95 

994 



70 
13 
32 

253 

120 

110 

16 

614 



406 
160 
243 
345 

134 



1,2 



114 

23 

38 

314 

190 

148 

24 

851 



369 
117 
130 
276 
72 

964 



79 
20 
27 
181 
127 
94 
17 

545 



10,142 36,830 46,972 36,169 



90.8 
73.1 
53.4 
80.0 
53.7 

74.8 



69.2 
86.9 
71.0 
57.6 
66.8 
63.5 
70.8 

64.0 
77.0 



37 

43 

113 
69 
62 

324 



35 
3 

11 

133 

63 

54 

7 

306 
10,803 



20 


90 


110 


97 


88.1 


13 


13 


40 


53 


39 


73.5 


14 


16 


24 


40 


25 


62.5 


15 


63 


186 


249 


184 


73.8 


65 


14 


30 


44 


24 


54.5 


20 



126 



3 3(1 



3/0 



4 20 



496 



750 



169 



439 



74.3 



58.5 



127 



45 


63 


108 


62 


57.4 


46 


1 


9 


10 


7 


70.0 


3 


11 


30 


41 


19 


46.3 


22 


213 


170 


383 


253 


66.0 


130 


40 


69 


109 


58 


53.2 


51 


17 


45 


62 


25 


40.3 


37 


3 


34 


37 


15 


40.5 


?? 



311 



6,858 24,994 31,852 25,047 



78.6 6,805 



101 



METHODS OF DISPOSITON OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1979-80 

FELONIES 



OTHER 



GUILTY PLEA 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



MISDEMEANORS 



GUILTY PLEA 



OTHER 




DISMISSALS 



NOTGUILTYPLEA 



The breakdown of dispositions for felony and misdemeanor appeal cases during the 1979-80 year differs very little 
from the same breakdown for the 1978-79 year. A plea of guilty is still the most common way to dispose of a superior 
court criminal case. 



102 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I, 1979 — June 30, 1980 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






District 1 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea or 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


30 
127 
32 
20 
44 
190 
59 


15 
60 
28 
8 
20 
112 
41 


3 

6 

6 
9 

19 
4 


5 
27 

2 

3 
15 
57 

9 













7 
34 
2 
3 
n 
2 
5 


28 

219 

;'4i, 
',(,? 
99 
511 
106 


19 

114 

8 18 
204 

70 
172 

37 


1 
7 
6 

6 

3 

13 
3 


1 
18 
19 
411 

7 
69 
15 







1 






7 

80 

9 

111 

19 

257 

51 


District Totals 


502 


284 


47 


118 





53 


1,571 


828 


39 


169 


1 


534 


District 2 


























Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


285 
48 

164 
15 
91 


181 
16 

122 

8 

46 


35 
10 
12 
1 
21 


55 
20 

2? 


11 











14 
2 
8 
6 

13 


,'64 
38 
71 
46 

64 


140 
17 

88 

34 
17 


52 

7 

17 

4 
13 


24 
6 

10 
4 
5 


4 




1 


'A 
8 

15 
4 

18 


District Totals 


603 


373 


79 


108 





43 


463 


237 


93 


49 


5 


79 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


277 
462 

107 
111 


158 

235 

96 

412 


12 

41 

4 

63 


92 

158 

7 

286 



3 


7 


15 

25 



9 


154 

376 

44 

512 


65 
171 

24 
25 i 


13 

47 

3 

48 


31 
120 

14 

180 





4 


45 

41 

3 

87 


District Totals 


1,623 


901 


120 


543 


10 


49 


1,089 


513 


111 


285 


4 


176 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


318 

57 

1,114 

376 


204 

30 

573 

247 


20 

2 

72 

23 


78 

24 

397 

70 








16 

1 

72 

36 


108 
14 

186 

105 


69 

8 

68 

88 


13 

1 

86 
9 


18. 

5 

68 

10 








8 


24 
17 


District Totals 


1,865 


1,054 


117 


569 





125 


412 


214 


48, 


101 





49 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


1,350 
142 


841 
80 


149 

3 


347 
52 


2 




11 
7 


620 

59 


88:8 
21 


57 
8 


188 
23 






86 
7 


District Totals 


1,492 


921 


152 


399 


2 


18 


679 


310 


65 


211 


n 


9 3 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


69 

248 

64 

76 


41 
98 
17 
37 


10 
8 
6 
1 


16 

129 

37 

25 





5 


2 

13 
4 
8 


84 

118 

;74 


4li 

68 

140 

40 


14 

38 
4 


VY 
4(1 
8. 

32 





2 


8 
23 

10 
17 


District Totals 


457 


193 


25 


207 


5 


27 


521 


272 


59 


130 


2 


58 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wil son 


231 

438 
365 


139 

279 
240 


27 
22 

16 


45 

123 

83 





f) 


20 

14 
26 


317 
438 
475 


188 
8 38 
262 


11 
19 
20 


65 

110 

95 








53 
71 
98 


District Totals 


1,034 


658 


65 


251 





60 


1,230 


688 


50 


270 





222 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


118 
320 
583 


44 
105 
220 


4 
29 
61 


64 
169 
295 







6 

17 

7 


57 
373 
243 


$2 

98 

8 8 


3 
36 
31 


19 
139 

131 




6) 




3 

100 

19 


District Totals 


1,021 


369 


94 


528 





30 


673 


192 


70 


289 





122 


District 9 


























Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


137 
191 
172 
255 

60 


75 

74 
117 

152 

34 


8 
16 
25 
12 

8 


48 
79 
26 
83 
17 









6 
22 

4 
8 
1 


168 
181 
144 
180 
100 


10] 
89 
61 

109 
68 


7 
7 

18 

12 

3 


41 
52 

48 
44 
28 






n 



20 
33 

16 

16 

1 


District Totals 


815 


452 


69 


253 





41 


774 


428 


48 


214 





84 


District 10 



























Wake 



2,? 



Ill 



1,766 



48 



1,954 



575 



70 



763 



646 



103 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






District 11 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by DA. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by DA. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


2 75 

275 

74 


20/ 
10] 
40 


17 
18 

7 


48 

78 

21 







3 

18 

6 


75 
220 

137 


40 
94 

50 


10 
9 
7 


13 
56 

58 








12 
61 
22 


District Totals 


6," 4 


408 


42 


147 





27 


432 


184 


26 


127 





96 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


876 
116 


528 

78 


110 

11 


181 
13 






5/ 
14 


530 
86 


178 
48 


68 
10 


185 

2 3 






99 

5 


District Totals 


992 


606 


121 


194 





71 


616 


226 


78 


208 





194 


District 13 


























Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


106 

106 

328 


56 
L31 
226 


26 
15 

2. 


16 
33 

46 







9 

6 

21 


94 
83 

122 


43 
37 
37 


7 

7 
13 


25 
23 
49 







19 
16 
23 


District Totals 


619 


412 


76 


95 





36 


299 


117 


27 


97 





58 


District 14 


























Durham 


1,082 


575 


65 


424 





18 


343 


98 


22 


161 





62 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


763 


363 


56 


316 


12 


16 


512 


209 


50 


196 


4 


53 


District 15B 


























Chatham 
Orange 


128 

49/ 


54 
24 2 


14 
19 


55 

199 







5 
36 


41 
103 


16 

32 


3 
8 


11 
32 







11 

31 


District Totals 


625 


297 


33 


354 





41 


144 


48 


11 


43 





42 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


816 
162 


655 

110 


/8 
15 


58 
27 







25 

10 


461 

120 


198 

91 


53 
2 


36 
16 


1 




173 
11 


District Totals 


978 


765 


93 


85 





35 


581 


289 


55 


52 


1 


184 


District 17 


























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


91, 
527 

80 
427 


M 
■:t,2 

02 
331 


10 
29 

14 
28 


21 

128 
10 

57 










4 

8 
3 

11 


165 
730 

1 14 

813 


114 
382 

59 
284 


5 
14 

3 
18 


28 
149 

20 
129 










18 

185 
52 

3S2 


District Totals 


1,139 


816 


81 


216 





26 


1,842 


83Q 


40 


326 





6 3/ 


District 18 


























Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 


1,856 

483 


1,253 
264 


84 
20 


472 

185 


1 




46 

14 


697 
212 


301 

113 


79 
7 


148 
62 






169 

30 


District Totals 


2,339 


1,517 


104 


69 7 


1 


60 


909 


414 


86 


210 





199 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


404 
560 


262 
J6] 


43 
25 


103 
151 






6 
23 


592 
428 


296 
234 


18 

22 


131 
82 


1 
1 


146 
89 


District Totals 


964 


613 


68 


294 





29 


1,020 


r ,30 


40 


213 


2 


235 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


19] 

2 1h 


1 '.o 

l')2 


6 

10 


44 
(1 






5 
3 


L81 

521 


no 

324 


1 
27 


32 
98 






38 

72 


District Totals 


42/ 


328 


16 


75 





8 


702 


434 


28 


130 





110 


District 20 


























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


21', 
676 

(,()<) 

253 


110 
20 3 

m 

12/ 

'.11 


8 
12 

10 
13 

29 


<HI 
16/ 

254 
108 

281 











7 

14 
7 
5 

10 


L61 

374 
395 

288 
4 10 


170 

1 /8 
173 
172 


6 

4 
9 

5 

11 


37 
127 
1 S7 

87 
189 












36 
73 

71 
23 

68 



District Totals 



2,384 



1,149 



92 1,100 



4i 



1,648 



775 



35 



577 



361 



104 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980 









Ke 


onies 










Misdemeanors 










Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Plea of 


Plea of 




Spitdy 






Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilt 


y Dismissal 


Trial 




Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




District 21 


Disposed 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Disposed 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissa 


Other 


Forsyth 


1,419 


1,033 


72 


277 





37 


1,374 


857 


29 


3 1 6 





172 


District 22 


























Alexander 


75 


58 


5 


7 





5 


104 


42 


2 


23 





37 


Davidson 


39 i 


254 


30 


89 





20 


259 


78 


9 


67 


1 


104 


Davie 


81 


49 


7 


24 





1 


118 


46 


4 


19 





49 


Iredell 


527 


396 


39 


78 





14 


368 


170 


13 


62 





123 


District Totals 


1,076 


757 


81 


198 





40 


849 


336 


28 


171 


1 


313 


District 23 


























Al leghany 


31 


22 


1 


5 





3 


24 


13 


2 


3 





6 


Ashe 


57 


35 


14 


6 





2 


90 


72 


2 


5 





11 


Wilkes 


214 


125 


21 


'/) 





9 


204 


83 


10 


36 





66 


Yadkin 


90 


73 


3 


7 


o 


7 


126 


63 


7 


16 





40 


District Totals 


392 


255 


39 


77 





21 


444 


231 


30 


60 





12 3 


District 24 


























Avery 


87 


41 


4 


42 





o 


27 


10 


1 


13 





3 


Madison 


22 


11 


2 


9 








42 


15 


5 


16 





6 


Mitchell 


39 


11 


2 


25 





1 


25 


7 


1 


9 


1 


7 


Watauga 


104 


37 


4 


58 





9 


49 


11 


1 


35 





2 


Yancey 


14 


6 





6 





2 


19 


6 


1 


7 





1 


District Total s 


266 


106 


12 


140 





8 


158 


4 9 


9 


80 


1 


19 


District 25 


























Burke 


259 


152 


11 


82 





14 


172 


70 


6 


31 





65 


Caldwell 


289 


134 


23 


120 





12 


224 


71 


12 


64 





77 


Catawba 


787 


372 


56 


327 


3 


29 


425 


176 


22 


104 





123 


District Totals 


1,335 


658 


90 


529 


3 


55 


821 


317 


40 


199 





265 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


1,784 


955 


175 


584 


1 


69 


1,153 


472 


96 


399 


16 


170 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


1,469 


831 


97 


450 


3 


88 


371 


144 


67 


01 


2 


67 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 


158 


243 


38 


61 





16 


98 


38 


14 


20 





26 


Lincoln 


343 


22 3 


23 


88 


1 


8 


67 


12 


11 


16 





28 


District Totals 


701 


466 


61 


149 


1 


24 


165 


50 


25 


36 





54 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


962 


650 


44 


12 3 





149 


490 


262 


26 


28 





174 


District 29 


























Henderson 


360 


173 


18 


170 





8 


9 7 


43 


4 


19 





31 


Mc Dowel 1 


11/ 


59 


23 


32 





3 


9) 


8 


3 


14 





14 


Polk 


130 


35 


10 


76 





9 


25 


2 


4 


8 





11 


Rutherford 


276 


131 


45 


92 





8 


184 


50 


11 


68 





55 


Transyl vania 


72 


29 


3 


34 





6 


24 


8 


7 


7 





2 


District Totals 


964 


427 


99 


404 





34 


369 


111 


29 


116 





113 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


79 


49 





20 





10 


62 


41 


1 


20 








Clay 


20 


15 


1 


4 








7 


2 





3 





2 


Graham 


27 


19 


3 


3 





6 


19 


10 





5 





4 


Haywood 


181 


102 


6 


73 








253 


141 


10 


102 








Jackson 


127 


55 


4 


25 





43 


58 


32 


3 


10 





13 


Macon 


94 


46 


10 


16 





22 


29 


13 


2 


9 





1 


Swain 


17 


3 


1 


11 





2 


16 


5 


1 


6 





3 


District Totals 


54'; 


285 


25 


152 





83 


439 


244 


17 


199 





23 


STATE TOTALS 


36,169 


20,466 


2,521 


11,642 


40 


1,492 


25,047 


11,493 


1,547 


6,472 


39 


5,485 



105 



- O O CM .— I O CM LO <3" 



cnro<3-«d-*3-cMO*3-roro o^ 

•— I CM CM 



r--cn<^i-totOLnLOto cm to 

CO CM *3" ^t OO CO 



Q 


o 

00 


«— <000<3-CMCOtOrOOOO<-HtOtO 


ro cm 


e 




.— < i—t i-h to cm i— i ro 


■^t CO 










**4 






















o 








Cl 


o 


rH rs, n co cri co <^- a3«3- --n^t idcon 


ro lo 


Q 




h^n to o ro co cm ro 


en to 



1/1HOCOO^«3TO CTi r-- 
CO ^ ^£1 ■- < tO CM <3" ^J" "3-CM 

i—i ■— < CM t— l LO ro 



U © 



i CM <— « tO tO LO CT\ O 

m i— i ro ro cm ro to 
<— i t— < ro 



«3- O 

Cn «=j" 
CM CO 



c^ ^rco in rv u: rv co rv co co»-t 



LOCncOCOro cn tO tO LO 
,— i .— < ,— i ro cm r- lo 



3 

© 






.2 t> 



LOcncMroOLOLorooocor-~.voi 



tO CM 

r-. to 

•nJ- LO 



r^OCOLOCnoOCMCMO COCO 



to lo lo r- r*> to to < 



fa 




s 


« 


m 








&* 


u. 


£ 


M 


*=> 


B 


B 


lm 




3 


m 


Q 


m 


Iff 


u 







a, 






tf) 




1 


a 







s 


<<- 




u 


V 


E 


Ml 
< 


-a 


"B 


en 


B 




OS 


§ 


00 


T) 


o 


e 


n 


ed 


se> 


^■"^ 


Ml 






SJ 


c 


p^ 


"O 




B 




«^ 


>> 


a. 


B 


n 


O 


u 




a 


0) 


u 


I** 


o 





s 


M 


sue 


a> 


< 


©a 





5 O 
o a. 

h .a 

Q 



iLOLOCorocMCnr^.cO'— <<3-ror^co «— < lo 

CO r^. 



ocor-^cncMtoocM^o-iOi— icnto cm *— * 
roctiCMr-Hro<*f\jyD«3-aicrir- <loo Or-- 

i-HCM CM CO r-HLO ^-HLOLO 



i ro ^h en cm CO •— i 



o o 
«d- o 



LO'^-COCO^'— • lo to ■— < *3- 

cOLn^-royDNrH^oMr) 

CM CM c-H 



CM CO CO ^ ^^ ro O r 



N^ogCTirv^i~-.(M rocn 

MTHDNOflT^H CM CO 

cm t— i^ mrH r~-LO too 



O O ro O « 



i o o o o en cm 



ro OOO-— toroorot— iO«— "<d-0< 



a S o o o 

O J, 



< o <— lOLoot— ••— ii— <oo Hen 



(N OOi 



iroLOtDOLOO'— <-— <rOi— I*— i cocn 



8 & 



OOLOr^LOOOCOtOr^t— i. 



ocnoororoocMtoocoocMO lolo 



i cm ro ro to 



LOrOOOO'-HrotO CT> O 



cm n ih «j c\j in o •- 1 . 



tOrO.— *.— irOLOCMOCMCM 



LOCMOtO-— lOcnco 



Ocsjm Ninco >-i <— < O 



h r\j co ud o n mti co ^ cn <— < 

m h^j- tocnrHNco^ m «^-r-. 

OOLOtOf-tCMrocOLOcn ^t m 

.— ( t— I^J-t— li— ir^T-HOOt— li— I t — I . — l 



tO >^J- O LO CO CM CM 



LOCMCnrotoroi — > > — i i — ii — i 

cOLO^cooocMcn roLO 

Nfl-OlDNO^O mo 

«— I i— I ,— I CO «— i r-H i—i 



tO'^tCMCO'— • i— llflH LOLO 

i—t «— i ,— i ro cm 



106 



OOOO-— < C ■— < •— * CM ■ 



(MOUDO t-n CD r-»- 
i— t i— < <— < .— < ro *^j- 



NOnnw o coco 



i— l CO <d" hs 



Oror-.ro.— i.— <k£>uD 



M >sO i— ( i— I LO CO CO <— < CM LO 



co lt> lt> co «3- co r-. *— t 
r-. lt> lt> r-. co «^j- in n 

,— I «-H i— l t— I ro ro 



3 

o 

u 






NC\jrvCOLf)CONN LO LO 

cm r^ ro id m m od coo 
c\j r-- i— ( c\j c\j ro 



LninaMncvjrsLnD cm lo 



un co cm ro 
CO •— i r-» cm 
lo <d- 



cm o o r-» cm lo 



^LOCDCMCDcoLnco r^.00 
nninrNCNjOrHM co i-h 

■— < t— I C\J CM 



IT) O CO O CO <— 1 


,— I 


,— < 


CD f-H «^J- J— CD <d" 


«=f 


CM 


CM i-H i— 1 CM 


PQ 


lo 



O idld inr 



00 LO •— i CM CO 



LO O O CO CM 



>— i CM «— l 



11 
a 


> 


3 


« 


t/J 


u 






<u 


U. 


-E 


0£ 


■fcj 


c 


C 


'Z 




3 


W5 


D 


i 


■o 


« 


M 


u 







a. 



I C\J CO rO LT> LT> «^T LO CD 



COCON^^LD'wDLr) LDCM 
HOiOHHCONO LO <— ' 
ro .— i .—(.—) ro i— i co^J- 



cd r-. co lo r-^ co 



O O CM CD CM O^ 

m cm ^ in cd r-- 

COi£lH «=J- LO 



rncMCO^-cooroLn r--«cr 

cocDr--r-.CDLO<3-0 lo<-h 

ontn Ncn ncon cm «a- 

-HC\I CM HiHH «HH 



CD*3-coco<=j-<3-LOLr> r- *-« 
lo co «=j- i— '<JDCMr-.cn lo cm 

CM -—l CM <d" LO 



CTi rH <3- N LD ID COCM 



H NCO COLO LD «^0 

m Hron^o n coco 
CMro«^-<d-co<3- Ocm 



a Q 



lo in CD oo cm co r^«— < 



o 


U 


c 


o 


« 




u 


01 


E 

1» 


0X1 

< 


"T3 


•v 


(/) 


c 




oa 


s 


o 
oc 


•a 


o 


c 


m 


el 


sC 


^— V 


OX 






1> 


c 


U. 


■a 

c 






;»-> 


Cu 


c 


& 


o 


41 


11 


u 



J* 22 HHOHSCMOlO CO CD 

Q pi 



NMOCOLDnCOCO rH CM 



O co r-H <— < t— < cd CM i 



.2 w OLT)LncM--HLnr-.CM ns 

"O OX 

J? CMOLnkOMCM^^ COCM 

<- LD ro 



inrvONHw id rv 



HtDrvlf) O r— I 



H CDO MCOOOJ CM <T)CT^ 

oaiCMino>D<HCM ooi 

ro^coinLONroLn co^- 

CM CM CM CO CM 



inNNOinLn 



ocnow 



o CO CM LO CO 



t/3 
WD 



ox 
< 



<— !■— <CTlLn"^J-0«^J-rO LO LO 

CDcOLOr— co>3-<d-C0 r-. r-. 
•^ incM -— i «— < ro 



OCOCMLnN^O-H CD CO 

'Oco CDCM m cm cm co 
.— h t—\ ro «-h 



O CM LO CM 


LT> >^- 


OLCIN-^ 


r-- o~> 


CM ■— * 


CM ■— 1 



in old <t>- 1 CD ro ro *d- lo 

*=j- CO CD LO CD ■— '"DiD r-. CD 

CMinHcoinOLnH mh 

CMCMCO<3- i— I i— I CM ro 



co oroinN ihnn oro 

CM^-CO'— iLn-^J-^CM i— I CM 

.— i .— i ro cm 



co cd r-- cm t 



ro r--. rH 



LO DCD kOCM M r--*3- 
CD ro «— i n r- cm coro 

<— I i— I ,-H r-l cm ro LO 



107 



-cocr\c\j*3-*3-cor-<o^tn en o 

« CM >—< CM r— I CM CM C\J UD t—t 



O^. — i rOHHH CO in 



cn cn in cm ^ «— < 



oo in 

i-t o 
ro c\l 



cn o 

CO CM 
ro CO 



rj- >h oiin o cm*o in co<-i ^-r-i 

>— '^CNJ^CT^CMLOrO^HOvJ On 

C\J «— t 



«=t cr. •— i co iriN 

lO ro C\J CM CO lO 

C\J i— < CM «-H 



n o\ in in in c\j co id 

ijhho^m cm in 

<— i cm ro f— i in ro 



O CM 


m m 


n \£> cm n n n 


O ^f 


n cn 


CO "3- m O CM ro 



cti in n cm uDr^- 
co co <£> cm in in 
ro CM kt cm 



3 
© 



r- 



I 00 ^ CO 03 CO CN) CM 



tj CO NO 



tinocoinLn <3- o 



CM ^J CM O CJi O ^3 CNJ 



. IT) CNJ CNJ CO 






a 


> 


3 


<a 


m 


u 






aj 


u= 


JS 


as 


<M 


c 


B 


l~ 




3 


05 


Q 


ft* 


■a 
cu 


u 







a 



S Q 



s < 



NO MCri O vt ro >-h 



con oro mn nn 
<-t in c\j n co ^ CSJN 
r-H ro ro in cm oio 



OOOOCTiO Cn O 



Ln<Hcrir-HOMDc\j(MO^i-i ctico 

cocoNvt ioo r- ir- iroco cn n 

CMt— I m CO CM O >X) (M rooo IDO 

cmcmi— ii- 1 h cm h c\j csj r\j •— t cm 



NO^HHCMNtmooo in <3- 
rouDOicONvtmco^oo r-n r-- 

HHHHHHCMrH ,— I CO N 



CO «=j- 
o in 
Cn cn 



cm >x> lo ro .— i cm mm 



ininmo<tN *3- cm 

NNNCM NCO CM CO 
CM CM CM i— < ID ^f 



O LO CM CO 



inN CO U3 



lOOiOlO CM \0 

Nro ihco cn i— i 
CO in i—t CTi LO 



ha 



33 

u 


e 


o 


St 




OJ 


cu 


Or) 


tie 


=a 


■a 


t/5 


B 




ed 


s 


e 


-a 


e 


e 


m 


ro 


se 


^^ 


u 


cu 


c 


u. 


T3 




C 






,>» 


fc, 


c 


un 


© 


cu 




u 


cu 


«w 


o 


© 


l/l 




cu 


t/J 


0J£ 


it 


< 


&a 





m Or-40ror-».«d- n co 



Q J. 



22 o cm cr» a~i ld cm inro 



.2 *> coinmm ro^t r^ r-^ 

-o m 

4; < t-Hr-H^oinco «^J-0 

5 <3- <3- in *3- in cm in «=f 



O (Ji O <Ti a^ CM coco 



in cn lo «^- lo ci 

n in id <£> co in 



— B COCO "3-CO N CO CTi^f 
2-5 CM •— ' ION iX)N inN 
c r-H CM r-H 



in io vt co n cnj m co m o cmicti 

CM CM <— l CM f-i CM CM >-h r- * CO O^ 



NHCO'^'HCOrON COiJD CMID 
HCO COCM CMCM CM^ CM CM CO 



incooinma^ioooi 



co <h co <t <-i co n in oid <3-r-» 

Lnocoa^«3-Oi^c^'^in« cm r— i 

•t cm cji n co m> <- . ro •— t cm •— i CO 

CM CM h h H rn CM M CM CM CM«— l 



st CMOvtocMNinvt om 
icoocoocm vTNrco^ inN 
ihh «— i i— t r— i .— i mm 



ro lo 
ro «-h 
ro cm 



O O n co ro co 



^j- cm ro oo ' 



.COON LO CM 



oincoiD co *-i 



OCMIDN ^-i O 
CO t— I CM LO CO <— i 

*t <d- en co «d* m 



CO CO CO o «3" N 



in ro 


cn cn a~> in in co 


ro n 


en co >— < •— i 


o cr> 


^r o 


■^ fH N LO CTi m 


CM cm 


NN COCM 


t— i cn 


N «^" 




CM i— 1 


CM 


ro 






108 



o o o o ■ 



i co nro 



UD C\J Cn CM LO «3" 



tn rOrHco ud ^-h 



«HrOCOCnrOCMOCM mro 



LO r-x Cn 



Q T 



O Cn 


co o 


in i-h co co 


CO «3- 


p- cn cn r-. 


UD UD 


•a- o 


r-. cm 


HhOM 


co co 


CM CM LO CM 


CO LO 


^t •-• 


CM CM 


CM 


CM 


CM •— I 


CM •— • 



C0C0C0OCMO.— »»£> CTi*3- 

csj m 10 ro ct rf in .-h co 

t— I i-H r— t C\J CO ^J- 



•fc* 

3 
O 

U 






^J- <=3- co <3- ud r-> 

CM <d" CO ^ r-H CM 



O LD UD CM 



£« 



ud co co r-*. co cnj 

O UD CO ^ o 



CO UD 

co in 



O CM 


C^ N O CM 


cn cn 


^ ■— i in in 


CTi UD 


r--. ud 


CM f— t O UD 


cm r^ 


UD LO «— t CO 


r-*. co 


.— 1 t— 1 


CM 


CM 


^3" CM 


«=t CM 



LD O CM UD CO CM 



<^J- <— I ID LO CM CM 



COCOO^UDLnCMt— t UDCO 

COOUDCO^UDLOO Cn LO 

■— i CM «3" <—* «=J" ^J" O 





>« 


3 


eu 


C/5 


u 






Q) 


Lfe, 


Xi 


s* 


*■> 


e 


c 


u 




3 


Cfl 


a 


S/5 


•a 


« 


w 


u 


O 




a. 



NM OLD CO r- i 



«£< HI 



CO LD 


ud cn 

CM CM 

^j- cn 


i—t CO CO Cn 

ID O CO i-H 
Cn O CO r-. 


UD O 

UD O 

O CO 


ID CO O LD 

CTi UD <3- UD 
<X3 I^CTi CO 


i— i LD 

o cn 
cn cn 


roLnr^CMr^couDcn 


r^ ud 


LO O 

en cn 


ONNH^onow 
rouDcnuDcocoor-- 


o CO 

OUD 



B Q 



_ 4* 

2 o 

O Q. 

a 



ud «=r m co co cm cncn 
ocncococMCM .-Hen 

.—I j—i CO .— I UD CM 



CM CO 


CO CM 


co «— » r-». ro 


LO ^ 


CO <3" 


UD <— < 


cm *^r cn o 


CM <3- 


O CO 


r--. LD 


,— i ^ .— i 


UD «— l 



ONOOcnco cnuo 



r-H O O O «— 1 O 



UD <— i CM O CO «— « 
i— l UD UD CM I"-- CO 

co *=j* <— « <— • cn m 



O O UD -— l UD <— I 



iDiniNOCh'jNn cncM 

CnuDCMCOCOCOCM'— • CO^J" 

HLflN r-l<3-CO <— 'CO 



O O UD O O O - 



o 


u 


c 


o 


03 




<y 


V 




< 


■o 


^3 


Cfl 


C 




M 


s 




°o 


e 


s 


n 


03 


v© 


y^V 


M 






4* 


C 


u, 


13 

e 




u 


>> 


0, 


C 


l*! 


O 


if) 




U 


v. 


O 


o 




V) 


M 


4> 


< 


M 





a 12 «3- cn cm cn cn cn in n 



r 



m co co o r-. o cm t— i 



<t CTKtO^ r- 1 i-H cMcn 



c uDcocn^Hcncn <d-co 
^5 <^-uDr-->^-cocn ^-<o 

c CM CM 



«— I i-H CM O CO «— < 



t-H CO CM CM CO LO 



r-- cn 


r~-- un 


CO CM CM 


•d- CM 


^r co 


CM 



o lo o o cn o 



LO r^ LO cn 



ud i— • i— i o nn 



-—I LO 


o o 


O CO CO LO 


cn co 


cn co r-». co 


i-H CD 


r-- lo 
cn o 


LO <3- 

cn co 


O LO CO •— 1 

cm r-» r*. ud 


cn ud 


O O UD co 

O O LO LO 


o cn 

CO CM 


O UD 

cn ud 


«— i UD 

<-< LO 

CM i-n 


co cm cn cn 

t— t t— i r-». i-h 


CM t— l 

cn co 


cn co xj- ^ 


CO CM 

CO i— 1 
CO CM 



lOCnCMi-HOCMCM CO«Hr 



CMOcnr-xLOLOLOt-H .— iro 
Hrninro co^j- t— i cn 



icOHLnOHis couD 



COUDCO'cr'^-^HCOCM cncM 



^HcnLOuD'^tcn'Hrco xHrr^-. 

CMCMCMxJ-r— iCMCnuD LOUD 
CM t— i f— I CO CO 



LO i — 



r— cn 



109 



CJi-HCMO 



CM (XI UO CM CO «tf 



cnrouor--.CTiLncoc\jLOLn 



CTi t— t co *3- 


n uo 


^t o r-^ ^3- 


r-H ^ 


O CO CM «— • 


co <=±- 


roin ^ CM 


co n 



co en i_o r*> 


CO LO 


• — i if) kDCTi 


N. *fr 


o «* o o 


O «tf 


N^DN 


lt) n 


cm m «3- cm 


UO UO 


CM i— < CM N 


•3- 00 



.2 5 

a - 



o o en «3- 


CO «^J- 


O O LT) <XJ 


LT) CM 


CM CM CM UO 


<^T CO 


co cm .— i co 


«tf o 


CO LO ^ O 


n uO 


KJ- UO LT) CTi 


en un 


UO CM CXI 


CO m 


c— 1 .-H i— < .— 1 


CM CM 


r-H 


CM 



cnMD^cocouncO'— i co co m rr> 

r-t rH ^h ,— i ,— i UO «3- 



o <d- 
n •* 
co CM 



O^D LON LT) CO 
CTi tD LO O IDN 

lo co <-h i— i r-. «3- 



U0 CO LO «3" t— I CXI 

o co oi LO O LO 

CM CM CM CM LO LO 



t\jNNO en n 

CM Cn CO CTi LO CO 
i—i «-H r-H CM CM 



^J-COCOCTi'— 'OCMNJCOO LO m 
COUOLOCONCnCMt-Hi-HCM LO CM 

<3" CM CO t— it— ii— i«^-CO <3-CJ% 



3 o 

o °? 

u £ 

O L. 



0) 


>- 


s 


83 


GO 


U 






u 


u. 


£ 


ea 


*=> 


B 


e 


hN 




3 


tn 





en 


n 


i,-, 


[/! 


u 







C-i 



CO CM CM 



|< 



5< 



uo n CO CM Cn CTi 

incTi corn co o 
CO LO -^f CM co en 



LO LO O CM CM CO 



•^tMOCO <=J- O 
O Cn LO CM LO CM 
<* LO LD ^ ai o 



cololoocouoOlocm locm 



n ^j- co en 
CO lo CO m 


n n 

CO uo 


NC\J NIT) 
LO LO LO <3- 


n cm 

lo n 


CO CM LO <d" 


I-H CTi 

lo ^r 


^f CO CO CO 


UO LO 


CT\ CO r-H CTi 

0~> CO LO LO 

Cftro ON 


CT> CO 
CM CM 


CTi CO cm n 

CO CO «=J- CO 
LO LO CO Ol 


.— 1 LO 


HNCON 


UO LO 

O n 


LO Ol 

n oo 



^ O^CMPv CA<t COrHO 



*s- o 
o en 



.-H ,— i yo •— I N CM 
Cn CO CO CM CM O 
t-H r-H CM LO «c3" N 



in rHi£iqj-c^ innco-HO <3-co 
r-nors no OMncororo CO «3" 

CM>-HLDCOLOfOCMCMLO<d- COLO 



i— i n 

^j- co 



a o 



I «-H ,— I CO . 



© 


OS 

U 


B 





tc 




fy 


&i 


4-) 


< 


•a 


•a 


fefi 


B 




S3 


s 


e 


•a 


© 


e 


fi 


68 


ve 


^=v 


M 


9J 


B 


I* 


•a 

e 




4) 


>> 


Qm 


B 


un 


© 


un 




m 


E&1 


u 


«*=. 





© 


i^ 




u 


ft 


M 


0) 


<! 


©JD 





CO CXI LO <— 1 


•ZT CO 


*fr co co «sr 


CM CM 


UO CO i—l 


CO co 


f-H i— 1 


CM CM 



a ^ 



.— i O CM O CO O 

O CO LO -=3" l£)N 
CO i-H CO <— < 



^H CM .-H 



Lnin loh «—• o 

r— i cm <— < lo r- r~- 

i— i r--. «—t «=J- LO LO 

CM CXI ^ CM CXI CM 



KJD O t-H <— t 



co co uo cm en lo 



ooomx) en co 



O CO O UO 


o a-. 


O CM CO LO 


CO r» 


O LO CO i-H 


CO LO 


UO ^" N. «— i 


CO LO 


roro h(\j 


«^l- LO 


CM CM 


CM CM 



CM CO LO LO 


o o 

CM CM 

CO CO 


en cm co oo 


LO UO 


i-H CM CO O 

uo uo en lo 

<=fr «vt- LO <3" 


cn co 


»— i lo en uo 

t— i en uo uo 


NC0 NrH 
CM CO CO CO 


IN CM 
<3" LO 


CO LO 

LO <d" 



r-H CM o co co cn 

m^-HO uo o 

co uo IN LO uo <3" 

CM CM t-H t-H 



■ CM CO CO CM 



CO N CO CM 


uo en 


•3- LO ^f U0 


CO i-t 


N CM «— l CO 


en o 


CO UO o o 


m n 


O CO CO 


co >^- 


t-H t-H «— 1 t-H 


CM CM 



OHO HCM CONN^Oin LOCM 



OOf-HOCOCMt— ira-CMCO N CTi 



COCOLOCOLONCnLOUOCO 



CMOcnco^cococnrj-cn Locn 

^HCMLOCMLOCOCMCMCOCO CM«3- 
CM --H 



COcOt— iOOOlOi— iOlO NO 



•cj-cM'^j-encococMcncncn o co 

NO-— ILOLOCOCMLOUOCM O <zt 

COLOLOLOLOUOLOCOCnO ouo 

H HWCVJHtHHH CM <— I 



LOLOtTiCMi-HuDLOcn*^- enu") 
:cmuocm'-hcO'^-lololo cn^]- 

t-H «— I CO CM 



en lo 

<3" -H 

LO CO 



r-^ uo 

CM N 

CO t-H 



10 



lOifiCNJ^Ono CM CM 



CMrOODO^^tf^tO ON CO 



ro«3-c\jrvovjcooco r--. r»- 
«-h ^ ro eg i-h r-- iX3 



CTiOl MrHOO^ OCX) 



Q 7 



r^cMinmmrHiDoroN 



tt 



Lr)<=3-coir><d-cMCr.<— < <— < cm 
ro <xi r-- o > — i , -DO^ rocTi 

t— < CM CM CM <3" LT) 



3 
O 

U 



On 



NiHW^JtTliniiJtJ cnjcnj 



OLDOr^OLnrOLD coco 



cnjooldcnjooocoo <=»-**■ 

ro co (i) m i/i co co to cm n r-~ .— • 

r^r^-ocot— icxjLDcoOt— i co cnj 

I— < CNJ CNJ t— It— IH r-HCNJ ^-< t-H 



4» 
Q. 

3 
C/3 






at 


u. 


J= 


Of 


*-> 


c 


c 


b. 




3 


S/i 


Q 


41 


■a 

c/l 


U 







a. 



S Q 



LoiOHOiDnin^ co cm 



LO'^roCTi^HCOr-.CXi VO O". 

n o cn in co <- < cm *£> r^<d- 

HHOJ HLOn Oco 



OLD^'^j-oor-.o 



^Ln^LriLniHiDr-i ro co 



'-"^r^O'^^OvjD cm *-r 
nc\jLnaiHOCTi(\j oi ^ 

(XI CNJ l-H CO «3" 



cr>cocO'-'CMcnKM'^-^i r-- co 

cor^O-rjuocococoi-nco \£> cr» 

•d-^ojNcocoocnNLn r-. co 

CM CO CM «— < «— < «— < <— ■ «— < CM «— <.— I 



r^r--c\JCMCJiLn'=3-cnr3-Ln ^o co 
coc\jc\j"3-roc\io<sr'-H'-H "Xilo 

«— I CM ■— < 



oOf— <c\jr-HCNjLr>c\j r--uD 



xTjcoCM-— tOOcoo«3-<«J- LT) CO 



o 
c 

CI 
4) 



4» 



93 



c 



O O «JD VO O O CNJ i 



a - 



noooLncoNw 



vo m r— i ^3- o o I 



cr>cor--^j-oooo 



i co *j- o 



"O 

c 

w 

e 
o 



o 



OJD 
C 

c 



05 

u 



ooo-?oincsin 



u- e 



cy) 

on 






II 



O LO 



cocMCr.CT'r^rocO'X) <x> ld 



CM «— I .— I 



LT) CO LO CM i 



i CO CO CM CO O - 



'COHCM^DMrN OLO 

« CNJ CM Ol Pn. CI <* CMLO 

<— I CM CM 



CM O O LT) CM O CO t 



ir>iNc\jc\jCTirHNLnroi 



OiniDcoooai^oo om 

OrHMI^)(\JtjOLr)fOCDC\J "?j-«-H 

<3- <3- <^- co co nnoco cm *3- 

r- I ,-H O r- I «— < CM CM t— < -— 1 



h nnniMOcoroinco rors 

NtiOH-d-NininrNcriLn r~-.LT) 

o a^ m r~v ^ ltictii— i>jd <£> ct> 

CM t— < r»» .— I .—l CM CM CM •— I 



, W) , yj , j/), t/, 

at -r- CD T- CD -r- CD T- 



OJ -r- 

-C ■— x> 

<_n -. — <o 



111 



*3- ro r^- lo 



wnaiH^o 


o ^j- 


r-- en 


«d- ro 


en •— t ro i— • o cm 


CO <=3- 


O CXI 


CO oo 



I CM O CO <-h 



Q - 



rn roa> rrro n coo 

n^-hcocxio r--.ro 

•~i <xj cm ^ ro 



CM LO 


«3" Cn 


lo r- co lo 


ro ro 


CM CO 


<d- r- 


^s- *t 


on n cvj 


CO LO 


O (XI 


LO (XI 


LO 


<— • 


t— l 


«d- *-* 



^DNLnNCO^rHrHinO lo ■— I 

lo •— i ro cxi cti ro i— i to ro 



ro >— i co ^ ro lo <=j- O 

Ha>Hr-fntj lolo 
«— t i— i ■— i (XI •— • <d- ro 



Cn LO OO LO 



i ro ro en 



LO O 

O ro 
«3- ro 



O r- 

lo O 

CXI r-H 



3 

o 
u 






« < 



n N(D mc\j in 


CXI (XI 


LO LO 
CD LO 

r~» lo 


r^ ro 

ro <3- 
LO ro 


cn lo co o 

CO lo r^. <3- 

roij- -^ in 


LO CXI 
<3" LO 


00 LO 


H^OOlDO«J 
IN Ul kD tD CTi N 


r-. LO 


CO LO 

lo ro 



fOfocMOscNj o-ncnm COCXI 



a 


> 


3 


&j 


VI 


u 






9i 


1* 


J3 


BI 


** 


e 


e 


Im 




3 


<r> 


Q 




13 
1/1 


u 






Q. 






!/i 




| 


Q 

Iff 







e 


In 


A 


<y 


4! 


E 


Ml 

< 


-© 


■o 


t/5 


E 




ea 


§ 


S3 


-a 


o 


c 


tO 


S3 


^S 


>**v 


M 


u 


B 


u. 


■a 



lo r-. ro "^j- ^j- lo 



cn cxi cn <^j- r-*. lo 
lo r-- co (Xi co <xj 
cm i— t cxi cxi r-. «^j- 



r-. t— i 


O LO 


,-4 ^j- 


cxi <3- r-. r-» 


ro i^- 


r-i LO 


cn cn 

(XI CTi 


CTi .-H 
O ■—< 


r»- cn 

CO LO 


•— i CO ro o 

IDLDNN 


[n ro 

LO LO 


r- ( CO 
CO LO 


LO .— 1 

ro cxi 
ro co 


«3- ro 

CO LO 


cn i-i 
lo r-* 
«^J- ro 


COCO fON 
LO Cn i=3- LO 
ro ro 


i— < LO 

O ^O 


<XI o 

LO Cn 
Cn «3- 



i O O "vj- CM «3- 



u — .— i<3-<3-i_nroLO colo 

q ^ ,-. ixj ro .-1 



mooo r-- lo 



■ o o <3- CO 



O LO CO O CO LO 



lo en CO O ro o~> 



LOCnCOCTiOLOLOrOCOCTi LOLO 

cxilocoi— <cor--<=j-<d-(xi<3- cr» f— • 

CnOrOLDOi— iNNfON COLO 

■HrHrHCMCM iH rH rH ,— I .— I 



Cr\r^r^CT>OLOLO*3-cxi«a- 

LOcn^Hrorocsjr^cor^(XJ 



•3- en 

LO LO 

en ro 



rocxj-^rojcorocooOLO ro cm 



CXI (XI «d" i—i o t 



. cm ^j- ro ro 



i— i LO i— I 



- ro O co i— i ro co en 
<3- ro .—I OD "^t 



a* 

fa 



WD 



38 

u 



< 



.2 ** •— < en o O cm O cxiro 

■^b* 

«•< rOCT*^ rH(\JrH <XJt—l 

^ CO.-HCOCOLOC0 LOLO 



CO 00 00 <=3" O ^ CO 



i-t LO 

CO CO 

CO i—\ 



O ro 
o o 

(XI CM 



en o co o ro lo 



cm en <^r o r^ i— i 



roiNNcOHO c\jo nc\j lo «3" 

rscoiniDOin incooo cno 

itoaxn ixio inLn^-^t loco 

i— < CM i— < CO i— i i— < i— l 



ocONHonoicoon i— i oo 

o <d- ■— iLOOOcooLoroLO oo 

OLfiNMomHN-^co cnLo 

•— * i-H CM •— 1 CM CM •— • CMCO ^-t i— ) 



c/1 . — </> 



CO i — l/l i — 



1 — l/l I — (/I I 



CD 3 

s- r— 






112 



c , -— i cnj en . 



lo cxi lo m ^t 



CNJ CO 
CM CNJ 

cnj in 



.£ r* co >— i O <d- ( 

Q pri -H CNJ 



3 O 

© °P 

s 



OLOLDOOUDOCOt 



LO CNJ CNJ O O CO O 



O CNJ 
i—l r-- 

LO CNJ 



«^ o-— It— ho»- unma^o <- icNJCNj^r— « cr^o 

S r^^uDCTi«^j-ror--.rocO'^-CNjcNjcNj^j- co*^ 

,— I .— < .— I ,— I CNJ .— < .— < CNJ «— I t— I 



a 


> 


3 


« 


ift 


u 






a> 


U. 


x: 


at 


■fc* 


C 


R 


i- 




3 


t/5 


Q 




at 


U 


O 




Q. 






t/5 




| 


Q 


b. 

o 





2 § 

H .2 
Q 



lo r--. co <— hd NOr- ir^r^LOcocNj^H r-- <^r- 

rocor-.roO'j^cNjcoro'd-t-HCNjO'— < ct> cnj 

cnji— ir^^cNjcNjcocr>rococrii-ncNj^]- coo 

HCMrHHHrH.Hr-irOCNJHHCvJH .-H CNJ 



r-- lo cni (Njf-icOLnc\iLnc^cxji-ir-( *^- co 

rH C\J rH LO «^" 



cr» r- 

LO «^f 

— I O 



O CO 
O^ LO 

.— i LO 



LO CO 

«-H CO 



<V 


V 


E 


tie 
< 


■o 


-o 


C/5 


c 




OS 


s 


e 

00 


■a 


o 


c 


w 


w 


VO 


>«— v 


M 






at 


C 


U. 


■a 




c 




w 


>►> 


a. 


C 


V) 


o 


41 


a» 


OS 

U 



Q - 



2 «tinoHOc\j<to^^^-u:ir)H 



O co 


<-t in 


<3" LO 


.— 1 CO 




LO CO 



ON WO' 



unto inin o co cnj m o 



i < 



^_ o 



BJD 



ex 



Ha^WrOO*)NOlDINC^rHCTiN'^ 

cocn«— icor^r-Hroc\jLOLOLOcocNjcr> 

CO CNJ i-H i-H CNJ i—l 



CO ID 



HiDOrMniooHMinuDiDaio <3- in 

U3CTiLntDmCMJiNNfO(\JHOO r-- r-. 

tDcooco^cnai 1 HO | Xn^N«3-'^ cnj-=j- 

O") CNJ r— I f— (i— ICNjrOr— (f-H«— I^Hr-Ht-H CNJCNJ 



m^onrOrHCsjroororH^rNNM lo •— i 

co «3" t— i cm ro n ud in lt> ro cnj o ■— i 

i — i . — ( ro en 



LO O 
lo lo 
lo CNJ 



CO LO 

o o 

CO CO 



CD-i- CD -r- 



113 



PART IV, Section 2 

District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



*:,«, 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1979-80 of both cases 
pending, filed and disposed of in the State's district 
courts (cases which must be handled by one of the State's 
district court judges), and cases pending, filed and dis- 
posed of before magistrates. When the plaintiff in a civil 
case requests, and the amount in controversy is $800 or 
less, the case may be denominated a "small claims" civil 
case and assigned to a magistrate for hearing. In certain 
criminal matters, magistrates are authorized to accept 
defendant's waiver of court appearance and plea of 
guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a schedule 
set by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges; 
these waivers of appearance are permitted in many 
motor vehicle cases and in certain worthless check cases. 
In a limited number of other (non-motor vehicle) 
criminal cases, magistrates may try the case upon defen- 
dant's plea of not guilty. Appeals from magistrates' judg- 
ments in both civil cases and criminal cases are to the dis- 
trict court judge. 

This section contains data on three major case 
classifications: civil cases, juvenile proceedings, and 
criminal cases. Each of the three is subdivided into two 
or more case categories. Civil cases include "civil 
magistrate" cases (small claims cases, as defined above), 
"domestic relations" cases (chiefly concerned with an- 
nulments, divorces, alimony, custody and support of 
children), and "general civil" cases. Juvenile proceed- 
ings are classified in accordance with the nature of the of- 
fense or condition alleged in the petition which initiates 
the case: a child may be alleged to be "delinquent" or 
"undisciplined" on the basis of an offense, or a child may 
be alleged to be "neglected" by his legal guardian or 
"dependent" upon the State for his or her care or protec- 
tion. (As of January 1, 1980, a fifth condition may be 
alleged in a juvenile petition: that the child is "abused." 
Data on proceedings following allegations of abuse are 
not included in the data presented here.) District court 
criminal cases are divided into "motor vehicle" cases 



(when the offense charged is defined in Chapter 20 of the 
North Carolina General Statutes) or non-motor vehicle 
cases. 

As the pie charts on the following page illustrate, dis- 
trict court criminal cases filed and disposed of in 1979-80 
out-numbered civil cases by a substantial margin. Motor 
vehicle criminal cases constituted over half of the total 
filings and dispositions, and non-motor vehicle criminal 
cases constituted another fourth of the total. Among the 
civil cases, about two-thirds (just over fourteen percent 
of the total) were small claims cases filed before 
magistrates. The remainder were domestic relations 
cases (4.1% of the total filed and 4.0% of the total dis- 
posed of) and general civil cases (3.4% of the filings and 
3.4% of the dispositions as well). 

The graphs on the ages of district court division civil 
cases and criminal cases show that district court cases 
are, for the most part, disposed of rather rapidly. The 
median age of the district court civil cases disposed of in 
1979-80 was 27.0 days. For criminal cases, the median 
age of the motor vehicle cases disposed of was 21.0 days, 
and of the non-motor vehicle cases 20.0 days. Among the 
district court cases still pending as of the end of the year, 
the median age for civil cases was 133.3 days, for motor 
vehicle cases 30.0 days, and for non-motor vehicle cases 
38.3 days.* 

The higher age of the district court civil cases pending 
on June 30, 1980 is indicative of the fact that both 
domestic relations and general civil cases can be expect- 
ed to take much longer from filing to disposition than 
either civil cases which are handled by magistrates or 
criminal cases. This difference is not reflected in the me- 
dian ages of the cases disposed of during 1979-80 which 
are illustrated in the graph: because small claims case dis- 
positions out-number other district court civil cases by 
about two to one, the median age of all district court 
division civil cases typifies the quickly disposed-of civil 
magistrate cases rather than the civil cases which are dis- 
posed of before a judge. 



* The median age of a set of cases is the age of a hypothetical case which is older than 50% of all the cases and younger than the other 50%. 

The graphs do not show data for juvenile proceedings. These are not reported to AOC by case number and filing and disposition date, as 
are other cases, and so cannot be included. The same is true for proceedings relating to the commitment or recommitment of persons alleged 
to be mentally incompetent to the State's four mental hospitals. Data on these proceedings are included in Part III, "Cost and Case Data on 
Representation of Indigents." 



117 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, 1979-80 

FILINGS 



MOTOR VEHICLE 



GENERALCIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEH. 



DISPOSITIONS 



MOTOR VEHICLE 



GENERALCIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEH. 



Traffic cases dominate not only the district court caseloads, as depicted here, but also the total caseload facing the 
State's trial courts. Of all cases filed during the 1979-80 year (including superior court civil and criminal cases, estates 
and special proceedings, and district court civil and criminal cases), 48.6% were traffic cases. 



118 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

Lifetimes of District Court Cases 
Median Ages of Cases Pending 6/30/80 and of Cases Disposed During 1797-80. 



Civil 



Criminal 
Motor Vehicle 



Criminal 
Non-Motor Vehicle 




133.3 



Civil 



Criminal 
Motor Vehicle 



Criminal 
Non-Motor Vehicle 



27.0 



H 



Pending Cases 
Disposed Cases 



21.0 



20.0 



[00 

Median Age (Days) 



200 



Most district court cases are relatively short-lived, as 
indicated by this graph. While criminal cases at this level 
normally pass through the court system rapidly, the 
same is not necessarily true of civil cases. The low me- 
dian age of civil cases disposed is largely a reflection of 
civil magistrate cases, since 65.6% of all civil district 



court cases disposed of this year were at the magistrate 
level. Because of the smaller number of year-end 
pending civil magistrate cases (only 29% of pending 
cases were civil magistrate), the median pending age is of 
larger magnitude, as influenced by the longer processing 
times of general civil and domestic relations cases. 



119 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
I971-1980 



M 

I 
L 
L 
I 


N 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



2.0 









4 ~* FILINGS 

3 fl DISPOSITIONS 

9- — m p ETO 


1.5. 


A -+—£ 




A^fcZ$ 




^^^''' 


1.0. 


/ 


0.5. 




00 


^ — % — 8 — g 




1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-7979-80 

An overall picture of district court caseload is determined by the criminal 
caseload and particularly by the volume of traffic cases. Of all cases filed 
and disposed in the district courts durinq the 1979-80 year, 78. 3% of the filings 
and 78.4% of the dispositions were in the criminal category. 



120 



T 
H 

U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 



F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1971-1988 



350 



300. 



ft- 



■* FILINGS 



fl * DISPOSITIONS 

9- — m mm 



250. 



200. 



150. 



100. 



50. 




,-Q- 



■&■ — g 



.^ s 



.& 



#' 



I- 4k"' 



.<# 



\ 



Y 



71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-7979-80 

Civil caseloads in the district courts have increased sharply each year for the 
ten years that data have been collected. 1979-80 filings are 13% higher than 
1978-79 filings, with civil magistrate cases accounting for the major portion 
of the increase. The 14% jump in dispositions during the past year may help to 
explain the first recent decrease in pending cases; 90,754 cases were pending 
on June 30, 1979, while 89,139 remained open on June 30, 1980. 



121 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

General Civil, Domestic Relations, and C ivil Magistrate 
Cases In The District Courts — 1979-80 



T 
H 
O 

U 

s 

A 
N 
D 

S 

o 

F 

C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



250 



200 _ 



150 _ 



100 _ 



50 _ 




Filings 
Dispositions 



HHf End Pending 



207,143 



200,339 



59,858 



56,883 



48,866 48,177 



35,700 



27,552 



25,887 






General Civil 



Domestic Relations 



Civil Magistrate 



Civil magistrate cases dominate the civil district court 
caseload, with 1979-80 filings showing an increase of 
15.7% over 1978-79 filings. Domestic relations cases. 



while of a much smaller magnitude, are also growing; 
the 59,858 cases filed during 1979-80 year represent a 
10.7% increase over 1978-79 figures. 



122 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 













DISTRICT COURTS 




















July 1, 1979 - 


- June 30, 1980 












Pending 

7/1/79 






Filings 




Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 




District 1 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Civil 
Magistrate 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 




.'1 
166 

99 
176 

66 
199 

59 


169 
1,258 
559 
688 
465 
1,188 
424 


12 
96 
69 

126 
43 

172 
37 


28 

168 
90 
8,4 
44 

293 
48 


129 
994 

400 
4 78 
378 
72 3 

3 39 


190 
1,424 
658 
864 
531 
1,387 
483 


165 
1,145 
488 
650 
465 
1,119 
408 


86.8 
80.4 
74.1 
75.2 
87.5 
80.6 
84.4 


25 
279 
170 

? 1 4 
66 

268 
75 


District Totals 




786 


4,751 


555 


755 


3,441 


5,537 


4,440 


80.1 


1,097 


District 2 






















Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 




351 

36 
280 

18 

117 


2,504 
201 

1,648 
216 

1,036 


125 
23 
62 

4 
164 


444 

39 

224 

36 

109 


1,935 
139 

1,362 
176 
763 


2,855 
237 

1,928 
234 

1,153 


2,454 
192 

1,607 
193 
943 


85.9 
81.0 
83.3 
82.4 
8.1.7 


401 
45 

321 
41 

210 


District Total s 




802 


5,605 


378 


8'; 2 


4,375 


6,407 


5,389 


84.1 


1,018 


District 3 






















Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


1 


487 

934 

65 

,531 


1,945 

3,511 

431 

4,973 


289 

669 

36 

854 


446 
953 

89 
698 


1,210 

1,889 

306 

3,421 


2,432 

4,445 

496 

6,504 


1,835 

3,420 

392 

5,111 


75.4 
76.9 
79.0 
78.5 


597 
1,025 

104 
1,393 


District Totals 


3 


,017 


10,860 


1,848 


2,186 


6,826 


13,877 


10,758 


77.5 


3,119 


District 4 






















Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


1 


4 7 1 

58 

,285 

463 


2,899 

455 

4,061 

3,605 


234 

63 

333 

277 


246 

103 

1,310 

493 


2,419 

289 

2,418 

2,835 


3,370 

513 

5,346 

4,068 


2,833 

422 

3,903 

3,259 


84.0 
82.2 
73.0 
80.1 


537 

91 

1,443 

809 


District Totals 


2 


,277 


11,020 


90 7 


2,152 


7,961 


13,297 


10,417 


78.3 


2,880 


District 5 






















Mew Hanover 
Pender 


2 


,196 
203 


6.755 
821 


1,393 

148 


1,659 
196 


3,703 
477 


8,951 
1,024 


6,193 
740 


69.1 
72.2 


2,758 

284 


District Totals 


2 


,399 


7,576 


1,541 


1,855 


4,180 


9,975 


6,933 


69.5 


3,042 


District 6 






















Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 




245 

911 
373 

2 39 


1,431 
3,026 
1,346 
1,108 


54 
175 

2 35 

144 


231 

583 

238 

51 


1,146 

2,268 

873 

913 


1,676 
3,937 
1,719 
1,347 


1,484 
3,185 
1,403 
1,145 


88.5 
80.8 
81.6 
85.0 


192 

7 52 
316 

202 


District Totals 


1 


,768 


6,911 


608 


1,103 


5,200 


8,679 


7,217 


83.1 


1,462 


District 7 






















Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 




796 
913 
817 


5,598 
3,793 
4,426 


372 
492 
677 


645 
559 

834 


4,581 
2,742 
2,915 


6,394 
4,706 
5,243 


5,291 
3,879 
4,073 


82.7 
82.4 
77.6 


1,103 

827 

1,170 


District Totals 


2 


,526 


13,817 


1,541 


2,038 


10,238 


16,343 


13,243 


81.0 


3,100 


District 8 






















Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


1 
2 


91 

,216 
,232 


593 
4,520 
6,705 


52 

579 

1,395 


118 

876 
1,467 


423 
3,065 
3,843 


684 
5,736 
8,937 


570 
4,761 
6,782 


83.3 
83.0 
75.8 


114 

975 

2,155 


District Totals 


3 


,539 


11,818 


2,026 


2,461 


7,331 


15,357 


12,113 


78.8 


3,244 


District 9 






















Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 




264 
307 
510 
351 
406 


1,676 
1,598 
1,756 
2,981 
880 


1 06 
] 98 
213 
155 
80 


236 
227 
284 
461 
291 


1,334 
1,173 
1,259 
2,365 
509 


1,940 
1,905 
2,266 
3,332 
1,286 


1,634 
1,650 
1,885 
2,487 
933 


84.2 
86.6 
83.1 
74.6 
72.5 


306 
,•':, 5 
381 
845 
353 


District Total s 


1 


,838 


8,891 


752 


1,499 


6,640 


10,729 


8,589 


80.0 


2,140 


District 10 























Wake 



6,743 



16,962 



4,196 



3,033 



9,733 



23,705 



16,409 



69.2 



7,296 



123 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Filings 



District 11 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Civil 
Magistrate 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


943 

1,061 

624 


2,677 
4,321 
1,978 


135 
662 

731 


517 

869 



1,594 
2,790 

1,247 


3,620 
5,382 
2,602 


2,619 

3,911 
1,872 


72.3 
72.6 

71.9 


1,001 
1,471 

730 


District Totals 


2,628 


8,976 


1,959 


1,386 


5,631 


11,604 


8,402 


72.4 


3,202 


District 12 




















Cumberland 
Hoke 


2,890 
139 


12,834 
1,035 


1,511 
173 


3,046 
159 


8,277 
703 


15,724 
1,174 


12,814 

1,032 


81.4 
87.9 


2,910 

142 


District Totals 


3,029 


13,869 


1,684 


3,205 


8,980 


16,898 


13,846 


81.9 


3,052 


District 13 




















Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


347 
503 
822 


1,792 
1,511 
3,193 


271 
291 

422 


212 
292 
534 


1,309 

928 

2,237 


2,139 
2,014 
4,015 


1,690 
1,409 
3,046 


79.0 
69.9 
7-5.8 


449 
605 
969 


District Totals 


1,672 


6,496 


984 


1,038 


4,474 


8,168 


6,145 


75.2 


2,023 


District 14 





















Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



3,668 



514 



266 
519 

785 



16,096 



3,874 



1,590 
2,378 

3,968 



1,855 



561 



in 

485 

598 



2,014 
1,093 



209 
525 

734 



12,227 



2,220 



1,268 
1,368 

2,636 



19,764 



4,: 



1,856 
2,897 

4,753 



16,023 



3,761 



1,616 
2,067 

3,683 



547 

1,326 

494 

547 

3,106 



963 
2,526 
2,531 
2,330 
2,645 

10,995 



■;,'b 
242 
446 
348 

1,415 



173 

■141) 

410 
226 
374 

1,623 



737 
1,760 
1,879 
1,658 
1,923 

7,957 



1,155 


941 


3,073 


2,493 


3,857 


2,929 


2,824 


2,223 


3,192 


2,559 


4,101 


11,145 



81.0 



85.7 



87.0 

71.3 

77.4 



81.4 
81.1 
75.9 
78.7 
80.1 

79.0 



3,741 



627 



240 
830 

1,070 



Robeson 
Scotland 


1,532 

469 


8,061 
1,897 


1,144 
166 


1,580 
210 


5,337 
1,521 


9,593 
2,366 


7,836 
1,911 


81.6 
80.7 


1,757 
455 


District Totals 


2,001 


9,958 


1,310 


1,790 


6,858 


11,959 


9,747 


81.5 


2,212 


District 17 




















Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


122 
54 9 
135 
700 


724 
3.415 

890 
3,249 


49 

501 

94 

483 


119 
790 
176 

460 


556 
2,124 

620 
2,306 


846 
3,964 
1,025 
3,949 


686 
3,242 

854 
3,134 


81.0 
81.7 
83.3 
79.3 


160 
722 
171 
815 


District Totals 


1,506 


8,278 


1,127 


1,545 


5,606 


9,784 


7,916 


80.9 


1,868 


District 18 




















Gui 1 ford 


4,942 


22,718 


4,019 


3,996 


14,703 


27,660 


21,479 


77.6 


6,181 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 
Rowan 


1,110 
606 


4,144 
3,763 


1,339 

477 


704 
742 


2,101 
2,544 


5,254 
4,369 


3,900 
3,596 


74.2 
82.3 


1,354 
773 


District Totals 


1,716 


7,907 


1,816 


1,446 


4,645 


9,623 


7,496 


77.8 


2,127 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 
Randol ph 


388 

407 


1,508 
2,690 


217 
S19 


88 

'71 


1,203 
1,600 


1,896 
3,097 


1,435 
2,722 


75.6 
87.8 


461 
375 


District Totals 


795 


4,198 


5 S6 


859 


2,803 


4,993 


4,157 


83.2 


836 


District 20 





















214 

580 
92S 
601 
633 

2,956 



124 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 



District Total s 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 



Pending 

7/1/79 

2,406 



747 



1,927 



Total 

13,492 



Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


94 
612 
145 

614 


779 
3,562 

898 
3,615 


District Totals 


1,465 


8,854 


District 23 






Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


69 
79 

942 
278 


528 

699 

3,214 

1,458 


District Totals 


1,368 


5,899 


District 24 






Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


88 

54 

53 

246 

79 


441 
283 
372 

940 
341 


District Totals 


520 


2,377 


District 25 






Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


651 

644 

1,125 


2,820 
3,058 
4,608 


District Total s 


2,420 


10,486 


District 26 






Mecklenburg 


11,811 


30,511 


District 27A 






Gaston 


1,461 


6,797 


District 27B 






Cleveland 
Lincoln 


543 

204 


4,006 
1,513 



5,519 



7,011 



Filings 



General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Civil 
Magistrate 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


2,720 


2,971 


7,801 


15,898 


13,182 


82.9 


2,716 


64 
486 
125 
492 


148 

978 
158 
548 


567 
2,098 

615 
2,575 


873 
4,174 
1,043 
4,229 


639 
3,552 

789 
3,474 


73.1 
85.0 
75.6 
82.1 


234 

622 
254 
755 


1,167 


1,832 


5,855 


10,319 


8,454 


81.9 


1,865 


86 
70 

960 
177 


68 

100 

525 
184 


374 

529 
1,729 
1,097 


597 

778 
4,156 
1,736 


515 

620 

3,262 

1,451 


86.2 
79.6 
78.4 
83.5 


82 

158 

804 

285 



1,293 



140 

29 

64 
275 

49 

557 



33/ 
372 

95 3 

1,662 



5,082 



775 



420 
320 

740 



1,246 



877 



31 
66 
68 
181 
87 

433 



819 
546 
943 

2,308 



5,487 
2,312 



749 
372 

1,121 



1,683 



3,729 



270 
188 
840 
484 
205 

1,387 



1,664 
2,140 
2,712 

6,516 



19,942 
3,710 



2,837 
821 

3,658 



4,082 



7,267 



589 
3 37 
425 
1,186 
420 

2,897 



5, 1 



401 
274 
332 
853 
319 

2,179 



3,471 


2,521 


3,702 


2,839 


5,733 


4,435 



12,906 



42,322 



5,258 



4,549 
1,717 

6,266 



8,938 



9,795 



28,797 



6,190 



3,773 
1,473 

5,246 



7,139 



80.4 



75.8 
81.3 
78.1 
71.9 
75.9 

75.2 



72.6 
76.6 
77.3 

75.8 



83.7 



79.8 



1,419 



128 

63 

93 

333 

101 

718 



950 

863 

1,298 

3,111 



68.0 


13,525 


74.9 


2,068 


82.9 


776 


85.7 


244 



1,020 



1,799 



Henderson 


413 


1,294 


247 


369 


f,/8 


1,707 


1,276 


74.7 


431 


McDowell 


294 


918 


110 


327 


481 


1,212 


960 


79.2 


252 


Polk 


72 


266 


23 


66 


177 


338 


268 


79.2 


70 


Rutherford 


249 


1,821 


280 


327 


1,214 


2,070 


1,655 


79.9 


415 


Transylvania 


276 


906 


126 


206 


574 


1,182 


892 


75.4 


290 


District Totals 


1,304 


5,205 


786 


1,295 


3,124 


6,509 


5,051 


77.6 


1,458 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


204 


465 


4 


178 


28 ', 


669 


464 


69.3 


205 


Clay 


38 


150 


41 


23 


86 


188 


155 


82.4 


33 


Graham 


44 


144 


16 


52 


76 


188 


148 


78.7 


40 


Haywood 


404 


1,664 


181 


341 


1,142 


2,068 


1,758 


85.0 


310 


Jackson 


209 


659 


146 


101 


412 


868 


682 


78.5 


186 


Macon 


199 


700 


94 


119 


487 


899 


6 72 


74.7 


227 


Swain 


87 


390 


140 


62 


188 


477 


331 


69.3 


146 


District Totals 


1,185 


4,172 


622 


876 


2,674 


5,357 


4,210 


78.5 


1,147 


STATE TOTALS 


78,671 


315,867 


48,866 


59,858 


207,143 


394,538 


305,399 


77.4 


89,139 



125 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CIVIL CASES 

1979-80 



JUDGE 




MAGISTRATE 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 



OTHER 



CLERK 



Magistrates handle the bulk of civil cases in the district court division. Judges decide the outcomes of most of the do- 
mestic relations and general civil cases that comprise the rest of the district court caseload. 



126 



4* o o o ■— < o o o 

5 



LT) O O O O in 



.— I CO .—I O LT) 



i «=r cm o r-. 



J i- « r-- o o «^r o o cm co 

Z ■ S co cm •— i r-» 

111 

'I > 5 



i O O O O <— 



o <— • <— < O C\J 



ooooooo o 



o o o o o 



^f o o o 



o o o <- 



o o o o o 



4. CO^DONONN O 

.S co en co <3- r-- co •—< co 
oo co <3- co m cm o 



s - 



Oi COOOJN 

co cm r-» ld <— i 

COrHrO-HfN, 



r-t CO CO CO 

CVJON^O 

in co oo cm 



co in in CM 
ro r-». CO en 
ro i— < *zt in 



m in 


r- . 


•—* m in cm 


CO «d" 


ro 


m o en ro 


ro ro 


r-. 


<-n c\j co en 



w 



5 



rOH«tinocMO in 



inroONH r—t 



conroro in 



cm ro m 



3 
O 

U 



a - 



ro in r-. cm in co 



C o •- 



r-~ t— i i— i «— i ro ro 



O c\j cvj 



cti r-- ko ^r •£> 



</> 



41 

** o 

Coo 
OS 

<u o 

PS cj 



Qg -£ O O O O O O CM CM 

1 u 

E 

5 ^ ooooooo o 

C 3 



2* cm m in cm m m o~> 

^ r-i ^ ^j- CO ro <^- CO 



i CM CM <JD 



iLHH^ CO 



i— i o o o o 



CO r—l 



CM r~- O CM r-t 

^t<^ iDr^. cm 
ro r-. in r^ 



in o o «^r en 



o o cm o CM 



r-n co in ct> co 
cm cr» <=j- in t—t 
CM CTi co in 



N CM CT> 



UD ,-. ,-t O CO 



t— i O CM O CO 



in co in in 
cti r^. un co 



£ I 






in >— < »n m o r-» o in 



<X) O O O CTi in 



ON ID CT^ CM 



in cm o r-» 



ONCOH l£> 



C ~ 
O £" 

S 5 

(/J 

o 
a. 



ro O ro a-> lo >X) O 
ro t— t oo t-h ro t-h 



£5 



cocriNfo 



c 

c 



O •— • O O O «— ' O CM 



> o o o o 



m O ^ CM CM 



O O CM O CM 



in cm in -d - 

OCOHH 
.— I .— ) CO 



r-H CM 



co co in 



in m co o m en co 
m "vt- co lo m ■— i o 

rH ^i ^ ID <3" ■"" qj- 



in o cm •— < 

co cm en «— i 
CO <3- co «— » 



ro cm co CTt r-» 
ro cm o in t-h 
co ^r en cm <3- 



co O 

en <3- 



LO 13 Z3 ■<- 

CD 0) cr a- s- 



c_> ej o o i 



c i — tz 

•r- CD -r- 

+-> s- sz 



S- fo E -+-> 

03 S- fO -r- 
C_) C_> Q_ Cl_ 



LO O LO -I— 



=3 O C ro 



OOOI/) 



CD nD O 03 



127 



4-t CO O CNJ LO 

J5 

o 



cmom lo 



r-* o •— • co 



CNJ O C\J 



V -5 o O CO 00 

*» 2 55 ro co 

S 3 E - 



O O CO CD 



omo lo 



CO O O O O LO 



i/i «, r»- cnj ro 

"5) •» en r-. lo 

ai * *± tD <3- 

Z «^j- cnj «— t 



CM LO to ro 

rnnco CO 

«3- O t— i uD 

ro co lo 



co en co co o en 
en co co r-^ CO O 

o cnj ro to lo en 



CO NN 
CO CNJ «^j- 

LO lo cnj 



LO <— < 

O r-. 

CNJ CD 



ihco in en 
cnj ,— i ro 



cnj i— i cd en 



en r-^ ro en 



ro ro O CD 



3 
© 



£o 



cn co rv <3- 
r-^ en co 

i— « CNJ 



(/> 








5 




4) 




£ 




■*» 


e 


s 

•** 




(/J 


, 


4? 


e 


Cfl 


r*i 


ca 


« 


U 


c 

3 


mem 


M, 






> 


| 






u 


9N 



CV -= 



J ^J- ro en 
u 

w 



*- o o o 



«cj- en en 
lo en ro 

^J- LO CO 



o -=d- en ro 



o «3- o «3- 



cn r»- cnj lo cnj lo 



o o o o o o 



en ^f co ro ^j- 

O LD CTi LD<3- 

cnj t— i i— i ro «-h 



lo en o <3- 



co lo ro 



CM o^ 
r-. o 



cnj ro ro co 



i— I cnj O ro 



lo <— < en 
cd lo ro 
>— I cnj *fr 



E ~ 

O i> 

S 3 

© 
a, 
en 



>Q 



HHfO LO 



CD O LO .— t 

^j- ^ en 

CNJ CD CO 



i-h ro cnj cd 

ro lo cnj o 

.— i t— ( ro 



l--- CD ro CD 



lo ro CO 



CO LO LO CO 

HCOH ,— < 
r-H r-H .-I ^T 



-^3- co cn i-h 
cnj co r- 

CNJ «3r CD 



ocn^ en 

CNJ CD ro «— < 
r— . r— i ro 



C 
C 



o «^r cni co 



o •— I CO <tf- 



OOMOO CNJ 



cnj cd ro r-H 

«^- in in lo 

ro ro r-^ 



en lo ro 
cnj <— < r~- 

t— I CNJ CNJ 



_ 4* 

2 S 

o a. 

h .a 
Q 



^n en ro ro 

en r^ r-. <d- 

CNJ co o CNJ 

lo co «^r co 



-? ouirsn 
ro lo CO CO ro 
co co CO «3- en 



co en co 
cnj ro t— i 



<d- CNJ CD 



cnj •—< ro 



o en co lo 

en o «=}- «* 

CO -^ O rH 

r-H <-H CO CD 



i — •«- c 



> O CD CD 
c c en cj S- 



■*-> O 

4-> -M 

CD cO 

c c 

i- .C CD 

ro O CD 

m o _j 



■i- 3 
3 -Q 



COCO U 'i- 



28 



r--i—i CO 



O O O --H 



CTi O CT< 



I 11 



on ro 



IJHD LO 

^O r-, <d- 
O r^- CO 



O O O CO CO 

o o 
<3- «tf 



r-- r- 



O r— r- 



o o o o o 



2 ~ rl 



cm ro ID 



O en 

lo r-. 
o co 



CO CTi ro O CO 

cnj co cr> i—i i—i 
lo o lo r-. cr> 



LO CO CO 

in Kt en 

CO LO CO 

<— • cnj ro 



co ^r r-. 

CO LO r— I 

i— i lo r-. 

i— I <—* CNJ 



•— • r- < CNJ 



lo r-» r- co 



«d- ■— • lo 



^1" CNJ CO 



3 

o 

u 

"C 



la 



o o o 



U1H UD 



ro .— « CO o 



o o o o o 



o o o 



** o 

Coo 

v © 



cr» o 

— I O 

cnj m 



o o o 

LO CO t-H 

'd- cnj i--. 



CNJ CO CNJ r-H 

OOMDH 
«— I CO <— I «* 



CO CNJ 


o 


LO O 


LO CO 


CNJ 


O CO 


co lo 


CO 


«— 1 t— 



.Z I 



OS 
On 



O CNJ CNJ 



Ci CO CNJ 



<y\ co cnj 



c - 
o i? 

S 5 

V) 

o 
a. 



ro r^ ^h 



r— ^j- 


rH 


«d- «* 


CNJ O 


CO 


CNJ CO 


CO CNJ 


CO 


«— • 



C 
C 



O COON LO 



2 o 



CO O CO 



CO CNJ «3- *3- 

co «* en ro 

<X> CNJ CO ■— < 



O CO 
O Ch 

en lo 



LO CNJ 

CO CNJ 

<3- r- 



Q - 



i — (/) 



« O+J 3 



■i- t_) CC 



o <— CJ 

en o -f- 



129 



O CO O O O CO 



O •— i •— ' O O oo 



I 11 

? > 5 



O O O C\J 00 



MONO CT> 
CT* CTi 



n oo (mm 



O C\J O O O CM 



o o o o 



o o o o o 



O O -h o o ■— i 



ocon .— i 



r- co •— i c\j o~> 

r-- co 'Xi cm oo 

LO LD CM LO CO 



S - -T< 



coco coin en 

i£ICO m^ OO 
<=t O LD CO *S" 



r»* lo CO CT> 
nOCON 
CO CO O o 



■3-004 HrH O 

fO CO-HNCft CXt 
CM i—l CM CO .— I r-H 



t-H i— l CM 



rHMCM <X> 



HO'tOJ 



o lt) cm -^r co o~» 



^j- co cm cn 



3 

o 
U 



« g COOyDLfiOi CO 
c •? '~ H .— i CO r-- 



I 58 



u 




J3 




** 


e 


e 


00 
On 


o,=i 




(A 


» 


ft> 


O 


CM 


n 


Cfl 


41 


U 


e 
a 



0! -JJ *-i r-~ no <3- o CO 

4* 

E 

o 
Q 



OMOHCM LO 



O OO CM CO CT 

lo «d- r»- o cm 

i— I CO OO CM OO 



«d- o o o <^r 



O I— I O OO .—I LO 



o o o o o o 



o ld ld o~i 

ID N ID Lf) 



CO L£> CM .— i 



OO O «— • <d- 



cr> en <=j- 
-— i o lo 
lo <=r r-~ 



.Z I 

<H On 

o - 

c ~ 

© £• 

O 

a 



>Q 



■^ Ln ltiCnJ lo 



i i— i co lo r-*. 

t OO «^- *3" OO 

i— t ^H OO 



nH rHCn rH CM 
<— I t— I OO 



nwONCO o 



OO -^ LO CM 



LO LO LO LO 

en co co <x> 

CM ^ 



«— I CM 



cx» n in i— i 
i— i co r-. co 

HHfO LO 



c 
c 



CM n CM UD oo 



i—l i—l O LO 



IONOH «d" 



■3- r-~ co en 



_ V 

s S 



i— I OO CTi OO CJi 

cj- en cm cm in 

CTi «^J- CTi cm in 



CM CM CM CM 



CTi CM CTt *^T 

nin con 
com N«t 



inowH 

i— i CM UD Ln 

in coonJ-nI- 



i— i "=t CM OO CT» 

O r-» oo Ln «— i 

«3- CM OO CO CO 



oo i— i Ln 



•— i en Ln in 

CM CO OO CTi 

ID CO-nJ N 

CM CM ^ CTt 



o ^> 

C QJ E i— C 
O i- -C C O 
LO O U (Dt 
C O -i- -M C 



"O O r— 

C LO i 

n3 TD QJ CU 

X -i- -r- "O 

CU > > QJ 

i — re 13 S- 

<=C O O >— < 



QJ <U J* _^ 

■— _c .— -a 

i — i/) -i- A3 

<C < 3 >- 



C i— «3 

O CD Oi>, 

>, LO _C 3 QJ 

i- -i- O fO O 
QJ "O 



> (T3 ■ 



fO 



<: s s: 3 >- 





— 


■T- 




CU 


n 


a j 


-: 


* 


.*. 


XJ 


m 


S- 






i 


m 


ro 


CO 


t_> 


ej 



130 



no co 



o o o o o 



O ro o O 



lo «cf- r-» cm 



i o t— » -j- «— < 



>— i CM O O O rn 



OlO.— iQOOO lo 



O CO 

lo r-. 



UD CTi o en o 
u^ r-» lo o O 



eg co in in o ^t id ro 
ro .— < *^j- rd- t— i lo 



3 

O 

U 



O 1-1 ON o o o 



w 








5 




a* 




J= 




*-» 


o 


t e 


oc 

OS 


Cfl 


,. 


a> 


© 


w 


<-n 


« 


01 


U 


c 

3 


BMI 


-5 






> 


| 






u 


On 



O -" 



O CM CM 



ro ro 
lo ro 



LO LO O O O C\J 



CM O O <— i O ro 



ro vo lo lo r-~ CO 

CO CM CM i— < O 



O h r- O »— < - 



OO^hOOOO «-h 



f— l CM 



O •— < O CM 



O £> 
♦3 = 
(A 

o 
a 



<— < CNJ 



CNJ ON .—I 

ON ^f ^3" 

l-H CNJ 



c 

B 



i— i •—* O lo ro 



O O ■— I CM O O O CO 



IOOCOLDN 
r-. (£) iDLT) CTl 
CM CT> CM LO CO 



r-H LO 



-J" LO CO CO CM CM i— I 

lo lo -^- lo co r-- ro 

^ ,—4 ,-H r- LD LO CO 



(O C -M 



LO i — •(— 



CD 3 dJ LO "r- 

■o O -^ -C c s- 

C O i — +-> (TJ +-> 

CD O O 3 S- lo 

xzq-q:i- -r- 



O l/) C d ■(- 



uucdids:^ -i- 



131 



O LO CM LO LO i 



r^ cx> m •— i lo cm 



LO CTi <-< LO i— • 

rsNH ro O 

<— < CM LO 



CO CO O O LO 
<3" ro «3- CM 

•— I CM 



CO O CO 



nrH^omcn 



•xiq-o^i 



lo ro ro *3- 

>X) CM CM OO 



co a~> r-% m co p-. lo 

roo^coomN 



lo cm co co rv 

HrH<3-rHCO 



r-^ t— * lo lo 

«3" <3" C\J CD 

^t <^-m co 



CM CTi LO CT. 

CM LO ^- «=r 
cm ro co CO 



CM CM CD 



<3" LO 
CM O 

co lo 



homji ro 
cr. ■—< en .— < r-i 

hl/iocti r-^ 



On 



ro .— < co lo <3- co 



mr^cnoco lo 



LO O ro LO lo 



CT. LO LO <3" LO 



r-. o lo 



CM >— • CO CO 

en lo ro t— i 



as 



r-- co lo r-. o o o 



en <3- <-h «^- cm 



cm ro ro cr-i 



en lo o ro lo 



CTi <d" LO LO ro 



S u. 



3 

© 



.s 

3 

Q 



ha <« 

*- o 
v> a, 



V 


m 


£ 




■*-• 


sj 


S 


U 




w. 


C/l 





1/5 


4) 

at 

< 

■a 


pM« 


e 


> 


M 




© 


u 


00 







w 


\© 


o» 


M 


6UC 
< 


e 
•3 



— H in in co o lo oi co 
2 o eo «3- co lo lo «— < o 



H .2 



rH^-lDCH^ 



O ^i£)OLn<t <j ro 

r-t t-H l-H LO 



Q - 



■^ cm Nno-i 

LO CTi O CTi •^J- 
-^J- *—■ LO i— t CT> 



O ro «3- cm < 



LD Lf) CJi ro tj- 



CM CO LO rn LO LO 



HCOHOLD 

CM CM LO CM CM 
CM •— > <— < 



mown 

ro CM CT. r— • 
CO «3" ro *-« 



LO o cm r- 

ro cr. lo o 

CM "3" LO 



co cm co en 
ro cm O LO 

CO «3" CT) CM 



LO CO CM *d- 

<3" t— I LO O 

CM i— I 



r-» «d- lo lo 
O ^ lo ro 
ro lo <cj- 



.— i I--* en 



LO LO CM 



CO <=3- 
r-v o 

CO «-< 



nroHH 



ro <^- ro co CO 



LfiHinN 
cm en lo -— i 

r—t CO «— ( •— I 



u 



ox 



OWHMLnino ro 



CMCT»«~HCO«3-LOO CM 

O •— 1 LO LO CM LO LO CO 

CTi LO CTi LO i— ( O LO CTi 

HHCSJNCOH i— i 



r-» CD CM o o ro 



CM vo r- *d" CO LO 

Hp-NCMCO ro 

ro LO LO O r— ( ^j- 

CM t— t CO CM ■— < CM 



O LO LO O CTi 



cm o ■— i lo en 



LO LO i— • 



cm co en t— < 


lo 


NNMO 


r^ 


i-H CO 


CO "=3- CM LO 
«3- CO m CM 
CM CM >— < CM 


CO 

CM 


<^J- CTi LO ■— I 
CM O ^J- LO 
CM CM CM i—l 


*3- 

CM 


en >^j- 

LO CTi 
CO CM 


r-. lo <^- co 
en cm o m 

inonro 


Ot 


r-. i— i co en 
ro en ^j- o 

LO *d" CO 


o 
a: 
cr 


co -^r 

LO CO 

r-» cm 



O CM CT> CM CO 



CM O CTi Cn LO 



CM CM LO CM 
CTi LO «— t O 
r-4N ro w 



<— I i— ( CO 



LO ^ 3 



uuuooao. -i— ■<— 



s_ 




r- CT> 


o 


r 




L<- 




QJ -r- 


=3 CD 


+-> 


v_ ^: 


to -o 


S- 


s- lo 


cu >. 


ro 


>, <o 


CO I 


:-. 


h- ^ 



■r- CU (U •■- 

i- +J > r- +^ 

-M V_ ro E -M 

LO ro i- ro •»- 

■r- O L_> O. Q_ 



Q '"D O 0O -i- 



132 



.— < lo on 



co <~n co on 



on co oj 



oj r-. ^-j- co 



on lo co 
un o 



I OJ <~0 ON LO •— i 

i ro cm ud c\J co 
,-h t— < <h- 



■— < OJ 



ON r^v O LO 



«h- O LO O 

i*-. lo o ^3- 

-—i OJ 



ON I s - r~- co 

LO CO t-t LO 

•— I OJ 



O <3" LO 

«— i cr. cnj 

t— I CO 



OCOiO 

LO t— I r-t 



to lo lo 

OJ ON 

co ^t f— i 



w * 



if) O ID CNJ 
O CO LO ON 

lo co co .—t 



r--. o o 
co rn on 
*? uo o 



ON OJ LO LO LO 

o o t— I OJ o 
<ht "«t -=d- oj lo 



CO f^N 
>— I ^ OJ 

on *-t lo 

r— i co t— i 



— I <3" 

-— . cr- 
lo co 



LO LO LO 

co on oj 



ON 

r- 

Ov 



LO LO O LO 



lo «± *3" lo 



co lo r-» oj co ld 



O co co co 



LO LO LO 



LO r--. CO LO 



a* 



OJ LO LO CO 



r-i t— i r-» ro 



■— 1 CO rn Kt CO 



LO LO CO OJ 



LO UD r- 1 r-H 



42 S 

hi ox 

3 B 

o •= 



- J «—< ON CO CO 

SO CnrsN ^ 
O Q. OJ CO O OJ 



«3" LO OJ 



rtOLflNCO 
ro LO CO CO ro 
LO LO CO *d- ON 

rH rH rH CM 



ON t— i C\J OJ 

,— I r-H r- O 

LO ON CO *3- 

OJ CO i— I CO 



-Zj- OJ LO 

t-H CO «^- 

CO O CO 

(SJH CO 



O ON LO LO 

CT, O -3- *H- 

LO ** O t-H 

HHCO LO 



o 
a. 



4> 


<r> 


J= 


u 


■** 


05 


C 


U 




<_ 


en 





41 


VI 


(/I 


DJD 




< 

■a 




c 


► 


08 




o 


u 


00 


<— 

o 


e 


t/n 


SO 


<u 


M 


DX 
< 


C 



HHH LO 







co r-x co 


Q 










1 — 


0C 





r-- o on 
OJ co lo 
«t ro -H- 



O t-h Cj 

t— I LO CO 
«-H LO 



t-H C\J <-H 

t-h LO O 
<-H LO 



t=j- o r-- i-H 

LO P-x LO CO 

■=f LO t— t 



O CO r-i OJ O 

LO CO ro O LO 

HHMVDH 



on co lo oj 

CO HN CO 
f-H r-\ «-H «H- 



ON CO OJ «^f 

O co r-- t-H 

oj co t-H r^. 



h «zr 



t-t «3- co 

OOCO 
t-H oj 



co r--. co 

CO t-H t-H 

CO LO OJ 



HfM CO 
CO OJ LO 



CO OJ CO co 

*3- co on r-» 
oj oj -3- cr. 



U 



CM O CO ON 

lo co co m 

CO O CO LO 

(NJtHtH t-H 



Lfi rsNom co 



r-. co •— i co 

oj r-x. a*> lo 

CO CO t-H o 

OJ t-H co oj 



o lo co cr. 



OX 

< 






O CO LO 
lo lo r-. 
<=j- OJ OJ 



O fH OJ t-H 

O *— i oj OJ 

r*-* r-. r- *cr 

OJ t-H oj oj 



ON O ON OJ on r-* 

LO f-H CSJ CO LO OJ 

ID NN(\J U5 CO 

C\J t-H t— I t-H OJ ■—» 



en t— i lo 

o co ro 
*d- oj <3- 



OJ LO ON CO 



m .5 



m r-- o 
O oj r-- 

t-H CO --H 



a. t-H 



•Cj- LO LO 

HMD 

t-H cr. t-h 



LO LO t— 1 LO CO CO 

O LO CO «ht lo *-J- 
CO OJ CO CO CO t-H 



i— i t-H ro 



O C\J 
t-H <3- 
ON -—• 



CT. LO ON 

d-OU3 
"3" LO ON 



QJ C >, +-> 



-^ > O <U QJ •>— 

C C LA U S- S^ 

ro ffj i- c s- +j 

S- S- CU fO fO </> 

U_ C_3 Q_ >■ 3 -r- 



e 


■=s 


n 


Cli 


t/1 


- 


XI 


c 


3 


rtj 


-I 






V. 


n 


CO 


CQ 


o 



133 



-5- roion <x> 



1— i oo 



lo ro o~i ^x) ro 

m con «^- o 

■— t ro 



CT«N IX> 



ro cm lo 

LO .—< LO 

<3" ^H LO 



i-t r-^ en 



w- * 



O r-. 


r-- 


— i CM 


r— CO 


ur> 


«— i ro 


^t LO 


i—t 


«3- in 



«— i t-4 ro 



CO c\j CM CM 

r-- r-- ^j- r^ 



CO O 
CO ro 
cm ro 



OS 

r+ 



t— l 0> CM CM LO 



CM CM LO 



,_, ,_ r^ 



CM LO LO 



£ s 

3 c 

o -c 

U Q 

w -a 

** o 



Q <£> 



i^N CO 



t— i cm ro 



LO r-1 

ro .— < 
00 en 



ID CM^ ^ LO 
CO <3" LO CO i— I 
IX) CM CO «-h C?\ 



O LO 

O 0~> 
CJ1 LO 



LO CM 

ro cm 



<3- lo a\ 



w 


w 


JS 


in 


*=t> 


Si 


c 


u 




«— 


ft 











< 




c 


> 


« 



Q -1 



Q~> <d" CM LO •— « 

CO CM O CM 

«— l CM 



CO CM LO 



OX) c 



CM LO CO 

«— i lo r- 

CT» CM i-h 



*d- CO CO 



co en 

iX) CO 
CM CM 



LO CD LO 



«d- o 



LO CTi CD O •— < 



< 



w — 

5^ 



COO LO 

CM O LO 

X) «3- *=r 

CM CM CM 



HM CT* 



LO CO CM ^f LO 



r**. cm ro 



o o 
«3- ro 

CM CO 



r-. lo 

LO LO 



O CM <—* LO 

»— i r^ »— i CO 



«3- ro r— 

Lnrs cm 

mis t—t 

i-t CM 



t— I LO LO 

U)N CO 

*d- co co 





<T 




CO 






LO 




LO 






*"" 


0J 


^ 






+-> 


O 




E 


■ 




c: 


LJ 


n3 CD 


ra 




fO 




-C cr 


x: 


'^ 


E 


J- 


+-> C 


S- 


+ -' 


fO 




n3 ra 


3 


(/) 




l/l 


x: s- 


O 


Q 


< 


Q 


o o 



QJ >, -r- -r- 



LO U O i- 
fO O +-> 3 



E Q- -t-> 
O i— u 
en O -i- 



134 



cnj c\j r-. CO en 



i CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ ON 



r-- o co o r^. c\j 
m i— t co *$■ co lo 

HfO «— . LO 



inoDcsj lo 



lo cnj r-^ lo 

.— t CNJ 



t-H <" 



O cnj ro 

C\J i—t c\j 



cnj «-< CO C\J 



COO<J h ro 
CsJ «— t <=r 



rH CSJ 



.— i .— < ro LO 



w * 



IT) CO NN CM Cn 

1X3 P-- O CO ON CNJ 

r- on on CO Ch lo 

•-H .-H r-H .— . CO 



CNJ r^ CO O 

CO on «d- ro 
10 co lo en 



CNJ CO >— I CO 

*d- lo «d- cnj 



ro to cnj lo r— i 

CO CO CO CNJ LO 
CO CNJ CNJ LO CNJ 



LO «tf" CO CNJ 

CO CD co r-. 

o LO LO >— l 

CNJ CNJ CO CO 






CO LO O CO LO LO 



LO <sj- <d- O CO 



^DHLOH *-H 



CO LO •— I O LO CNJ 



CNJ CNJ LO LO r-» CNJ 



•^r lo ■—< r- 



LO CNJ «Cf LO 



ON CO CNJ O CO 



<— I CNJ 



2 b. 





u 



ox 
c 
"C 

3 

Q 



I— I CO ON CO ON LO 

"=3- ON CNJ CNJ LO <3" 

CTi "d" CTi CnI LO t— » 

Cnj cnj cnj cnj .— < 



ON C\J ON ^J" 

COLOCO N 
UDLON't 



LO O CNJ i— i 
i— I CNJ LO LO 
LO LO CNJ -^ 



CO .— t LO 



i— i «3- cm co en 
O r-> co lo i— i 

<3" CNJ CO CO co 



«— < ON LO LO 

CNJ CO CO ON 

lo co <3- r-- 

CNJ CNJ «d" ON 



O 

ex 



o> 


1/1 


J= 




** 


OS 


c 


U 




w. 




n 


(/> 






QJ 




< 

■o 




c 




03 



q j. "~: 



LO CO ^j- CO LO 



co lo co r-. 



CNJ f— I CO 



CO LO CO O LO 

cnj r*-- co co 

.—I CNJ 



LO CO CNJ «d- •— » LO 
<— I «— I CO 



CO CO LO «"H 

ro in «^ «=fr 

*-H «— * CNJ LO 



LO CO LO ON 



r*i 



NCOC^H LO 
CNJ ON C\l CO CX) 

«— < CNJ 



CNJ LO LO CO 
CO ON LO fO 

.— . «— < «=±- 






CNJ «3" LO ON LO 
O CO CNJ CO CO 

i— t CNJ CO CNJ CO 



r-. oi <— i cnj on 
LnrvrN.ro co 
i— * co i— i «d- «— « 



.— I CO 



LO *sf ^H 
LO ON CO 
CO CO LO 






LO CO LO CNJ O CNJ 

LTlOON "J CNJ 

cti lTi r-i ld is, ro 

CNJ i— I <— I 



lo o o co r-- 



o o cnj lo r-. co 



CO O LO CNJ 



ox 

< 



s 


ax 

< 

ox 


cnj r- lo o co 

incTi -nro h 

CNJ i— * «3- CO CNJ 


CNJ 

o 





c 
■5 

E 


■^•ocOr-iro 

<— * CO CNl O CO 
CnJ lo on LO lo 


<0 
LO 

en 



. O CNJ CnJ on 



Kt CNJ <3" LO 
CO CNJ LO LO 
CNJ LO CnJ r- 



lo r-- co cnj co 



CNJ CO "^ LO 
CO LO ON CO 

<— t CO CNJ 



ro CO O LO CO ON 

LOCft H«JN CO 

NHiocno o 

CNJ CNJ r-H «— I CNJ OJ 



00 co co ro ■— < 
CNJ LO ON CO o 
t— < CO i—i 



^J- O rs lo 

rOHO LO 

O r-H CO Cv 

CO CO CNJ CNJ 



O CO CO 
LO LO ON 
ON CO CNJ 



O >i 

c <v E >— c 

o s- -C C o 

t/1 O U T3 •«- 

< Zrx^D 



-O O r— +J 



QJ > > CD 



< < 3 >- 



o CD en >, 

>! IS) ^Z =3 CD 

S- -F- U IT3 U 

QJTJ-P -P C 

> ro t- OJ fD 



r— n3 

CO -O 

a; 3 3 

S- r— +J 

Z> fT3 03 



135 



zt "i 



ins cnj 



«— I c\j 



ioo --nD ro«^ in iri 



— **■ 



ro o ro 
ro f— i «a- 



cr. co m co o o 



W * 



CO CO 
i— I CO 

•— I CNJ 



CO LO «d" CNJ LO 
LO O O LO LO 

CTi r-- c\j <3- lo 



.— i ro 



O^NOlDOfl-CD «3- 

co cnj <— "in i^ ro ro »— t 

CNJ .— i •— i «3" <3- LO CNJ CNJ 



On 



« < 



LO «— I CO 



roin inro io ro 



cmo Lnr^- kON m lo 



OS 



5 < 



LO 



r-. lo ro co ro 

C\|fO<J^O 

*— t lo r-. lo i— * 

p-I CNJ i— I 



•3- <x> in en cnj <3- r-n ^j- 

^^DOhOCOO CO 

ro lo en co ro lo o o 

.— < i— I t— I i— ( CO 



42 E 

3 c 
O -C 



en 



ro ro lo 
r^ ^r cnj 



LO O CO LO CNJ 

r-- lo lo lo en 

CNJ en CNJ LO co 



«3" LO CO CO CNJ CNJ .— ( O 

LOLO«^LOcor^.ro t— < 
^-«— it— ir^LOLDro cnj 



*- o 



ro CNJ LO 



ro OrH^ rncocvj en 



« 


en 


c 


u 




— 




o 


Efl 




4* 
V) 


1/1 


at 

U 


< 

■o 




c 




ed 



a - 



CO lo ro 



u » 



© 5. 

<U at 

06 = 

< 1 



U 



O LO LO CO O LO 

o o r- cti lo r^ 

CTiO -^00 O ro 

»-4 t— t .—I CNJ ^-i 



r\i id in co in n co lo 



< 



Oh-^ldcvj ro 

crv co cr> o cr> en 

lo ro co lo «— i ro 

CNJ CNJ r-t i— t ro CNJ 



cj- oi r^ o in m co o 

co »— i co cnj r^* «3- .-h h«. 

O^i-H--HCNJLOLOC0 CTi 

,— t ,-H r- . .-< r- . CO .— I i-H 



■5 .5 

H at 



LO ^J" 

r*> cnj 



<— I CNJ O LO O 

coin N rH en 
•=r cnj «=j- CNJ 



QJ (/l t~ 



C O .— +-> A3 

QJ U O 3 k. 

3: s: a. a: h- 



(D (D (D >,U U 

.c i — i- A3 n: m 
U ULD x n s: l 



136 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 













July 1, 


1979 — 


June 30, 


1980 














Deli 


nquent 




OFFKNSF.S 

Probation 
Violation 




l ndiscipli 


ltd 


( OND1TIONS 
Dependent Neglected 


(.rand 
Total 


Children 
Before 


District 1 


Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


1 ruano 


Other 


lotal 


Court For 
First Time 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 















3 

11 

7 



21 

16 


2 
22 

17 
7 
8 

38 
9 


2 
25 

28 
14 
8 
59 
25 



6 




6 





2 












1 

2 






2 

1 
2 





1 




1 

10 



7 
1 

11 
1 


24 
1 


9 
33 
41 
15 
10 
101 
26 


9 
27 
23 
20 
10 
51 
10 


District Totals 





58 


103 


161 


12 


2 


3 


5 


12 


45 


235 


150 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 










12 

1 

12 



4 


40 
2 

16 


11 


52 

3 

28 



15 


1 
1 












3 


1 


? 


3 

1 


2 


16 

1 

10 



n 


12 
3 

22 
1 
8 


84 
8 

61 
1 

25 


57 
2 

21 
1 

23 


District Totals 





29 


69 


98 


2 





6 


6 


27 


46 


179 


104 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 




1 
1 




IS 

91 

4 

69 


36 

134 

9 

55 


54 
226 

14 
124 


2 
19 


23 









4 

11 



9 


4 

11 

9 


6 
10 


33 


7 
21 

2 
15 


73 

287 

16 

204 


58 
103 

14 
122 


District Totals 


2 


182 


234 


418 


44 





24 


24 


49 


45 


580 


297 


District 4 


























Dupl in 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 



2 






22 

4 
57 
26 


10 

2 

60 

34 


32 

8 

117 

60 




6 

1 





2 

n 


2 
6 
7 
5 


2 

6 
9 
5 


3 

4 

27 

19 


5 

7 

34 
20 


42 

25 

193 

105 


42 

25 
98 
51 


District Totals 


2 


109 


106 


217 


7 


2 


20 


22 


53 


66 


365 


216 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


1 



341 
23 


255 
30 


597 
53 


51 
1 


32 
1 


40 
5 


72 
6 


32 




54 
7 


806 
67 


281 
32 


District Totals 


1 


364 


285 


650 


52 


33 


45 


78 


32 


61 


873 


313 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 








4 

78 

4 

7 


7 

32 
14 
19 


11 

110 

18 

26 



4 
9 
1 









2 

16 
9 
3 


2 

16 
9 
3 


4 

20 
13 




3 

43 

in 
14 


20 

193 

59 

44 


20 

106 

40 

27 


District Totals 





93 


72 


165 


14 





30 


30 


37 


70 


316 


193 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 




10 




74 

84 

105 


84 
81 
55 


158 
175 
160 


37 

29 

5 


2 


5 


15 

23 

6 


17 
23 

11 


26 
35 
69 


61 

61 
28 


299 

323 
273 


143 
176 

131 


District Totals 


10 


263 


220 


493 


71 


7 


44 


51 


130 


150 


895 


450 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 








3 

51 
70 


5 
109 

57 


8 
160 
127 


2 

15 
16 


2 


10 


1 

16 
19 


3 
16 
29 



14 
26 


12 
31 
68 


25 
236 

266 


17 
89 

106 


District Totals 





124 


171 


295 


33 


12 


36 


48 


40 


111 


527 


212 


District 9 


























Frank! in 
Granvi 1 le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 










10 
21 
29 


4 


26 
32 
21 

57 
15 


36 
53 
50 
57 
19 


1 
3 
2 







2 



10 
6 

4 

12 
1 


10 
6 
4 

14 
1 


12 
4 
1 

18 
1 


10 
6 
4 

12 
7 


69 
72 
61 

mi 

28 


49 

40 
34 

101 

19 


District Totals 





64 


151 


215 


6 


2 


33 


35 


36 


39 


331 


243 


District 10 



























Wake 3 137 230 370 46 2 81 83 59 69 627 289 

137 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Delinquent 



District 11 

Harnett 
Johnston 

1 ee 

District Total; 
District 12 



Other Misde- 
Capital Felony meanor Total 



OFFENSES 

Probation 
Violation 



I ndisciplined 



( ONDITIONS 

Dependent Neglected 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 



20 

23 

53 







% 



71 
71 
86 

228 



91 

l : ;9 
324 



Cumberl and 





2 37 


401 


6 38 


Hoke 


1 


20 


83 


104 


District Totals 


1 


257 


484 


742 


District 13 











9 

7 

51 

67 



157 



28 



12 


21 


22 


30 


8 3 


135 



117 



121 



26 



L86 



278 



64 



I 1 ) 
23 
11 

53 



43 


43 




7 
5 

12 



58 



Truancj Other Total 

6 20 26 

2 14 16 

6 13 19 



9 


53 


41 


46 


31 


21 



14 



29 

9 

38 



6 
3 

17 



10 



47 



229 
3 

232 



61 



258 
12 

270 



81 



!65 

11 

376 



120 



135 
2 

137 



4 


12 


14 


20 


17 


20 



1 


14 


7 


28 


20 


38 



35 



64 



22 



52 



74 



24 



28 



115 



17 



46 



27 





Children 




Before 


Grand 


Court For 


Total 


First Time 


194 


100 


220 


103 


221 


82 



6 39 



1,439 
129 

1,568 



48 
92 

218 

358 



571 



12 7 



286 



545 
66 

611 



48 
82 

109 

239 



236 



125 



Chatham 





3 


29 


'.? 





5 





5 


1 


9 


47 


31 


Orange 





78 


67 


135 





4 


5 


9 


30 


29 


20 3 


135 


District Totals 





81 


86 


167 





9 


5 


14 


31 


38 


250 


166 


District 16 


























Robeson 





830 


212 


432 


2 


19 


41 


60 


7 9 


64 


627 


248 


Scotland 


3 


34 


4 3 


80 


7 


7 


26 


33 


24 


84 


228 


124 


District Totals 


3 


254 


255 


512 


9 


26 


67 


93 


103 


138 


855 


372 


District 17 


























Caswell 





6 


10 


16 








3 


3 


3 


7 


2 4 


29 


Rockingham 





70 


115 


185 


27 


2 


12 


14 


10 


52 


?9.? 


99 


Stokes 





1 


17 


18 


9 


13 


6 


19 


8 


6 


60 


35 


Surry 





44 


89 


133 





8 


17 


26 


8 


18 


184 


64 


District Totals 





121 


231 


382 


36 


23 


38 


61 


29 


8 3 


56] 


232 



District 18 
Guilford 

District 19A 



District Totals 



247 



389 



636 



135 



70 



160 



230 



123 



127 



i'16 



583 



66 



56 



63 



4 7 



100 



1,251 



408 



640 



Cabarrus 





27 


57 


84 


15 


2 


28 


30 


12 


29 


170 


93 


Rowan 





124 


112 


236 


69 


55 


4,4 


103 


1.84 


151 


743 


171 


District Totals 





161 


169 


320 


84 


57 


76 


133 


196 


180 


913 


264 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 





14 


35 


49 


7 











12 


7 


75 


46 


Randol ph 


1 


7 


71 


79 


19 


1 


36 


37 


17 


7 


179 


189 


District Totals 


1 


21 


106 


128 


46 


1 


36 


37 


29 


14 


3 64 


185 


District 20 


























Anson 





20 


61 


81 


2 











4 


5 


92 


24 


Roore 





73 


59 


1 c 


8 


3 


41 


4 4 


14 


23 


221 


79 


Richmond 





14 


56 


70 


5 





2 


2 


43 


25 


14 6 


74 


Stanly 





24 


1 19 


163 


21 


4 


3 


3 


7 


18 


209 


59 


Union 





57 


80 


137 


24 


4 


10 


14 


29 


32 


241 


117 



353 



138 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980 







Deli 


nquent 


OI 


FtNSFS 
Probation 
Violation 




I ndisciplined 




CONDITIONS 
Dependent Neglected 


Grand 
Total 


C hildren 
Before 


District 21 


Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truanc) 


Other 


lotal 


Court For 
First Time 


Forsyth 





146 


249 


395 


82 


11 


137 


148 


65 


81 


771 


3 70 


District 22 


























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 






3 


27 

18 
13 
63 


15 

100 

11 

112. 


42 
112 

24 
184 


1 

35 


4 



5 
2 

6 


17 
78 

10 
53 


17 
83 
12 

59 


1 
98 

3 
11 


8 
96 
32 
45 


69 

4 30 

71 

303 


41 
188 

44 
133 


District Totals 


3 


121 


244 


368 


40 


13 


1 68 


171 


113 


181 


873 


406 


District 23 


























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 









1 


11 
9 


3 

7 
97 
49 


4 

7 

108 

58 


2 

2 

62 

63 


2 
3 
8 
2 


1 
6 

17 
13 


3 

9 

25 

15 


1 
6 

27 
16 


2 
18 

91 

63 


12 

4 2 
313 
215 


10 

39 

122 

73 


District Totals 





21 


156 


177 


129 


15 


37 


52 


50 


1/4 


683 


244 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 









39 
1 
2 
2 



11 

4 
11 

13 
7 


50 
5 

13 

15 

7 











6 

3 
4 


17 
6 
3 

10 

4 


17 
11 

3 
13 

8 


4 
3 
3 
6 
2 


17 
6 
8 
5 



88 

26 
27 
39 
17 


33 
25 

27 
39 
17 


District Total s 





44 


46 


90 





12 


40 


52 


18 


36 


196 


141 


District 25 


























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 







60 
46 
79 


47 

104 

73 


107 
150 
157 


34 
5 

22 


26 

1') 
9 


55 
29 
23 


81 

48 
32 


3 3 
8 

16 


32 
22 
18 


287 

23 3 
245 


150 

132 
137 


District Totals 





185 


229 


414 


61 


54 


107 


161 


57 


72 


765 


419 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 





689 


704 


1,393 


75 


1 


131 


132 


58 


96 


1,754 


679 


District 27A 


























Gaston 





296 


338 


6 34 


17 


4 


102 


106 


70 


31 


858 


331 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 
Lincoln 






70 
34 


105 
51 


175 

85 


7 
5 


5 




25 
7 


30 
7 


15 
1 


29 
7 


256 
105 


106 
48 


District Totals 





104 


156 


260 


12 


5 


32 


37 


16 


36 


161 


154 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


1 


14 2 


163 


306 


1 


40 


271 


311 


44 


66 


728 


287 


District 29 


























Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transyl vania 










27 
4 
3 

38 
9 


36 

42 

6 
50 
44 


6 3 
46 
9 
88 
53 


18 

11 


23 
3 


15 

29 



8 

7 


21 

24 

1 

8 

6 


36 

53 

1 

16 

13 


6 

16 
2 

30 
3 


22 

26 

6 

8 

5 


145 

150 
18 

165 
77 


89 
95 
17 
88 

30 


District Totals 





81 


178 


,'59 


55 


59 


60 


119 


56 


66 


555 


319 


District 30 


























Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 












11 



29 
3 
2 



11 

2 

11 
6 
4 
1 


22 

2 

40 
9 
6 
1 













1 



2 
2 

2 
1 


9 

1 
1 
23 
10 
3 
6 


9 
2 

1 
25 
12 

5 
7 


2 



3 

3 


1 


8 
2 
2 

11 
8 
3 

11 


41 
4 
5 
79 
32 
14 
20 


41 
4 
3 
76 
32 
14 
20 


District Totals 





45 


35 


80 





8 


53 


61 


9 


46 


195 


1 90 


STATE TOTALS 


29 


4,965 


6,746 


11,740 


1,300 


561 


2,288 2 


,849 


2,256 2 


,676 


20,821 


9,715 



139 



District 1 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquency Hearings 



July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 

Undisciplined Hearings Dependency Hearings Neglect Hearings 



Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total 



Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


1 
29 

17 
11 
6 
36 
21 


District Totals 


121 


District 2 




Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


41 

3 

17 

[) 
16 


District Totals 


79 


District 3 




Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


30 
154 

13 
195 


District Totals 


392 


District 4 




Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


n 
3 

54 


District Totals 


153 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


620 
47 


District Totals 


667 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal i fax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


10 

81 

9 

12 


District Totals 


112 


District 7 




Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


124 
197 
1 iO 


District Totals 


451 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


7 

98 

212 


District Totals 


317 


District 9 




Frankl in 
Granvi 1 le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


27 
23 
27 

52 
17 


District Totals 


146 


District 10 





1 


2 


1 


30 





27 


3 


14 


2 


8 


6 


42 


3 


24 



26 



137 



5 

2(1 
12 

4 c 



72 



121 



Wake 



389 



41) 



54 



14/ 



31 


74 


i 


6 


30 


47 








4 


20 



147 



529 



116 
66 

199 



184 



572 



406 



1Mb 



44 1 



in 


40 


1 


97 


251 


23 


9 


22 





21 


216 


13 



37 



3 


11 



28 




648 
47 


69 
6 


28 


695 


75 


1 
33 
32 

6 


11 

114 

41 

18 


1 
2 





45 


169 


16 


49 


246 


4 


27 


157 


7 



27 



7 


14 


1 


64 


162 


10 


1H 


230 


28 



39 



8 


35 


3 


6 


29 


5 


6 


33 





5 


57 


11 


15 


32 


1 



20 



27 



9 
1 

2 

2 

14 



11 



19 



23 



31 



2 3 



5 

2 
3 
3 

13 



9 
1 
3 

2 

15 



1 


2 


9 


32 








1 


14 



1 


1 


a 


16 


4 


7 


6 


6 



3D 



72 
6 

78 



1 


2 


1 


13 


9 


9 


2 


2 



26 



7 


2 3 


21 


25 


3 


10 



58 



1 


2 


5 


15 


17 


45 



62 



5 
2 

14 
4 

33 



12 



Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total 



17 

3 





20 



13 

16 

2 

14 

65 




15 
26 

41 



30 


30 



3 

38 

5 



46 



28 
31 
65 

124 





7 

51 

58 



4 
2 


18 
7 

31 



50 









7 








1 





1 








9 


2 











1 














1 


8 


24 


5 








1 





1 


9 


41 


9 


2 


19 


19 


3 








3 


1 


3 


6 


11 


10 








1 











4 


3 



11 



21 



10 



25 



76 



67 



1 S4 



64 



35 



5 7 



38 



79 



4 6 



136 



293 






4 


4 


1 


3 


2 








2 





18 


12 


3 


10 


11 



31 



58 



17 



1 


14 


6 


1 


6 


22 


53 


23 





2 








4 


38 


20 


1 



25 



4 


4 





3 


4 


4 


6 


1 


4 


19 


42 





5 


31 


27 


3 


17 


58 


81 


7 


2 


32 


54 











6 





2 


32 


60 





1 


4 


2 


1 


9 


47 


32 


14 


11 


16 


3 


9 








8 


3 



27 



1 


29 


55 


8 


5 


36 


61 


in 


4 


69 


40 


3 



21 



28 





Total 


otal 


Hearings 


7 


9 


1 


32 


11 


39 


1 


15 





9 


29 


8] 


1 


25 



50 



55 



104 



3 

7 
48 

3ii 



54 
6 

60 



72 



177 



32] 



38 



63 



210 



22 


124 


4 


11 


21 


77 


1 


1 


7 


29 



242 



7 


63 


76 


381 





24 


21 


289 



757 



17 
35 

190 
133 

375 



806 
59 

865 



3 


20 


46 


220 


12 


78 


11 


31 



U9 



63 


224 


71 


372 


4? 


279 



941 









3 


12 


15 


31 


2 


9 


32 


11 


43 


229 


4 


55 


258 


5 


26 3 


593 



853 



6 


52 


4 


41 


4 


39 


12 


101 


13 


59 



292 



595 



140 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Delinquency Hearings 



District 11 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retail 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


97 
30 
60 


78 

131 

25 


175 

161 

85 


31 
11 
15 


District Totals 


187 


234 


421 


57 


District 12 










Cumberland 
Hoke 


421 
64 


194 

40 


615 

104 


125 



District Totals 


485 


234 


719 


125 


District 13 










Bladen 

Brunswick 
Col umbus 


9 

40 
63 


20 

9 

10 


29 
49 
73 


8 
6 
3 


District Totals 


112 


39 


151 


17 


District 14 











Undisciplined Hearings 
>ismissed Total 



Dependency Hearings 



Neglect Hearings 



Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total 



15 


46 


27 


38 


5 


20 



47 



104 



22 

13 

94 

129 



5 27 

74 87 

2 96 



il 



210 



27 
44 

269 



21 219 

88 115 

10 54 

119 388 



109 



234 



10 


i:~i 


8 


14 


13 


16 


31 


48 



Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



278 



63 



25 

167 

192 



90 



14 



24 
30 

54 



32C 



77 



49 

197 

246 



17 



22 



4 
25 

29 



'19 



66 



•:i 



6 
29 

35 



-;04 




6 
4 

10 



61 



17 



1 
28 

29 



116 



420 



107 



14 



37 



24 



19 



2 

33 

35 



53 



59 



15 



7 
46 

53 



Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 
Guilford 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randol ph 

District Totals 

District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



1 
165 

13 
49 

228 



461 



73 
185 

258 



64 
120 

184 



8] 

138 

a 2 

160 
95 

556 



15 


16 


3 


22 


187 


12 


12 


25 


25 


24 


73 


12 



4 


7 


4 


16 


6 


31 


7 


19 



73 



2 37 



10 

44 

54 



301 



698 



83 

229 

312 



52 



161 



2 3 
101 

124 



21 



122 



3 
33 

36 



73 



283 



26 

134 

160 



24 


88 


6 


35 


155 


24 


59 


243 


30 


9 


90 





33 


171 


19 


56 


138 


2 


21 


181 


6 


44 


139 


2 



2 


8 


22 


46 


24 


54 








25 


44 


2 


4 


1 


7 


7 


9 



163 



719 



29 



35 



64 



1 
14 

7 
10 

32 



126 



12 

200 

212 



13 

14 

27 



4 
5 

32 
8 

24 

73 



3 


4 


5 


1 


15 


44 


2 


9 


5 


5 


15 


8 



11 



21 



4 3 



14 7 



62 



92 



62 



1 
9 

10 



2 74 



14 
23 

37 



200 



10 
5 

15 



27 









7 


11 


10 


16 


33 


11 


4 


8 


13 


17 



39 



6 
9 

15 



10 
4 
1 
4 

19 



44 



47 






4 


4 


1 


6 


11 


19 


4 


28 


60 


42 








8 


13 


2 


8 


32 


74 


21 


42 


116 


152 


28 



92 



65 



16 



13 
55 



24 7 



10 
10 

20 



Total 
Hearings 

467 
401 

269 

1,123 



97 


222 


293 


116 


409 


106 


29 


132 


1,378 


12 


12 


11 





11 


1 


1 


2 


129 



134 1,507 



18 


66 


44 


123 


30 


1 2 1 



315 



55 7 



14 3 



70 
314 

384 



Robeson 
Scotland 


344 
87 


59 
10 


403 
97 


26 

28 


1 
10 


27 
38 


67 

46 


10 
4 


77 
50 


35 
91 


10 

11 


45 
102 


552 

287 


District Totals 


4 31 


69 


500 


54 


11 


65 


113 


14 


127 


126 


21 


147 


839 


District 17 





























16 


42 


48 


266 


6 


71 


12 


119 



409 



136 1,264 



3 


15 


28 


3 


31 


155 


59 


259 


172 


44 


216 


838 



993 



120 
234 

364 



5 


99 


23 


249 


42 


244 


15 


211 


95 


275 



180 1,078 



141 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Delinquency Hearings 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 

District Totals 
District 23 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



Retained Dismissed 



Tin 



33 
214 

34 

81 

i62 



Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


5 

8 

L35 

105 


District 


Totals 


253 


District 


24 




Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 




34 

10 
8 


31 


District 


Totals 


83 


Di strict 


2 C . 





205 

2 58 
1. 7 6 

6 39 



666 



?18 



78 



14 
80 
27 
23 

144 



51 



35 



152 



75 



Total 

3 78 



47 

894 

61 

104 

806 



304 



118 



701 



478 1,144 



293 



Undisciplined Hearings 
Retained Dismissed Total 

55 31 86 



Dependency Hearings 



Neglect Hearings 



Total 



11 

108 

6 

22 

147 



1 


6 


6 


5 


13 


7 


29 


164 


15 


16 


121 


8 



36 



11 


4 5 


15 


6 


16 


21 


9 


17 














9 


40 


19 



55 



20 


2 !4 


71 


77 


835 


117 


46 


222 


30 



218 



34 



■i0 



4 
42 

3 
16 

66 



6 

7 

23 



i2 



17 

52 
8 

77 



50 



15 



16 

150 

9 

38 

212 



15 

21 
18 

69 



17 


32 


10 


31 


1 


1 








4 


2 3 



87 



16') 
38 

295 



8; 4 



45 



Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total Hearings 

61 15 76 58 17 75 615 



2 

222 

3 

12 



2 39 



2 

3 
15 

14 

34 



6 
2 

2 


28 

38 



59 
58 

16 

133 



58 



66 






2 


6 


2 


8 


72 


36 


257 


246 


2 1 


26 7 


968 





3 


117 


7' 4 


141 


214 


2 


14 


29 


2 


31 


187 



37 



in 



2 76 



38 



69 



Cleveland 


123 


58 


181 


2 3 


7 


30 


6 


2 


8 


Lincoln 


56 


16 


72 


2 


4 


6 


1 





1 


District Totals 


179 


74 


253 


25 


11 


36 


7 


2 


9 


District 28 





















;98 






2 


1 


2 


5 


18 





15 


133 


2 


16 


63 



815 






6 


19 


6 


8 


15 


3 


5 


4 











l 


29 


20 



58 



Buncombe 



76 



165 



5 



162 



227 



11 



10 



17 



14 



22 



10 



jq 



7 

2 

2 

19 



447 1,441 






1 


17 





18 


51 


3 


136 


336 





63 


215 



218 



77 



22 
9 

31 



13 



619 



27 


110 


22 


"7 


6 


29 








22 


114 



7 30 



28 

15 



87 

73 
16 


164 

81 

8 


11 

10 




175 

91 

8 


584 

668 
284 


43 


176 


253 


21 


274 


1,536 


8 


66 


95 


5 


100 


1,394 



19 426 



241 

83 

329 
423 



District 29 



Henderson 


62 


2 7 


o:9 


24 


McDowel 1 


34 


11 


45 


4 6 


Polk 


4 


2 


6 


2 


Rutherford 


95 


8 


107 


13 


Transylvania 


37 


4 


4 1 


7 


District Totals 


2 32 


52 


284 


91 


District 30 










Cherokee 


22 





22 


3 


Clay 





o 








Graham 





o 








Haywood 


10 


20, 


38 


2 


Jackson 





1. 


6 





Macon 


o. 


O 


8 


4 


Swa i n 


1 





1 


2 


District Totals 


41 


34 


75 


11 


STATE TOTALS 


9,311 


3,223 


12,534 


1,725 



16 


40 


4 


49 


1 


3 


4 


17 


2 


9 



2 7 



51 



118 



6 


9 


1 


1 


1 


1 


25 


27 


11 


11 


2 


6 


5 


7 



t.7 



3 
6 
2 

32 
2 

4 5 



1 


4 


16 


24 


7 


13 


25 


3 





2 


1 


2 


4 


36 


20 


3 


1 


3 


2 


2 



13 



58 



64 



1,189 2,914 



2,301 



1 4 23 

643 2,944 3,298 



34 



40 


173 


28 


135 


3 


14 


2 3 


179 


4 


57 



558 






8 


41 








1 


1 


2 


3 


3 


5 


"0 


2 


2 


20 


1 


4 


18 





9 


18 


7 


30 


171 


6 


3,984 


22,376 



142 



H 

I 
L 
L 
I 

N 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1971-U 



1.5 



1.8. 



0.5. 



O.O 



t 



■* FILINGS 



s fl DISPOSITIONS 

9- — E(JD PENDING 




-0- — 0- 



-6- 



._.-e-_. fr .--4 



-&- — 6 



71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-7979-? 



Statistics collected on district court criminal cases during the past two years 
indicate slight decreases in numbers of cases filed and disposed and a steadiness 
in the volume of pending cases. 1979-80 figures show that 9,739 fewer cases were 
filed and 24,114 fewer were disposed than during the 1978-79 year. 



143 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, 1979 — June 30, 1980 

Motor Vehicle Cases Non-Motor Vehicle Cases 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseloa 
Disposed 


d Pending 
6/30/80 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/80 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


71 

114 
188 
379 
2 ] 8 
225 
113 


632 
1,397 
2,913 
3,716 
1,573 
2,915 
1,318 


703 
1,511 
3,101 
4,095 
1,791 
3,140 
1,431 


617 
1,397 
2,791 
3,771 
1,661 
2,881 
1,296 


87.7 
92.4 
90.0 
92.0 
92.7 
91.7 
90.5 


86 
114 

310 
?24 
130 
259 
135 


9 

5 3 
43 
82 
7 
103 
56 


132 
843 

84 7 
966 
257 
1,710 
357 


141 
810 
590 

1,048 
264 

1,813 
413 


L26 

803 
529 
921 

258 

1,692 

391 


89.3 
89.6 
89.6 
87.8 
97.7 
93.3 
94.6 


15 
93 

61 

127 

6 

121 

22 


District Totals 


1,308 


14,464 


15,772 


14,414 


91.3 


1,358 


353 


4,812 


5,165 


4,720 


91.3 


445 


District 2 












, 














Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


426 

18 

219 

1 

51 


5,927 
423 

2,878 
488 

1,414 


6,353 
441 

3,097 
489 

1,465 


5,845 

387 
2,844 

431 
1,331 


92.0 
87.7 
91.8 
88.1 
90.8 


508 
54 

253 
58 

134 


105 

28 

101 

6 

23 


2,622 

347 

1,653 

199 

653 


2,727 
375 

1,754 
205 
676 


2,511 

363 

1,635 

195 

080 


92.0 

96.8 
93.2 
95.1 

96.1 


216 

12 

119 

10 

26 


District Totals 


715 


11,130 


11,845 


10,838 


91.4 


1,007 


263 


5,474 


5,737 


5,354 


93.3 


383 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


675 

1,111 

52 

853 


6,390 

11,000 

556 

8,308 


7,065 

12,111 

608 

9,161 


6,073 

10,670 

574 

8,145 


85.9 
88.1 
94.4 
88.9 


992 

1,441 

34 

1,016 


4 33 

382 

8 

712 


4,244 

4,761 

523 

6,841 


4,677 

5,143 

531 

7,553 


3,997 

4,557 

507 

6,741 


85.4 
88.6 
95.4 
89.2 


680 

586 

24 

812 


District Totals 


2,691 


26,254 


28,945 


25,462 


87.9 


3,483 


1,535 


16,369 


17,904 


15,802 


88.2 


2,102 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


540 

115 

2,033 

704 


5,490 

1,428 

17,148 

10,437 


6,030 

1,543 
19,181 
11,141 


5,244 

1,394 

17,023 

9,877 


86.9 
90.3 
88.7 
88.6 


786 

149 

2,158 

1,264 


218 

26 

821 

227 


2,400 

332 

8,145 

3,184 


2,618 

358 
8,966 
3,411 


2,333 

319 

8,076 

3,022 


89.1 
89.1 
90.0 
88.5 


285 

39 

890 
389 


District Totals 


3,392 


34,503 


37,895 


33,538 


88.5 


4,357 


1,292 


14,061 


15,353 


13,750 


89.5 


1,603 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


1,221 
433 


14,310 
3,109 


15,531 
3,542 


13,835 
3,079 


89.0 
86.9 


1,696 
463 


1,158 
87 


9,659 
1,097 


10,817 
1,184 


9,314 
1,049 


86.1 
88.5 


1,503 
135 


District Totals 


1,654 


17,419 


19,073 


16,914 


88.6 


2,159 


1,245 


10,756 


12,001 


10,363 


86.3 


1,638 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


289 

1,027 

402 

408 


2,680 

11,482 

4,369 

5,483 


2,969 

12,509 

4,771 

5,891 


2,758 

10,923 

4,415 

5,483 


92.8 

87.3 
92.5 
93.0 


211 

1,586 

356 

408 


72 

233 

98 

30 


780 
3,892 
1,496 

856 


852 
4,125 
1,594 

886 


779 
3,701 
1,437 

815 


91.4 
89.7 
90.1 
91.9 


73 

424 
157 

71 


District Totals 


2,126 


24,014 


26,140 


23,579 


90.2 


2,561 


433 


7,024 


7,457 


6,732 


90.2 


725 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


429 

981 
1,037 


5,022 

10,021 

8,260 


5,451 

11,002 

9,297 


4,785 
9,408 
8,189 


87.7 
85.5 
88.0 


666 
1,594 
1,108 


428 
570 

6 1 5 


5,229 
5,138 
4,972 


5,657 
5,708 
5,587 


5,097 

4,943 
4,772 


90.1 

86.5 
85.4 


560 
365 
815 


District Totals 


2,447 


23,303 


25,750 


22,382 


86.9 


3,368 


1,613 


15,339 


16,952 


14,812 


87.3 


2,140 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


131 

633 
1,173 


1,455 

7,666 

11,602 


1,586 

8,299 

12,775 


1,368 

7,448 

11,315 


86.2 
89.7 
88.5 


218 

851 

1,460 


32 
283 
612 


943 
4,960 
6,242 


975 
5,243 
6,854 


841 
4,627 
5,993 


86.2 
88.2 
87.4 


184 
616 
861 


District Totals 


1,937 


20,723 


22,660 


20,131 


::;■:.:■; 


2,529 


927 


12,145 


13,072 


11,461 


87.6 


1,611 


District 9 


























Frank 1 in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


278 

40 •: 
,70 
412 
457 


3,234 
5,860 
2,664 
5,255 
3,524 


3,512 
6,263 
2,943 
5,667 
3,981 


3,122 
5,726 
2,676 
4,926 
3,459 


88.8 
91.4 
90.9 
86.9 
86.8 


390 
537 
267 
'41 
522 


173 
105 
149 
216 
199 


1,782 
1,822 
1,994 
2,848 
1,078 


1,955 
1,927 
2,143 
3,064 
1,277 


1,695 
1,777 
1,939 
2,637 
1,104 


86.7 
92.2 
90.4 
86.0 
86.4 


260 
150 
204 
427 
173 


District Totals 


1,829 


20,537 


22,366 


19,909 


89.0 


2,457 


842 


9,524 


10,366 


9,152 


88.2 


1,214 


District 10 


























Wake 


5,490 


44,457 


49,947 


44,833 


89.7 


5,114 

144 


3,422 


23,002 


26,424 


23,093 


87.3 


3,331 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Motor Vehicle Cases 



Non-Motor Vehicle Cases 



District 11 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/80 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 


639 

1,268 

387 


8,224 

13,249 

3,831 


8,863 

14,517 

4,218 


7,996 

12,804 

3,964 


90.2 
88.2 
93.9 


867 

1,713 

254 


289 
293 
222 


3,306 

4,096 
3,827 


3,595 
4,389 
4,049 


3,291 
3,845 
3,772 


91.5 
87.6 
93.1 


304 
544 
277 


District Tota 


s 2,294 


25,304 


27,598 


24,764 


89.7 


2,834 


804 


11,229 


12,033 


10,908 


90.6 


1,125 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


3,732 
259 


38,234 
2,944 


41,966 
3,203 


36,808 
2,890 


87.7 
90.2 


5,158 
313 


2,109 
249 


23,854 
1,208 


25,963 
1,457 


22,696 
1,307 


87.4 
89.7 


3,267 
150 


District Tota 


s 3,991 


41,178 


45,169 


39,698 


87.8 


5,471 


2,358 


25,062 


27,420 


24,003 


87.5 


3,417 


District 13 


























Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 


730 

412 
1,083 


7,732 
4,475 
8,890 


8,462 
4,887 
9,973 


7,287 

4,188 
9,007 


86.1 
85.6 
90.3 


1,175 
699 
966 


231 

220 
265 


2,252 
2,070 
3,595 


2,483 
2,290 
3,860 


2,177 
2.006 
3,552 


87.6 
87.5 
92.0 


306 
284 
308 



District Totals 2,225 21,097 23,322 20,482 



87.8 



2,840 



716 



7,917 



!,633 



7,735 



District 14 
Durham 



2,130 



15,997 18,127 15,829 87.3 2,298 1,237 11,701 12,938 11,437 88.3 1,501 



District 15A 



Alamance 


1,067 


12,328 


13,395 


12,079 


90.1 


1,316 


District 15B 














Chatham 


360 


4,890 


5,250 


4,912 


93.5 


338 


Orange 


1,307 


9,955 


11,262 


10,221 


90.7 


1,041 


District Totals 


1,667 


14,845 


16,512 


15,133 


91.6 


1,379 


District 16 














Robeson 


1,611 


17,888 


19,499 


17,473 


89.6 


2,026 


Scotland 


295 


4,335 


4,630 


4,225 


91.2 


405 


District Totals 


1,906 


22,223 


24,129 


21,698 


89.9 


2,431 


District 17 














Caswel 1 


251 


1,493 


1,744 


1,577 


90.4 


167 


Rockinqham 


1,024 


9,459 


10,483 


9,454 


90.1 


1,029 


Stokes 


353 


3,848 


4,201 


3,764 


89.5 


437 


Surry 


534 


7,071 


7,605 


6,730 


88.4 


875 



44 3 



769 
629 



District Totals 2,162 21,871 24,033 21,525 



1.5 2,508 



114 
482 
114 
391 

1,101 



5,441 



4,f 



9,027 
3,117 



1,033 
5,131 
1,016 
2,765 

9,945 



5,? 



109 1,165 1,274 
336 3,533 3,869 

445 



5,143 



9,796 
3,746 



1,398 12,144 13,542 



1,147 
5,613 
1,130 
3,156 

11,046 



5,351 



1,147 
3,427 

4,574 



8,571 
3,324 

11,895 



1,017 

5,077 

995 

2,814 

9,903 



90.9 



90.0 
88.5 



533 



12/ 
442 

569 



87.4 1,225 

88.7 422 

87.8 1,647 



130 

5 36 
135 
342 

1,143 



District 18 
Guil ford 



6,640 40,729 47,369 39,213 



82.7 8,156 



4,165 21,274 25,439 20,429 



).3 5,010 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 1,272 13,022 
Rowan 952 11,966 

District Totals 2,224 24,988 
District 19B 



14,294 
12,918 



12,330 
11,612 



27,212 23,942 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



304 
365 
679 
532 

531 



4,016 
6,996 
4,939 
5,634 
6,357 



4,320 
7,361 
5,618 
6,166 
6,888 



3,903 
6,606 
4,526 
5,625 
6,031 



86.2 1,964 

89.8 1,306 

87.9 3,270 



Montgomery 


382 


4,974 


5,356 


4,814 


89.8 


542 


Randolph 


889 


9,246 


10,135 


9,044 


89.2 


1,091 


District Total' 


> 1,271 


14,220 


15,491 


13,858 


89.4 


1,633 


District 20 















90.3 
89.7 
80.5 
91.2 
87.5 



417 

755 

1,092 

541 

857 



226 

305 



175 
229 

404 



^4 

312 
426 
198 
286 



3,262 
3,435 



531 6,697 



2,270 
3,257 

5,527 



1,468 
3,624 
2,489 
2,267 
3,669 



3,488 
3,740 

7,228 



2,445 
3,486 

5,931 



1,562 
3,936 
2,915 
2,465 
3,955 



District Totals 2,411 27,942 30,353 26,691 



87.9 3,662 



1,316 13,517 14,833 



3,137 
3,284 

6,421 



2,147 
3,178 

5,325 



1,396 
3,449 
2,174 
2,177 
3,451 

12,647 



89.9 
87.8 



87.8 
91.1 



1.7 



89.3 
87.6 
74.5 
88.3 
87.2 



351 

466 

807 



298 
308 

606 



166 
48 7 
741 
,388 
504 



85.2 2,186 



145 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 



Motor Vehicle Cases 



Non-Molor Vehicle Cases 



District 21 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/80 


Pending 

7/1/79 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/80 


Forsyth 


4,243 


36,726 


40,969 


36,075 


88.0 


4,894 


1,662 


12,662 


14,324 


12,115 


84.5 


2,209 


District 22 


























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 


137 

1,017 

596 

837 


2,075 
10,699 

4,318 
11,856 


2,212 
11,716 

4,914 
12,743 


2,030 
10,412 

4,380 
11,399 


91.7 
88.8 
89.1 
89.4 


182 
1,304 

534 
1,344 


76 
56/ 
164 
382 


960 
5,837 

879 
5,132 


1,036 
6,394 
1,043 
5,514 


914 
5,509 

947 
4,886 


88.2 
86.1 
90.7 
88.6 


122 

885 

96 

628 


District Tota' 


s 2,637 


28,948 


31,585 


28,221 


89.3 


3,364 


1,179 


12,808 


13,987 


12,256 


87.6 


1,731 


District 23 


























Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


49 
135 
595 

221 


681 
1,890 
6,670 
3,257 


730 
2,025 
7,265 
3,478 


682 
1,853 
6,378 
3,093 


93.4 
91.5 
87.7 
88.9 


48 
172 
887 
385 


22 

53 

254 

75 


367 

872 

3,072 

1,009 


389 

925 

3,326 

1,084 


34 9 

862 

2,970 

964 


89.7 
93.1 
89.2 
88.9 


40 

6 3 

356 

128 


District Total 


s 1,000 


12,498 


13,498 


12,006 


88.9 


1,492 


404 


5,320 


5,724 


5,145 


89.8 


579 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


278 

215 

11! 

356 

1 4 9 


1,886 
1,969 
1,323 
3,565 
1,558 


2,164 
2,184 
1,436 
3,921 
1,707 


1,961 
1,950 
1,323 
3,536 
1,577 


90.6 
89.2 
92.1 
90.1 
92.3 


203 
234 

113 

386 
130 


77 

43 

41 

126) 

49 


463 
375 
377 
1,130 
596 


546) 
418 
418 
1,250 
645 


445 
3 32 
360 
1,125 
528 


82.4 
79.4 
86.1 
90.0 
81.8 


95 

86 

58 

125 

117 


District Total 


s 1,111 


10,301 


11,412 


10,347 


90.6 


1,065 


330 


2,941 


3,271 


2,790 


85.2 


481 


District 25 


























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


933 

539 

1,056 


9,923 

6,841 

13,212 


10,856 

7,380 

14,268 


9,644 

6,554 

12,660 


88.8 
88.8 
88.7 


1,212 

826 

1,608 


194 
315 

541 


3,094 
3,419 
6,707 


3,288 
3,734 
7,248 


2,898 
3,258 
6,651 


88.1 
87.2 
91.7 


390 

476 

597 


District Tota 


s 2,528 


29,976 


32,504 


28,858 


88.7 


3,646 


1,050 


13,220 


14,270 


12,807 


89.7 


1,463 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


7,297 


59,496 


66,793 


56,337 


84.3 


10,456 


4,401 


19,576 


23,977 


18,129 


75.6 


5,848 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


1,391 


15,693 


17,084 


15,238 


89.1 


1,846 


1,352 


11,188 


12,540 


11,094 


88.4 


1,446 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 
Lincoln 


1,039 

410 


8,293 
4,487 


9,332 
4,897 


8,367 
4,318 


89.6 

88.1 


965 

579 


4 S6 

268 


4,767 
2,469 


5,203 

2,737 


4,626 
2,461 


88.9 
89.9 


577 
276 


District Tota' 


s 1,449 


12,780 


14,229 


12,685 


89.1 


1,544 


704 


7,236 


7,940 


7,087 


89.2 


853 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


1,227 


15,214 


16,441 


14,852 


90.3 


1,589 


909 


12,037 


12,946 


11,775 


90.9 


1,171 


District 29 


























Henderson 
McDowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transyl vania 


1,029 
487 
268 
S49 
279 


6,344 
5,086 
1,714 
3,243 
2,030 


7,373 
5,573 
1,982 
3,592 
2,309 


6,219 
4,853 
1,710 
3,204 
2,061 


84.3 
87.0 
86.2 
89.1 
89.2 


1,154 
720 
272 
J88 
248 


444 
134 
126 
291 
131 


3,144 

1,500 

722 

2,570 

1,118 


3,588 
1,634 
848 
2,861 
1,249 


3,163 
1,315 
749 
2,522 
1,124 


88.1 
80.4 
88.3 
88.1 
89.9 


425 
319 

99 
339 

126 


District Tota' 


s 2,412 


18,417 


20,829 


18,047 


86.6 


2,782 


1,126 


9,054 


10,180 


8,873 


87.1 


1,307 


District 30 


























Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


220 
62 
6] 
618 
253 
172 
218 


2,462 
674 
541 
5,976 
3,729 
2,823 
1,484 


2,682 
736 
602 
6,594 
3,982 
2,995 
1,702 


2,408 
637 
523 
5,882 
3,700 
2,787 
1,523 


89.7 
86.5 
:-;i,.:-: 
89.2 
92.9 
93.0 
89.4 


274 
99 
79 
712 
282 
208 
179 


123 
29 
40 

633 

on 
182 
112 


718 
267 

346 
2,318 
785 
846 
536 


841 
296 
386 

2,951 
875 

1,028 
648 


696 
266 
338 
2,171 
734 
794 
550 


82.7 
89.8 
87.5 
73.5 
83.8 
77.2 
84.8 


146 

30 

48 

780 

141 

234 

98 


District Total 


s 1,604 


17,689 


19,293 


17,460 


90.4 


1,833 


1,209 


5,816 


7,025 


5,549 


78.9 


1,476 


STATE TOTALS 


80,476 


777,264 


857,740 


757,038 


88.2 


100,702 


41,169 


365,516 


406,685 


353,487 


86.9 


53,198 



146 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1979-80 



GUILTY PLEA 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



DISMISSALS 




WAIVERS 



OTHER 



Although district court criminal dispositions constitute a tremendous portion of all trial court caseload volume in the 
state, a large portion of these cases are waived. Within the district court criminal caseload, traffic cases accounted for 
757,038 dispositions statewide during the 1979-80 year, and 443,455, or 58.6%, of those were disposed by waiver. 



147 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 









Wa 


i>er 


Guilt> 


Plea 


Not Gu 


ilty Plea 


















Total 














Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 








Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


% Disposed 






Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


°) 


D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 1 






























Camden 


MV 


617 


15 


411 


85 


- 


25 


- 







31 





50 


69.0 




N-MV 


126 


1 





20 


33 


29 





4 




8 





31 


.7 


Chowan 


MV 


1,397 


85 


840 


249 


- 


8,6 


- 







43 





95 


66.2 




N-MV 


803 


72 


30 


259 


56 


83 





75 




103 





125 


12.7 


Currituck 


MV 


2,791 


64 


1,854 


49;' 


- 


189 


- 


2 




105 





145 


68.7 




N-MV 


529 


24 





102 


147 


100 





39 




86 





31 


4.5 


Dare 


MV 


3,771 


170 


2,167 


849 


- 


172 


- 


4 




230 





179 


61.9 




N-MV 


921 


28 


29 


27 3 


223 


118 





63 




151 





36 


6.1 


Gates 


MV 


1,661 


93 


997 


269 


- 


146 


- 


1 




143 





13 


65.6 




N-MV 


258 


28 


8 


78 


67 


36 





18 




18 





5 


13.9 


Pasquotank 


MV 


2,881 


421 


1,263 


790 


- 


194 


- 


7 




119 





87 


58.4 




N-MV 


1,692 


n 


119 


671 


136 


295 


1 


106 




180 





110 


11.4 


Perquimans 


MV 


1,296 


32 


899 


182 


- 


6 3 


- 







107 





13 


71.8 




N-MV 


391 


3 


1 


105 


37 


76 





65 




70 





34 


1.0 


District Totals 


MV 


14,414 


880 


8,431 


2,916 


- 


813 


- 


14 




778 





582 


64.5 




N-MV 


4,720 


230 


187 


1,508 


699 


737 


1 


370 




616 





372 


8.8 


District 2 






























Beaufort 


MV 


5,845 


1,846 


1,552 


1,173 


- 


644 


. 


26 




529 


1 


74 


58.1 




N-MV 


2,511 


467 


120 


837 


189 


430 


1 


131 




188 





148 


23.3 


Hyde 


MV 


387 


37 


176 


88 


- 


48 


- 


1 




24 





13 


55.0 




N-MV 


363 


5 


46 


69 


119 


62 





11 




16 





35 


14.0 


Martin 


MV 


2,844 


380 


1,221 


734 


- 


2 79 


- 


35 




71 





133 


56.2 




N-MV 


1,635 


216 


40 


667 


29 


224 





102 




110 





247 


15.6 


Tyrrel 1 


MV 


431 


29 


265 


36 


- 


63 


- 


1 




17 





20 


68.2 




N-MV 


195 


7 


6 


71 


26 


48 


2 


17 




11 





7 


6.6 


Washington 


MV 


1,331 


435 


486 


166 


- 


162 


- 


1 




64 





17 


69.1 




N-MV 


650 


115 


55 


153 


34 


168 


2 


67 




4 





26 


26.1 


District Totals 


MV 


10,838 


2,727 


3,700 


2,197 


- 


1,187 


- 


64 




705 


1 


257 


59.3 




N-MV 


5,354 


810 


267 


1,797 


397 


922 


5 


328 




365 





463 


20.1 


District 3 






























Carteret 


MV 


6,073 


745 


2,429 


1,817 


- 


189 


_ 


11 




447 


1 


434 


52.2 




N-MV 


3,997 


154 


131 


1,139 


549 


316 


7 


215 




998 





488 


7.1 


Craven 


MV 


10,670 


2,299 


3,872 


2,813 


- 


535 


- 


8 


1 


,128 





15 


57.8 




N-MV 


4,557 


873 


73 


1,240 


261 


524 





396 


1 


,016 





175 


20.7 


Pamlico 


MV 


574 


41 


233 


192 


- 


37 


- 


16 




53 





2 


47.7 




N-MV 


507 


9 


9 


101 


194 


62 





111 




89 





22 


3.5 


Pitt 


MV 


8,145 


1,714 


2,727 


2,461 


- 


4 95 


- 


8 




702 





38 


54.5 




N-MV 


6,741 


1,244 


667 


2,008 


223 


821 





533 




961 





284 


28.3 


District Totals 


MV 


25,462 


4,799 


9,261 


7,283 


- 


1,256 


. 


43 


2 


,330 


1 


489 


55.2 




N-MV 


15,802 


2,280 


880 


4,488 


1,137 


1,723 


7 


1,254 


3 


,064 





969 


19.9 


District 4 






























Duplin 


MV 


5,244 


949 


1,662 


1,673 


_ 


61 


- 


4 




389 





506 


49.7 




N-MV 


2,333 


408 


218 


581 





66 





75 




366 





619 


26.8 


Jones 


MV 


1,394 


105 


725 


374 


- 


31 


- 







122 





37 


59.5 




N-MV 


319 


21 


7 


81 


39 


36 





40 




70 





25 


8.7 


Onslow 


MV 


17,023 


4,020 


4,352 


5,825 


- 


326 


- 


1 


2 


,413 





86 


49.1 




N-MV 


8,076 


764 


354 


3,019 


262 


479 





39 


1 


,972 


n 


1,187 


13.8 


Sampson 


MV 


9,877 


1,117 


4,959 


2,673 


- 


104 


- 


1 




277 





746 


61.5 




N-MV 


3,022 


611 


243 


936 


29 


100 


6 


7 




512 





579 


28.2 


District Totals 


MV 


33,538 


6,191 


11,698 


10,545 


_ 


522 


_ 


6 


3 


,201 





1,375 


53.3 




N-MV 


13,750 


1,804 


822 


4,617 


330 


681 


5 


161 


2 


,920 





2,410 


19.0 


District 5 






























New Hanover 


MV 


13,835 


4,690 


2,057 


3,455 


_ 


1,478 


_ 


56 


1 


,841 





258 


48.7 




N-MV 


9,314 


1,175 


406 


3,284 


281 


1,338 





1,005 


1 


,339 





486 


16.9 


Pender 


MV 


3,079 


187 


1,478 


795 


- 


227 


- 


2 




283 





107 


54.0 




N-MV 


1,049 


7 


1 


264 


253 


141 


1 


146 




118 





118 


.7 


District Totals 


MV 


16,914 


4,877 


3,535 


4,250 


- 


1,705 


_ 


58 


2 


,124 





365 


49.7 




N-MV 


10,363 


1,182 


407 


3,548 


534 


1,479 


1 


1,151 


1 


,457 





604 


15.3 



148 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, 1979 — June 30, 1980 







Total 


w 


• iver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not G 


jiltv Plea 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 






Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


% Disposed 


District 6 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by DA. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


Bertie 


MV 


2,758 


326 


1,469 


480 


_ 


113 


- 


13 


131 





226 


65.0 




N-MV 


779 


53 


61 


181 


93 


162 


1 


74 


95 





59 


14.6 


Hal ifax 


MV 


10,923 


1,617 


3,619 


2,849 


- 


236 


- 


6 


2,398 





198 


47.9 




N-MV 


3,701 


315 


68 


852 


431 


545 


2 


338 


829 


8 


313 


10.3 


Hertford 


MV 


4,415 


660 


2,246 


796 


- 


177 


- 


5 


44/ 





8,4 


65.8 




N-MV 


1,437 


302 


26 


316 


89 


195 


7 


142 


196 





164 


22.8 


Northampton 


MV 


5,483 


465 


2,363 


811 


- 


134 


- 


13 


439 





1,258 


51.5 




N-MV 


815 


49 


37 


158 


124 


133 


3 


74 


146 





91 


10.5 


District Totals 


MV 


23,579 


3,068 


9,697 


4,936 


- 


660 


- 


37 


3,415 





1,766 


54.1 




N-MV 


6,732 


719 


192 


1,507 


737 


1,035 


13 


628 


1,266 


8 


627 


13.5 


District 7 




























Edgecombe 


MV 


4,785 


1,497 


1,799 


795 


- 


157 


- 


2 


529 





6 


68.8 




N-MV 


5,097 


883 


442 


1,615 


258 


5 34 





253 


863 





249 


25.9 


Nash 


MV 


9,408 


2,117 


4,252 


1,305 


- 


257 


- 


11 


1,430 





36 


67.6 




N-MV 


4,943 


1,224 


310 


1,398 


213 


451 





262 


845 





240 


31.0 


Wil son 


MV 


8,189 


2,749 


2,948 


1,086 


- 


243 


- 


35 


1,018 





110 


69.5 




N-MV 


4,772 


660 


199 


1,359 


222 


408 





406 


924 


1 


593 


18.0 


District Totals 


MV 


22,382 


6,363 


8,999 


3,186 


- 


657 


- 


48 


2,977 





152 


68.6 




N-MV 


14,812 


2,767 


951 


4,372 


693 


1,393 





921 


2,632 


1 


1,082 


25.1 


District 8 




























Greene 


MV 


1,368 


398 


39b 


329 


- 


38 


_ 


2 


118 





88 


57.9 




N-MV 


841 


132 


5 


194 


28 


102 





84 


211 





85 


16.2 


Lenoir 


MV 


7,448 


241 


3,881 


1,820 


- 


244 


- 


18 


887 





357 


55.3 




N-MV 


4,627 


112 





1,371 


592 


535 





260 


1,385 





372 


2.4 


Wayne 


MV 


11,315 


1,270 


5,578 


2,630 


- 


315 


- 


7 


1,420 





95 


60.5 




N-MV 


5,993 


356 


693 


1,687 


154 


4 76 





225 


1,825 





577 


17.5 


District Totals 


MV 


20,131 


1,909 


9,854 


4,779 


- 


597 


- 


27 


2,425 





540 


58.4 




N-MV 


11,461 


600 


698 


3,252 


774 


1,113 





569 


3,421 





1,034 


11.3 


District 9 




























Frankl in 


MV 


3,122 


931 


666 


969 


_ 


215 


. 


2 


324 





15 


51.1 




N-MV 


1,695 


459 


47 


470 


69 


246 





123 


232 





49 


29.8 


Granville 


MV 


5,726 


1,474 


1,666 


1,578 


- 


186 


- 


1 


258 





563 


54.8 




N-MV 


1,777 


311 


114 


582 


96 


253 


1 


165 


169 





86 


23.9 


Person 


MV 


2,676 


965 


292 


934 


- 


181 


- 


1 


264 





39 


46.9 




N-MV 


1,939 


177 


27 


597 


189 


364 





128 


302 





155 


10.5 


Vance 


MV 


4,926 


1,319 


1,562 


1,040 


- 


129 


- 


6 


544 





326 


58.4 




N-MV 


2,637 


497 


161 


735 


13 


294 





36 


431 





470 


24.9 


Warren 


MV 


3,459 


480 


1,468 


884 


- 


150 


- 


1 


353 





123 


56.3 




N-MV 


1,104 


114 


20 


234 


119 


194 





113 


1/2 





138 


12.1 


District Totals 


MV 


19,909 


5,169 


5,654 


5,405 


- 


861 


. 


11 


1,743 





1,066 


54.3 




N-MV 


9,152 


1,558 


369 


2,618 


486 


1,351 


1 


565 


1,306 





898 


21.0 


District 10 




























Wake 


MV 


44,833 


1,504 


23,608 


9,897 


- 


2,895 


_ 


67 


6,757 


1 


104 


56.0 




N-MV 


23,093 


438 


4,699 


8,019 


979 


1,788 





1,552 


4,543 





1,075 


22.2 


District 11 




























Harnett 


MV 


7,996 


1,555 


3,066 


1,992 


- 


342 


- 


13 


559 





469 


57.7 




N-MV 


3,291 


359 


254 


1,156 


140 


323 


1 


228 


522 





308 


18.6 


Johnston 


MV 


12,804 


2,165 


4,910 


2,684 


- 


629 


. 


19 


1,832 





565 


55.2 




N-MV 


3,845 


589 


423 


1,215 


4 


527 





240 


493 





354 


26.3 


Lee 


MV 


3,964 


1,543 


916 


1,039 


- 


179 


- 


1 


273 





13 


62.0 




N-MV 


3,772 


939 


89 


1,275 





420 





176 


528 





345 


27.2 


District Totals 


MV 


24,764 


5,263 


8,892 


5,715 


- 


1,150 


_ 


33 


2,664 





1,047 


57.1 




N-MV 


10,908 


1,887 


766 


3,646 


144 


1,270 


1 


644 


1,543 





1,007 


24.3 


District 12 




























Cumberland 


MV 


36,808 


1,528 


19,918 


7,508 


_ 


2,229 


_ 


112 


5,092 


2 


419 


58.2 




N-MV 


22,696 


287 


4,443 


4,726 


238 


1,871 


9 


59 


4,908 





6,155 


20.8 


Hoke 


MV 


2,890 


84 


1,669 


707 


- 


137 


- 





227 





66 


60.6 




N-MV 


1,307 


45 


214 


300 


33 


189 





31 


444 





51 


19.8 


District Totals 


MV 


39,698 


1,612 


21,587 


8,215 


. 


2,366 


_ 


112 


5,319 


2 


485 


58.4 




N-MV 


24,003 


332 


4,657 


5,026 


271 


2,060 


9 


90 


5,352 





6,206 


20.7 



149 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 







Total 
Disposed 


w 


liver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not G 


jilty Plea 


Prelim. 
Hearing 


l)i 
b 


smissal 
DA. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 




District 13 


Magis- 
trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


Magis- 
trate* 


Judge 


Magis- 
trate* 


% Disposed 
By Waiver 


Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 


7,287 
2,177 
4,188 
2,006 
9,007 
3,552 


1,311 
148 

2,488 
201 
726 
492 


2,691 

123 

22 

11 

3,833 

460 


1,813 
701 

1,042 
540 

1,702 

1,016 


314 

250 
84 


278 
324 
160 
322 
1,068 
397 





1 


7 
74 

6 
139 

6 
280 


1 

1 


,114 
440 
231 

405 

,484 

707 











73 

53 

239 

138 

188 
115 


54.9 
12.4 
59.9 
10.5 
50.6 
26.8 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


20,482 
7,735 


4,525 
841 


6,546 

594 


4,557 
2,257 


648 


1,506 
1,043 


1 


19 

493 


2 

1 


,829 
,552 






500 
!06 


54.0 
18.5 


District 14 






























Durham 


MV 
N-MV 


15,829 
11,437 


250 

796 


8,429 
1,070 


3,867 
4,021 


10 


551 
889 





11 
654 


2 
3 


,632 
,656 



8 


89 

8 33 


54.8 
16.3 


District 15A 






























Alamance 


MV 
N-MV 


12,079 
5,351 


2,946 
438 


4,384 
29 


2,669 
2,085 


228 


839 
884 





9 

466 




791 
951 


0. 




441 

270 


60.6 
8.7 


District 15B 






























Chatham 
Orange 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


4,912 

1,147 

10,221 

3,427 


607 

100 

2,171 

425 


2,192 
52 

3,714 
32 


1,570 

326 

2,627 

1,004 


196 
114 


177 
112 

470 
326 




n 




89 

6 

412 




342 
225 

514 

9-87 








24 
47 

719 
127 


56.9 
13.2 
57.5 
13.3 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


15,133 

4,574 


2,778 
525 


5,906 

84 


4,197 
1,330 


310 


647 
438 





6 
501 


1 


856 
,212 






743 

174 


57.3 
13.3 


District 16 






























Robeson 
Scotland 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


17,473 
8,571 
4,225 
3,324 


4,130 

1,436 

1,478 

422 


4,717 

139 

1,229 

91 


4,701 

3,216 

891 

995 


187 
146 


540 
779 
139 
394 







43 

718 

2 

182 




251 
240 

199 

231 








3,091 

1,856 

287 

86 8 


50.6 
18.3 
64.0 
15.4 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


21,698 
11,895 


5,608 
1,858 


5,946 
230 


5,592 
4,211 


333 


679 

1,173 





4 5 
900 




450 

471 







3,378 
2,719 


53.2 

17.5 


District 17 






























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 


1,577 
1,017 
9,454 
5,077 
3,764 
995 
6,730 
2,814 


465 

62 

2,994 

526 

484 

57 

3,989 

296 


478 
11 

2,955 
76 

1,981 
50 
74 
21 


353 

293 

2,121 

1,514 

351 

156 

1,633 

854 


80 
126 

192 
55 


98 
214 
501 
872 
589 
212 
260 
491 









1 

144 
4 

184 

2 
8 

344 




159 
124 
779 
895 
220 
151 
697 
473 














23 

89 
100 
884 
139 
175 

69 
280 


59.7 

7.1 
62.9 
11.8 
65.4 
10.7 
60.3 
11.2 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


21,525 
9,903 


7,932 
941 


5,488 
158 


4,458 
2,817 


453 


1,448 
1,789 





13 
674 


1 
1 


,855 
,643 






331 
1,428 


62.3 

11.0 


District 18 






























Guilford 


MV 
N-MV 


39,213 
20,429 


2,194 
215 


20,117 
625 


9,262 
8,241 


965 


2,334 
2,395 


4 


7 
326 


5 

6 


,046 
,750 


2 




251 
1,908 


56.8 

4.1 


District 19A 






























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


12,330 
3,137 

11,612 
3,284 


3,146 
219 

1,912 
144 


5,094 
112 

5,902 
112 


1,843 

1,009 

1,672 

984 


255 

153 


924 
688 
841 
674 




1 


22 

411 

6 

478 


1 

1 


,087 
365 

,219 
485 


1 






213 
78 
60 

253 


66.8 

10.5 

67.2 

7.7 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


23,942 

6,421 


5,058 
363 


10,996 
224 


3,515 
1,993 


408 


1,765 
1,362 


1 


28 

889 


2 


,306 
850 


1 




27 3 
331 


67.0 

9.1 


District 19B 






























Montgomery 
Randol ph 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


4,814 
2,147 
9,044 
3,178 


3,307 
228 

1,399 
575 






4,624 




813 

390 

1,516 

920 


516 
111 


245 

■UO 
549 
396 


1 




11 

1 98 

4 

343 




428 
4 95 
929 
760 









10 
17 
23 
73 


68.6 
10.6 
66.5 
18.0 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


13,858 
5,325 


4,706 
803 


4,624 



2,329 
1,310 


627 


794 

69S 


1 


15 

54 1 


1 
1 


,357 
,255 







33 
90 


67.3 
15.0 



150 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 







Total 


w 


aiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not G 


jilt) Plea 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 








Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


% Disposed 






Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 20 




























Anson 


MV 


3,903 


1,036 


1,491 


817 


- 


202 


- 


2 


257 





98 


64.7 




N-MV 


1,396 


110 


3 


391 


113 


26/ 





152 


284 





76 


8.0 


Moore 


MV 


6,606 


1,507 


1,928 


2,088 


- 


804 


- 


13 


379 





38/ 


51.9 




N-MV 


3,449 


598 


258 


836 


63 


348 





329 


491 





526 


24.8 


Richmond 


MV 


4,526 


1,084 


1,414 


1,164 


- 


239 


- 


88 


272 





265 


55.1 




N-MV 


2,174 


166 


20 


549 


52 


447 





389 


511 





40 


8.5 


Stanly 


MV 


5,625 


1,547 


1,680 


1,705 


- 


58 


- 


14 


811 





110 


57.3 




N-MV 


2,177 


369 


40 


707 


241 


92 





22 3 


419 





86 


18.7 


Union 


MV 


6,031 


1,382 


2,212 


1,418 


- 


397 


- 


16 


281 





355 


59.5 




N-MV 


3,451 


407 


9 


854 


247 


671 





550 


606 





10/ 


12.0 


District Totals 


MV 


26,691 


6,556 


8,725 


7,192 


- 


1,200 


- 


133 


1,670 





1,215 


57.2 




N-MV 


12,647 


1,650 


330 


3,337 


716 


1,825 





1,643 


2,311 





835 


15.6 


District 21 




























Forsyth 


MV 


36,075 


3 


22,844 


5,870 


- 


2,781 


- 


21 


4,431 





125 


63.3 




N-MV 


12,115 


1 


1,705 


3,761 


185 


2,590 


1 


1,082 


2,094 





756 


14.0 


District 22 




























Alexander 


MV 


2,030 


541 


479 


665 


- 


110 


- 


4 


217 





14 


50.2 




N-MV 


914 


65 


15 


215 


177 


113 





47 


255 





27 


8.7 


Davidson 


MV 


10,412 


2,238 


3,876 


2,289 


- 


327 


- 


2 


1,575 





105 


58.7 




N-MV 


5,509 


247 


161 


1,821 


340 


794 


1 


212 


1,655 





278 


7.4 


Davie 


MV 


4,380 


2,730 


268 


595 


- 


64 


- 


11 


616 





96 


68.4 




N-MV 


947 


71 


7 


255 


28 


132 





52 


284 





118 


8.2 


Iredell 


MV 


11,399 


4,116 


3,297 


2,312 


- 


389 


- 


6 


1,145 





131 


65.0 




N-MV 


4,886 


581 


24 


1,731 


258 


491 





339 


1,303 





199 


12.3 


District Totals 


MV 


28,221 


9,625 


7,920 


5,861 


- 


890 


- 


23 


3,553 





349 


62.1 




N-MV 


12,256 


964 


207 


4,022 


803 


1,530 


1 


650 


3,497 





582 


9.5 


District 23 




























Al leghany 


MV 


682 


225 


105 


203 


_ 


74 


- 


5 


94 





16 


48.3 




N-MV 


349 


48 


8 


119 


17 


53 





20 


59 





25 


16.0 


Ashe 


MV 


1,853 


265 


793 


473 


- 


216 


- 


2 


55 





49 


57.0 




N-MV 


862 


47 


71 


232 


58 


189 





67 


50 





148 


13.6 


Wilkes 


MV 


6,378 


2,110 


1,481 


1,572 


- 


689 


- 


9 


423 





94 


56.3 




N-MV 


2,970 


359 


27 


823 


154 


687 


4 


141 


510 





268 


12.9 


Yadkin 


MV 


3,093 


793 


1,255 


566 


- 


231 


- 


8 


81 





159 


66.2 




N-MV 


964 


110 


39 


289 


58 


161 





85 


111 





111 


15.4 


District Totals 


MV 


12,006 


3,393 


3,634 


2,814 


- 


1,210 


- 


24 


613 





318 


58.5 




N-MV 


5,145 


564 


145 


1,463 


287 


1,090 


4 


313 


730 





549 


13.7 


District 24 




























Avery 


MV 


1,961 


861 


401 


300 


- 


66 


. 


1 


321 





11 


64.3 




N-MV 


445 


81 


9 


70 


71 


52 


3 


31 


99 





29 


20.2 


Madison 


MV 


1,950 


186 


858 


18:6 


- 


43 


- 


3 


601 





73 


53.5 




N-MV 


332 


1 





44 


7 


55 





33 


164 





28 


.3 


Mitchell 


MV 


1,323 


201 


556 


249 


- 


46 


- 


3 


247 





21 


57.2 




N-MV 


360 


33 


17 


81 


15 


77 





18 


92 





27 


13.8 


Watauga 


MV 


3,536 


4 34 


1,480 


930 


- 


141 


- 


7 


515 





29 


54.1 




N-MV 


1,125 


111 


59 


238 


51 


116 


8 


8 3 


356 





10 J 


15.1 


Yancey 


MV 


1,577 


161 


688 


192 


- 


58 


- 


n 


477 





1 


53.8 




N-MV 


528 


17 


2 


78 


228 


73 


1 


12 


105 





12 


3.5 


District Totals 


MV 


10,347 


1,843 


3,983 


1,857 


- 


354 


_ 


14 


2,161 





135 


56.3 




N-MV 


2,790 


243 


87 


511 


372 


373 


12 


177 


816 





199 


11.8 


District 25 




























Burke 


MV 


9,644 


1,305 


4,787 


2,237 


_ 


177 


. 


1 


1,044 





93 


63.1 




N-MV 


2,898 


246 


117 


824 


180 


284 





188 


806 





253 


12.5 


Caldwell 


MV 


6,554 


2,516 


922 


2,298 


- 


212 


- 


6 


586 





14 


52.4 




N-MV 


3,258 


241 


1 


948 


301 


331 


2 


246 


953 





2 35 


7.4 


Catawba 


MV 


12,660 


4,068 


3,006 


3,669 


- 


354 


- 


5 


1,116 





442 


55.8 




N-MV 


6,651 


785 


120 


2,070 


224 


522 





524 


1,334 





1,072 


13.6 


District Totals 


MV 


28,858 


7,889 


8,715 


8,204 


_ 


743 


- 


12 


2,746 





549 


57.5 




N-MV 


12,807 


1,272 


238 


3,842 


705 


1,137 


2 


958 


3,093 





1,560 


11.7 



151 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 







Total 


Waiver 


Cuilt 


> Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 








Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


% Disposed 


District 26 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


Mecklenburg 


MV 


56,337 


1,450 


32,886 


10,779 


_ 


3,198 


_ 


34 


7,805 


2 


183 


60.9 




N-MV 


18,129 


641 


6 


5,367 


2,602 


1,598 


3 


1,023 


5,720 


9 


1,160 


3.5 


District 27A 




























Gaston 


MV 


15,238 


6,810 


1,914 


3,072 


- 


712 


- 


2 


2,601 





127 


57.2 




N-MV 


11,094 


828 


7 


3,097 


556 


1,312 





137 


2,794 


3 


2,360 


7.5 


District 27B 




























Cleveland 


MV 


8,367 


3,691 


1,182 


2,184 


- 


202 


. 


3 


655 





450 


58.2 




N-MV 


4,626 


574 


41 


1,655 


162 


460 


2 


408 


936 





388 


13.2 


Lincoln 


MV 


4,318 


1,526 


1,000 


954 


- 


107 


- 


6 


715 


2 


8 


58.4 




N-MV 


2,461 


231 


119 


638 


168 


229 





238 


615 





223 


14.2 


District Totals 


MV 


12,685 


5,217 


2,182 


3,138 


- 


309 


_ 


9 


1,370 


2 


458 


58.3 




N-MV 


7,087 


805 


160 


2,293 


330 


689 


2 


646 


1,551 





611 


13.6 


District 28 




























Buncombe 


MV 


14,852 


4,061 


5,213 


3,742 


. 


517 


. 


32 


1,148 





139 


62.4 




N-MV 


11,775 


1,483 


675 


5,340 


109 


671 





817 


1,917 





763 


18.3 


District 29 




























Henderson 


MV 


6,219 


2,271 


1,287 


1,536 


_ 


120 


_ 


1 


889 





115 


57.2 




N-MV 


3,163 


1 


74 


804 


513 


202 





301 


664 





604 


2.3 


Mc Dowel 1 


MV 


4,853 


2,885 


205 


971 


- 


191 


- 


19 


219 





363 


63.6 




N-MV 


1,315 


78 


4 


438 


279 


110 


3 


65 


299 





39 


6.2 


Polk 


MV 


1,710 


65 


977 


294 


- 


67 


- 


2 


134 





171 


60.9 




N-MV 


749 


6 


2 


179 


20 


58 





40 


159 





285 


1.0 


Rutherford 


MV 


3,204 


1,561 


363 


702 


- 


202 


- 


5 


141 





230 


60.0 




N-MV 


2,522 


106 


9 


812 


515 


369 





201 


422 





88 


4.5 


Transylvania 


MV 


2,061 


605 


699 


423 


- 


61 


- 


2 


193 





78 


63.2 




N-MV 


1,124 


23 


49 


306 


239 


52 





77 


272 





106 


6.4 


District Totals 


MV 


18,047 


7,387 


3,531 


3,926 


- 


641 


. 


29 


1,576 





957 


60.4 




N-MV 


8,873 


214 


138 


2,539 


1,566 


791 


3 


684 


1,816 





1,122 


3.9 


District 30 




























Cherokee 


MV 


2,408 


330 


1,167 


506 


- 


11 


- 


1 


316 





77 


62.1 




N-MV 


696 


10 


31 


219 


2 


10 





53 


261 





110 


5.8 


Clay 


MV 


637 


86 


307 


134 


- 


12 


- 





45 





53 


61.6 




N-MV 


266 


4 


22 


29 


108 


7 





12 


35 





49 


9.7 


Graham 


MV 


523 


6 


263 


113 


- 


24 


- 





95 





22 


51.4 




N-MV 


338 


9 


6 


45 


127 


13 


2 


8 


86 





42 


4.4 


Haywood 


MV 


5,882 


3,195 


20 


1,415 


- 


107 


- 


11 


940 





194 


54.6 




N-MV 


2,171 


204 


30 


637 


86 


111 


8 


181 


884 





30 


10.7 


Jackson 


MV 


3,700 


1,083 


1,118 


800 


- 


32 


- 


17 


506 





144 


59.4 




N-MV 


734 


35 


82 


118 


15 


21 





6 


200 





257 


15.9 


Macon 


MV 


2,787 


516 


925 


378 


- 


22 


- 


4 


161 





781 


51.7 




N-MV 


794 


46 


9 


143 


211 


29 





96 


129 





131 


6.9 


Swain 


MV 


1,523 


766 


181 


239 


- 


12 


- 





145 





180 


62.1 




N-MV 


550 


35 


5 


100 


195 


27 








170 





18 


7.2 


District Totals 


MV 


17,460 


5,982 


3,981 


3,585 


- 


220 


. 


33 


2,208 





1,451 


57.0 




N-MV 


5,549 


343 


185 


1,291 


744 


218 


10 


356 


1,765 





637 


9.5 


STATE TOTALS 


MV 


757,038 


140,575 


302,880 


169,810 


_ 


38,007 


_ 


1,039 


84,442 


12 


20,273 


58.5 




N-MV 


353,487 


30,395 


21,792 


109,526 


20,078 


40,047 


88 


22,163 


73,929 


29 


35,440 


14.7 



152 



•— • o o «— • «=a- cr> co oi »— i o O < 



o co o o 



i cm O O O c\J 



cm <x> i-H ro 

i— i i— < cm o 

r-i i— I CM CM 



CO ld co ro <3- X> 



r-tin nroijin n. 



c ^ 



rs^COUlr-iOsjcororN. ro CO 



nN r- nor- i uo co co <-h 



3 
O 

U 



Q £ 



Q £ 



cotrirvai0^u)N'3-ocooiDco cr> co 

roH^ncococMNHinnouDic coco 

Lnp-tcsjr--«^-^t-«^j-cO'^-cvj'X>'X)<-Hro o~t co 

■— i cm ro .— ( cm r-i i-i cxj^j- 



CNJCO^OCOCOOOLnO^r- «COO UDO 



incMU)iHix)c\j'^ini£iLn r^un 

-H'J ^<t CON OCOHH COiT) 
LD M CM >— » rH CT> LT) 



Lnio^Ln^DNLnroLfic^ in in 



^CTiCM^OOrO'd- tHN. 
lOCONOLninnin cm CT\ 
lo ro uo co ^j-ro r-. o 



r-. id n o -h C\l r- <CNJ OJ CT> 

ocrir\jcx>>-(Ln^N. cocr^ 
csjn^oin<jno <3- CTi 



to co cx> «d- 



■ iX) cm co 



^oyDrHLncocON 

ODONininoJLDlD 



ID O 



.a > 



V) 


« 


0> 


u 


t/1 


1/1 


« 


U. 


u 


DC 


y— s 


B 


> 


3 


s 


Q 


1 


13 


z 


V 

</> 


■>«^- 


o 




CL 



0( 



.a o 






31 

u 



2 S 



Oudco.— «roix>o^i-n<— <<^j- OO 



N^DNrOiHO^HrHr-HCO^rNj^H <d"0 

rHc\jc^oo>c\jrvc\iiX)ir>cX)CTiOicri ■— < cm 
^OrHncONir)N.OM£>c\jixm3rvjro <^-r^ 



ooi— i o ■— • o ■— < ^r o o o cm co *j- <x> o 



HronOODONW^O «3- >X> 



lo<— i isro«tLn iHin r- io co <^r 
■3-1— ico^Ntrorocnroir) cold 
colocococoud^T'— icoud co co 



•—> Old 



r^ LT) ■=!- O LT) CO 



nNON-=tNin>H c\jc\j 
rsoiNinNO'd-^ udo 
OUi^inirnriHN vt co 



ion o^ 



co ur> LO LTi 



NON CO' 



■ CO O l-i r-t t-H ,-H 



o 

z 

c 
« 



> 

o 

o 



C/5 

ox 



■a 

c 

81 



DC 

_c 

•3 

c 

at 

Cl, 



51 

u 



<u 

DC 

< 



a 7 



■o J, 



i r*. m ^- en «=j- i 



«j < 



PO UO (XI o i 



CO'— I M Ol --H (D (\J N ro LT> CvJ CO C\J 

^H PO POt-H^-t CNJt-Hf-H 



CM O 


lo <x> lo cm ud lo i— i o cm o 


CTi CO 


CO LD 


^T CM CM i— i 


CO CO 



rOMCMDr- • «3r •— < O O X) CO C-. O LT> CMCT^ 

NHC0LTiU3mC0C0O .— < O «— < -— * cocm 

CM CM i— 1 IMrHH t-HCO 



■ <d- O O CO O O 



'COLOCOCMLOODOr-.CO Lfl CM 



CO LT) 

in Kt 

CO ^J" 



-CMcr>r--<^rcO'— <^r>'^-Ln m co 

« i— I ^J- CTtLOLO HC\| CM O 

■ rH r-i «— I CO CM 



l£)LD lilt/) r- I O CM O CO LD O CM 



Lna^ojc^rNCo<3-o~ir-.ix> coco 

N ■? CM O xt OJ xt CO Ol H LT) •— I 
CM r-H CM -— I CM 



coud^cmcocjicoo^ud r^-co 
OHiDHinHLDHcncM oco 
lo cm cm r- * «—« on 



: > s: > s > 



OCOOUDNtCOOlNt 
LO <— * CO CM CT> CT> 



> s: > s: > 



CO <JD 
CO CO 
<=t- CM 



kD in r- i o en o ro en en ^ 
Ln--icONtc\ic\ju:^t cmcm 
r-» >^j- o <cr r-- lt> ko «^f 



O^OLDLOr-HOCO COLO 



lo n co co co in «3- r-* 



WO-H^O^-t^DOJ COCM 
CTiCO-NtCOCOCM-— «t-h COO 
CTiUD-htLT) OCO <sj- ■— i 



r— 1 CO CM 



•r- CU -r- 



153 



ON CM O LD ON i — i LO LO 

m coh <? row h 
■— « oo «-< 



oo -3- 


^ coo w 


oo o 


r-.LOCJ'iOONCor-.LO 


CNJ CT^ 


CM CO 


r-. lo O i— « 


r- r-. 


C\J CNJ CNJ 


r-. co 


o — « 


-H WCM 


oo cnj 


*— t 


«— i 



O O «— ' CXj O CO <— « o 

co en -r cx> on co «— < r-. 

t-H i— . .—i ^- oo 



c J, 



loco-— < co lo cm on cm 

o «* co o og n m 

OO I-- CM LO 



«— t LO O CTi hlD 
-3" CNJ r— I ID CM 



- LO CNJ LO CO <3" -3" 
*£) rv ^H CM «^- 

CO «— i 



i— i CTi CO CTl st CO OO LO 
<— < LO r- < CNJ CNJ OO LD OO 
CNJ «—« *3- CNJ LO CNJ .-h uD 



3 

o 
U 



O ^■^COfTiCONOn 

r-l HOnCMLDOvtO 

"~ locnj^h r^. CO fN. »3- 



^DCOL^POrHvtOlN. 

1JD O^JD COO rHfOst 
CMOf— ICMLOONLOLD 



o cr> 


<— < CO lo oo 


r-. i—i 


rNONN't no co 


CO CO 


LO ro 


LO O oo LO 


CO LO 


•d-NtOuDO^rOrHvt 


LO CO 


<— < --r 


o n cnj 


cnj t— 


CNJ «rj- CO CM ■— i CO 


CNJ LO 



h on lo ■— < r— cd 
lo r-» co LO -3- -j- 

«— • O -3" ON LO O 



N <3- O LO CO LO «— IN LOCO 
ONCMCNJ-J---rLDCMLO COCO 
CON-UDCMCOCM'-IN. en on 



n- co co com CO CO *? 

LDCOCOLOONLO CO t— I 

«d" LO r-i i£i CO ID LO ON 



CO LO -TJ- CO ON -3" HN 
CNJ -T <3" CO <3r LO CNJ "ctf- 
O CNJ LO CTl LD LO CNJCO 



CO LO CO CNJ r-. *—t 



m lo co co — » 



Q £ 

s 5 



ooNLnrooNCNjcfNLr) lo vo 



lo o r-- r— lo lo 
r- lo en co co lo 



NOivtLnMrocco 



TU) O LD 



.5 > 



COOrHCMN 



I CO O ON ON 



tfl 


« 


V 


u 


CM 


M 


A 


be 


u 


M 


,—s 


C 


> 


3 


5 


Q 



_ 4* 

2 o 



«3-ro<^o>rniDN-c\i COO 
<d-oocn.— icMr--r-.CM colo 

CNJCOPOCOOOCOO LDN 



lo cm oo r-. en cnj 



LD -3" ON ON <rj- OO 

CO HN -^ rH LD 

00 co O O Cr> co 

co en CO r-i LD CD 



o ij: h rs ld ro m lo co xf 



C0ONco.-HLnr-.roLn oncnj 
ldncj o>- 1 roco >- 1 r-.ro 
Nr--cnr--«3r<3--3-co lon 



cocnjcooon^j- H^J 



LO N. CO n Oi CM CM CM 

co^o^rco n. CO'— < 
NO-g-cnHN coco 



■^^ 







Q. 


1) 


J- 






u 


a 


°Ji 


M 


cu 


K 


> 


r i 



CO LO O O CNJ O U~> I 



O O <— i r-. LO LD O O r-.ro 



CD «— I LO I-- r-- r- 1 r-l . 



s 


Bit) 
< 


I 

c 


13 

C 


o 


S3 


Z 


o 
oe 


-o 


o 


c 


rr, 


m 


se 






> 


c 


5 


T3 
B 



V — 



lO<3-N COO OiC^N rH CO 

LOCNJ CO LO 0O OO «tJ- CM 

r-i CM <— I 



Locno no nloco «—ir-. 

OCOCO LO t— 1 ON LO C^H 

r-t fOHH LO CM 



•=d-LOONCOO>— 'COO hlO 
ONONOCM^-HONONCO rH CTl 
LO rH rH LO LO CTl CNJ CO rH 



HCOOH r-l ON 
CO HLD H ^f CM 
CM CNJ CO CNJ 



i— I CO CO 0O -3" i— « 
LO LD ON CO -3" LO 
O CO CM 0O CTl 



OLDCOCOLOCMCOCM H CO 
r-LDCOCMLD-— 'CM^r LD -j- 
i— t i— tCOCNJr- ICO ON LO 



n LOCTi N^CO LDH 
■^•LOLOLDLn LO LOON 



.— I LO O CNJ <d" «— I LOCTt 
CO ON CM CO CO N COON 

rH CM rH r-l rH LO CO 



^j-noLO^ o-i coco 

LDCOLO"=tCO<3- LDN 

«d-rorH«3-r--«3- oocm 



JC 

> 



VI 

WD 

< 



u 



ex 

< 



.2 o» 



rHOOLDLDOCncO Ol 



<rj- O CM CM OO LD LO 



LDLOONONOOO'rj-aN I—CO 
COCO-^niLOONLDCO LOO 

N CNJ rH rHCOCMOO COLD 



O CO LO O LD r-i 



r- oo ^j- r-. 



iloco Nio<j co ^r 



. LO LO OO LO rH i 



CO LD O <d" < 



LO r-l LD CO CJ\ 



LO «rj- rH LO 

CO CNJ O CNJ 

rH rH CM 


ON CM 

CO OO 


CM <3" ON O LO rH LD 

CO CNJ OO LO LO LO OO 


-d- 


o 




LD CO 0O LO 
ON O LD CO 
LD LO ^ rH 


ON CO 
LO OO 

rH LD 


HnLO vtLO NC0 
rH r-» CO CM LO LO o 

CM LO -3" OO rH «Tj- 


r-. 


LO 
LO 


CM 



> e; > s: > s: > : 



O CO LO o *s- ON 



CO CO 
-3" CO 



LDO-TLOCOLO COO 

LOLDOMOO h LO<=J- 

LOLOLn NH CO COrH 

rH r-l CO CM 



:> s: >■ ^ > : 



154 



O LO Cn ro CO ^J- r--. cm 



o U3 u) rn lo en 



t— < «h CO LO rH CO LD(T* 

CO CM CTv <^J- rO CM Lf) 00 

r-l rH C\J rH 



m *3- 
en en 



OC\JC\J«J CM LO 

oo cm in n co lo 

tn ID LO LO 



.2 n 



<— i ud U3 CO oo CTi lo co 
lo ■— i o <3- r-^ cm en 

CD *— t <3" •— ( CO CvJ 



^l^COHCOO'tHCOn LO O 

<— i c\j cm r\i ro ro r- 1 ro ro cm cm co 

H M H CVJ H 00 •— • 



CO «cr CO •— ■ CJi LO LO >h 
CM N -^- CO CO f'O LO CX> 

co lo en >h 



co t— > o co co «s- 
cm en en en r-t co 

O O H HC\J 



3 

o 
U 



Q £ 



Q 2 



*— « 



© CO LO CO rH ( 

**•* n ro n ro i 



O co 
O CO O CO rH <—i COCO 

mo^ co *h 



CO ^ r^. o Cn O -^-^3- 
lo r^- cm <=f «3r o *a- <— i 

hnco cn^o hn 



lo ro en lo 



^ iq CM CM Cn CO CTi 
B£ 

^ i£) M) OMX)MD O 



LO LO 



cm co <— it— ««3-t-Hi_ncocoo unco 
NCMOOM^LrKDnm coco 
CM^nDwcMtHmi-iro en lo 



Lor--cnonr-.r-^Lncno<3r r*^ lo 

COO^CMlDOO^OLnOl LOO 

vOLncoiDNNrHfococo r-^r-H 



CNJrH^J-rHC\Ji-<«JCVJOvJ 



o lo «— it— ir-^.i— i o en lo o O lo 



r*-. r-» 


en cnj c\j «d- ^ c\j 


LO CO 


co eg en o 


CM CM 


LO LO 


CO Cn LO ro <d" ro 


en lo 


<— i CO <3- CM 


LO LO 


«3" LO 


r-. cm «ci- co <3- co 


LO 00 


LO CO CM t— i 


co en 



LO LO 

P-. CO 
*± LO 



cn i^- r-i ch lo co inn 

<tcoonnOLn «d- O 

rs co lo ro^ ^ r-. r». 

lo cm o co co co o cn 



i— i lo en cm lo o 



r^ LO 


co r-» 


O CM 


LO LO 


en LO 


LO CM 


LO O 


■3- en 


O O 








cn co 


CM 


CM Cn 


CM t-H 




CO .— i 


LO rH 


LO «— * 


LO LO 


CO t— ( 


LO LO 


CO «— 1 


CM cm 


*h CM 


CM CM 



.5 > 



w 


a 


0> 


u 


V3 


i/i 


« 


u. 


u 


DC 


> 


.E 

3 


S 


Q 


i 


T3 


z 




Sm/ 


o 


o» 


a. 

</i 






u 


Q 


J3 


i/> 


<u 




> 




>~ 


V. 





O 


o 


« 

« 


s 


DC 
< 


1 

c 


C 


o 


a 


Z 


© 

00 


•o 


© 


c 


n 


« 


^o 






> 


c 


s 


c 



5 4* N<tCfl HiX)C0 CO rH 

S M 

«- < CO O CO <— i *3" O «d- lo 

** CO CO CO CO CO «3" coco 



_ 4i 

2 o 



CO r-l CO NLO CO .— Ir- 1 
LO <3" «d- CM ■— • Cn COLO 
COCO^-LOCOCTi r-H^J- 



Q rH 



n >t ihlo 



<— i CM 



*o -1, 



LO i— I O CT> CTi «d~ 



en *3- r- t i-nj- c\j «3r r-- 
lo cm co cn LO «— I 



O CM CM «3" Cn 0"i i— <LO 

«3- ■— i «tf- cm o r-. enn 

«— l «— l CM «— l CO CO 



«3- r-- co r»* co •-< 
lo «— i en <^- r- cm 

HHLn-^om 



LnrHOMnNNLOcocxJOD r-^oo 



CMiOLor--.LOcriLor-.cr><3- cn cm 

C\JCT\C\JNNCOCNjfnLnO OLD 

t-iLDrvNvDCnOMD«d-tH CT\ t— i 

roHiriHc\jH<-cvjcoH cn en 



OCnOLO«^-LOCOCMCMLO «^i- lo 
CM r- « •— I <— I «3- «3- CO *— < CMCO 



«— « «d" 



coloco«— *cocno*^-LOLO o«^- 
ocMOcncr»LOOOCMr^ coio 



co co 
co CTi 
CO CD 



CM ^J- 
CM i— < 
CO CO 



lo «=r 
'^r cm 

LO LO 



CO CTi 
LO CO 

lo a\ 



CM <^T LO <— < CM o co«=j- 



LO «— < 'd" LO <^J- CM ^J-CO 

cncriO'^rLor-^ loo 

ai cm co co CTi n r-.cn 

r-.cocMcococo ^j-o 



O LO «— < CM 



^- o 


«— I CM 


o> r^ lo m n »^- 


CM <d" 


oo •— < lo cn 


O CO 


*3~ CM 


•—i CM CO 


LO "S± 


LO CO rH 


rH 


CM CM 









co «^ cm a» CO en ro cm 
lo«3-cocm<3-co Cnr-H 

rH OJ rH ^T CM 



COrHCOLOLOLO r-l CM 
rJ-COCM CM N Ol <3"LO 

LOCMCOCOr-lr-l r-ir-- 



<d" CM 

en o 



co lo o h-. oo ro 
o en en o en o 
co lo co ro lo o 



t3"Ul c\jo lo lo 



rH CM «d" CM LO *3" 

CM CTI r-l r-H CO o 

CM r-l CM CM 



o r-. CM O NN 
cm lo lo cm r-*. r*. 
en lo en lo 



r-HOLOLOLOCO COCO 



in in rj- lo ro io <h co ro rt o«—i 



^ o 

4* 



!« 



m <u r^LO^^LOCn r^Cn 

S u 

5< r-icor^r-ir-io cMcn 

c <^-CMLOLOLOr^ LOLO 



OCONNOiC^rJ-inCTlLn 



r^ cm 

r- cm 
LO co 



o o 

CO rH 
CM «* 



HHincomH oco 



OCMUDLOrtCO LOCO 



LO CO LO CO O CO 



LO LO CM CM LO rH 

r- < O r-l r-l r-l r-H 
<3" LO «3" LO «^J" LO 



l2 c 

r— 4- 



CO «tf" rH LO O r-l 
r-H CO LO r-l tO LO 
CM r-l CO LO *3" CO 



a* 

0X) 



> s: > e: 



OOr^Or~-.^j-r-ir^CMro r-» *tf- 
CnLOrOLOLOO'^J-CMCMr^ LOrH 

rowinHCMNN't idh »^-cm 



> 2: > 2: > s: > : 



r-»<3-ro«^j-<3-r-^ rt ir> 
lo O r— i «?j- to r-- co CM 

CO CO N IT) CM CM COr-H 



> s: > s: > : 



CO r^ CO O -—I r- 

LO LO r— I LO r**- rH 

hc\i roH «3- «3- 



155 



Cn O 


lo *3" cnj lo 


CO Cn 


O O CO o 


CO o 


lo ro 


•— i — l ri O 


CNJ <—< 


CO O ro 


CO co 




«=r i-H 


•d- •— < 


1— 1 .— 1 


C\J 



.2 £ 



lo r-- 


CO LD 


cn o cn co 


CO CO 


ohcoo 


CO r-H 


CO O 


Cn LO 


HH nc\j 


r-. ro 


•— - CO CU CTi 


CO CNJ 


ro ro 


■— 1 


i—i ro .—. 


*3- — ■ 


OCVJ r-( 


t— « ro 



cnj cnj •— . ro lo *d- lo <d- <a*ro 
r--.CNjcncNjLO<NjLOco coo 

ro i—i .-h «3r t— ■ Oro 



3 
© 



.22 * 

Q £ 

J3 



o 2 



in cm n Oi rH id rorv 
O^rv <^ fot\io uDrH 
m h ^j- noifo cn oo 



HHOHM^ COCO 

lo cnj cn lo lo o Or-- 

>H Oi «^ LD -y rH HIT) 



IDHfOrtl 



CO <zt U3 O ■ 



.CO r-- LO 



LO CNj 


CO o 


OCn r-C5t 


.-H CO 


*r r^ lo o 


en r- 


CT> CO 


LO r- . 


O ^ CvjO> 


CNJ LO 


r-- Cn CO "=t 


o ro 


CNJ «-H 


CX> *3" 


«=t O CNJ 


<3" ro 


o ro cnj t-H 


ro lo 



cn en 

CO LO 
CNJ LO 


-H CO 

vO <d" 

CO CO 


lo *^r co co 

ro O ^ CO 


ro cn 

CO CJ 

p-. en 


CO lo o ro 

en n <t n 
cnj co CO lo 


CO en 
ro o 


ro en 


O *d" 


•*M coco 


cm ro 


«3- lo ro cnj 


co en 



cnj r-^ 

CNJ LO 



IDOO^N 


LD o 


LO LO CO CO 


O LD 


O LO LO O 
CNJ ,— I CNJ CNJ 


LO O 
CNJ CNJ 


r-- O <3" LO 
<— » CNJ «— i «— 1 


r- O 

•—I CNI 



^<ro-- <i— <Lor^-cn r-.o 
roNNCTiijDfOfHCO cocn 
t— » i--. «d- co i— < lo ro r-»0 



IXlDr-lrHfOCM^O r^Cn 

OcorocNjcn^HcnLO cnjlo 

COCOOrOt-HCOLOCNJ CNJCNJ 



LO CNJ CO CO 



cnji— tr-^i— tro^d-LDrn lo lo 



.5 > 

(/J _2 



3 

Q 



co lo <— < ld en cn 



2 o 



LO o 

LO LO 



. CO LO LO <— i «3" 



r-- r-- CO ld r-. cnj cnj lo 

cONcooom coco 

CNJ i— i i— « O O LO «^j-r^ 

n-- cnj «ht cnj cn co or-- 



en r- 


Ol -— < 


cnj 1*-- i— i r-- 


ro *j- 


CNJ CO 


r--. lo 


f— I <=J- CNJ CNJ 


co r--. 


CO -=3" 


o co 


on »— i cnj *a- 


i— 1 LO 



*3- «— ) O ro lo ^j- 



O O ro cnj lo <— t 



ro i— < lo «a- CO LO 

r^. r^ cnj cnj cn^ cn 

rj- lo cnj ro LO CO 

r- CO «3" co .— i .— « 



COCnOCNJLOCNJVO'— < OCNJ 



r-.r-.^r^^tLOO'^r loco 

NHLflN^DaiPOrH CNJO 
LOO^ONOiNCO LO Cn 



i— « i— < cn LO ro 



lo cnj i— i cn 



^ ^ 







a. 


ft» 


M 






u 


Q 


„c 


</) 


ft! 


if) 


> 


t ] 



i lo ro en cnj 



CO LO r-. en ^j- LO 


en .-» 


LO ro 


^ CNJ CNJ f-H CNJ 


en lo 


LO CNJ 



O ro CO O ro ro 



en CNJ CO O CNI CNJ 



© 

z 

c 



< 

c 

(S 



» — 



CO LO LO c-. r-. LO 


O CO 


co -=*- 


LO iO 


LDHfOO 


CO i— I 


LO •— 1 LO i— 1 «^- 


CO CO 


en lo 


CO CNJ 


r-H CO ro 


en, ro 



^j- LO 


en r^ co co 


r-. o 


CTi LO ^ LO 


ro cnj 


ro lo 


ro cn CTx 


ro o 


cnj lo lo cn 


cn lo 


«— i 


i— H 


CNJ <— < 


^ CNJ 


^- ro 



co*^r cnLor~-.LOCNjcNj 

•^T CNJ CNJ LO CNJ 



OCNjrOCNJCNjOOLO LOO 

rOiHCvJLDNr-<«3T)- LOCNJ 
^H .— < CO ^-i 



e: 



LOLor--OLoro r-co 
lo »— i r^- cnj ro lo r--co 

C0CNJ*3-CNjr--CNJ OLO 



^ ro 


*3" LO 


lo <3- <^|- cn 


cn co 


O LO 


.— < CNJ 


r-- ^-« <d- O 


r-t CNJ 


LO CO 


r-H <d" 


cnj i—i r-. co 


o ^- 



cnj ro co lo o cn 
r-. CO O lo CO ro 
*d- co co cnj r-. i— t 



i— (■— <rocNjLoroLOLO locnj 
-— iOOCOOOlOlO OOlO 
<-i i— icororOi-HLOCNj COCO 



™C 


« 


ft) 


u 


> 


o 


u 


M 





V 

M 


o 


< 



IS) 

ftl 
DC 



.2 .a* 
at «^ 



u 



ocouoLOcno r^LO 



<— I O CNJ «3" LO LO COCNJ 



_c LOLOcn«^-LOco oco 
oo ■- r-ocncOLOO "^-cn 

■^T3 T-HCOLOCNJCnCO coco 



CJ 



> s: > 2: 



ro CO 


lo r-- 

CO LO 


LO r^ CO LO 


r- O 


r— r~- lo lo 


<d- <^J- 


CNJ ^f 


O CNJ CD CO 
CNJ t-H CO CNJ 


LO <d" 
CNJ CNJ 


^t fH N 0^ 

CNJ CO CNJ CO 


LO CNJ 
cnj ro 



I LO LO r-- CNJ 



O cn 

LO CO 


«^r lo 
ro «^- 


rs«jtors 
ro ro «3- «cr 




r^ ro o cnj 
<^j- lo lo cn 


cn ro 

<H- LO 


CO *-* 
cn o 

CNJ LO 


lo ro 
i— < ro 
ro lo 


co r-- t-h cnj 
ro cnj «3- ^ 
roHO't 


cn cn 
r-- <o> 
ro lo 


LO LO LO CNJ 
CNJ CNJ O CNJ 

O CNJ ^ ^ 


ro <3- 

•^ LO 



> s: > s: > s: 



.— I.— t«3-OOOOOCNJ O •— I 



.ro«3-LOrocn<^-ro *^^-« 



r-vOcnLOr^LOLOCNj con 
LOcocNjrororor--"^- 0«3~ 

t— .1— .OLO^t— ICOCO LO.— I 



> 5: >■ s: >■ s: 



-— 4-> 



156 



♦ cnjloixjcnj^cnjloo oo 

cnj m^j h o^io 



r-. r^ 


cr> co o «3- 


CO co 


m «a- o «3- 


^t co 


i— i <— i 



CO.— •OCX.CO'— 'CTi^CNJCNJ <" CO 

.— i ro i— I 



.2 S 



<3" ■X) 


monn 


co co 


OlDHfO 


co cr» 


CM <t CO «3" 


O CO 


Wroom 


r-. «a- 


lo m 


cr. 


t— t ro 



3 
O 

U 



•S2 o? 









t/i m 

U m 

5 Q 



r^ iDO m r^ CTi 
O t-O <3" CO ^J" t-H 
n hoh <\j co 



i-H i— t CNI 



CO CvJ 


CTt CNI t— < CO 


O 00 


co cr. 


LTl Q> N rH 


CO o 


r^ co 


«± CO o o 


in cr. 








CNJ «=t 


O cvj O ro 


O LO 


ro .— » 


r~t .-H 


CNJ 


O CO 


r-H LO i—t O 


CO CO 


r-~ ro 


vtmOvO 


csj r-* 


cnj ro 


CNJ I— 1 C\J i-h 


cnj «— I 



vD O CT» CM CO i 



lo cr> ro co co lo 

CO CNJ rj- CNJ CNJ LO 
CNJ f— < CO CNJ ex. ro 



cr. co co cr> r^ r-- 

H OlOM CNJ CO 

cnj co r*- co cr. r**. 



OLnc\j--tvOCTic\iLnor-N. Or--. 
COOrOHOLflvOO'vtfO cnj .— i 
CNJt— I CO CNJ CNJ «— If^rH^ rH <xi rv 



LoaiLnrN«H«trooO'H uot— * 

NLnO-HNrvCMLDLOLD CNI CO 
^CMOOOO^CTiOlvtM CT> <3" 



CNJ t— t *3- 



) O LO CO CO 



vOvt(MtHNOOCT>rH(^ 

LOCncO^J-LOLDLO'^-'^- CO 



CNJ CT> CO LO <3" ON 



HLT1NNO HHN, 



co cr. 

.-< CNJ 
CNJ <3- 


O r-. cnj <^- 

CO CO i-H CO 
CO .— t CO CNJ 


CNJ t— < 
<3" CNJ 

cr. «3- 


«-< *a- <=r r^ 

COhOh 


CO LO 

LO CNJ 

co ro 


ON O 
CO CNJ 


CNJ CO i— • CO 


CO CO 
CNJ 


<3- cnj en ro 


ro LO 



O CO 

LO LO 



rOvOU30icD<3"LnrvrHfH hn 

ocrtO^CNjr^cNjr-^roLO cr. <rj- 

CT. CO CD «^- LO .— I CO i— <o«^j- CD CO 

rO.— lcOrO«3-CNJLOCNJcOCO CO CNJ 



CNI CO 

cr. <3- 
o o 



O 



.2 Q 



r-- co 
cnj en 



CO CO O ON ^)N 



r- o cnj <—i cr. 



ILONvjrOLOOCOCMLO COCO 

i cMrHfONi-Hr-imai coo 

CNJ CNJ .-h -qrj- ^J- 



O LO 

lo r-» 

CO LO 



> 



u 



LO CO 


vtNCOO 


CNJ F-^ 


CNJ CO 


CNJ i-H r*s 


<=r r-» 


CO LO 







-^- ^3- cr. cnj ro co 



r-.coco<=3-ror-.CNjcNj 


CO CO 


CNJ CNJ 


LflCNjOlOHHHfO 


O CO 


CT. LO 


•—1 CNJ i— < 


«3" CNI 


CO CNJ 



c 
© 



on 
< 

•a 
c 

M 



Q 7 



CO co 


ro ro cr. o 


CNJ CO 


«^T CNJ 


CO i— 1 LO CO 


CXi *~T 



LO cr. O CO LO CNJ 



HOCONinNNHOn 


i—i ro 


"*fr CO 


hhlt) mm rn h hcvj h 


CO CNJ 


cr. «tf 


«— i 


CNJ .—I 


CNJ .— I 



c 



■o j. 



.-h CTt 


CO r-H O O 


r^ cnj 


LO CO CT> LO 


p-. co 


CNJ i— t 



■5 

c 



r-. cr> 

CO "^ 



co cnj cr. r-. r*» cr. 

"=j- cr. cnj r- c- co 

LO CNJ O CNJ LO LO 



n ocom lo lo 
co «* «^- p-. co i-h 

"=t CNJ CO CNJ CNJ LO 



fOOO'vt'-'vtCNJNCTlrH LOCO 

N Hm rHCO rOCO HLDst CNJt-H 

■—<■—• *3" CNJ 



^ «t n ai o >- icTilo^j-cnj 
r-.cocor~-coo^rocNjrocNj 

CNJi— i^CNJ"^-'— l<=J-CNJLOCO 



O ro 

■^r cnj 



CO -h 

<ct cnj 
CO O 



^h ^H CNJ 



> 






I 4 * 



CM >X> «— « ^O CO O 



ro r — c\] ro kO n 



coroio-Hinon ini 



Vi 

WD 



at 
< 



cnj co cr. co •— i o 



.—I CO 



> s: > s: 



■ r-. lo «=j- lo CO 



ro 


CO 


CM 


r^ 


^ 


o 


CM 


cr> 


LT> 


^H CM 


CM 


CO 


ID 


CM 


en 


^3- 


53- <3" 


<\J 


«* 


CO 


■S- 


CO «3" 


CO 


«sf 


•^r 


CM 


1-1 








1-1 
















to 


o 


^J" 


^ 


Vf) 


ID 


O 


r^ 


CM 


C0 ^H 


CO 


CO 


co 


IT) 




UD 


LO 


t > 


IO 


r>- 


o 


c3 


O-i CTi 


< ) 


m 


' ) 


■- 1 


o 


o> 


CO 


CO 


*t 


CM 


CD 


LT) 


CM O 


CO 


^J 


KO 



CO "* <T> CTi ^j" 



I O «=f CO LO CO CO 



^j-crtr~-cNj<— <oOcolOi— < CT.CO 
cr.cor~--cocNj'— •lococnjcnj cnjco 

CNJ CO rH «-H r-H ^H 



NcomNcvjiHrHcorvvt cnjco 
h kO m co en «m- vj co m o coco 
■M-rHN^ONmcMCOm cO'— i 



> s: > ^ > : 



«=j- cr. 
cr. o 

CO CNJ 



157 



«— ' CNJ CNJ 



r- CO n in CO <Ti rH<j 
oo •— t •— t o r-- cnj o r-- 

n c\j ro 



u3<^corNmcocTnocsjro 



3 


u 



.2 oc 



U M 



W -C 



3 

Q 



_ 4» 

2 o 

O Q- 

H .2 
Q 



CO^CNJlO.— "LOOCTl ,-H «-H 

CNJ«3-CNJ«3-LOi— iLOCTt LO O 

i— * ixnD nrn cnm cnj cnj 



ocsjomroiDtNLn oco 
ttrooLn«jiDcOLn r--o 
cocOrHLriNrvOro r-- lo 



O ^J" «d" o 



^ocMncriCTicri'H vjo t£> 



co cr« «3- «3- co <~o 



0^fc\jcr>or-cT»'X) 

rOr-).HOCO<d-CT.CO 
00^«3-lococticoco 



Oin«3- r-t*fr 



NCMtxitDoor^roo id in 

<J i-HJ r-t(\J rHrH IT) CNJ CT) 
<— I LiD .— i CNJ O ■— H 



LOcn<3-Lor--.LOCNjLO o~» lo 

CNJCNJLJOCNJOO<3-Cn COLO 

>-ocoi£)co*d-r--.r-^co ^-r~^ 



■^-^rcor-.cO'-icjLO oo 

«^-*3-ct«lococo«3-co o «a- 

,_,,_I 1 -H,_, ( _ t ,-- Il _,,-H CNJ r-H 

CNJCOCOCOCTtCNJCNJLO CO "3" 

CMincoair^oirNrH cnj co 

CNjCNjcNjcNjcorocNjcNj n ro 



NairocNJCOOro^ LO LO 

co^3-LOLor---r--criLO O"^ - 

lofococooitnocn o»—h 



<— • <x> cnj ro 



^-HCTiCTirnCNI^CNJLO^CNJ CO CO 
rorONincOQ-iOO't'-H CTild 
t— < «— I C\J i— • LO CNJ 



(NjyDLDroNCOCvjOcciD «3- cnj 
Ln<ju3C\JNCT)Onroo co cnj 
lo ro lo cm <— ic\j o ai ^ in com 



<—> CO CNJ 



lolocnjOlocolocococo 



CO CNJ 



i O CNJ r^ CVJ CTi r)N IDO COCO 



HtoOWfOOlDlflNCO I^O 

LO«3-LOCocNjLOcocNjr--CNj ^t- on 
ON<stcnrorocoLOT-HLOLO co r-* 







LD CO c\nn in to C\J 



a> 


■/J 














> 






iTj 


m lo 


vo o o ro 


CNJ LO 


CO *d- 


Im 










CNJ LO LO 


i—l CNJ 


O ON 


<— 
































© 


M 


_ 












S 


< 


03 


O 


lo ro 


NN COO"! 


r-~ o 


CNJ CTi 


■ 




£ 




CO r-t 


CO r-H CNJ 


r-*- r- 


r- o 


c 


T3 

e 




fN 








,-H ,-H 


o 


H 


r-; 


— 










2 


e 

00 


08 














u 


o 


«tf- «* 


HLO CON 


LO o 


CO MD 


t3 

e 


e 


c 

C 


T 


CM «— i 


lo o ld «— i 


lo r-. 


en o 

CO CNJ 


w 


** — 


■c 










ms 


a. 












> 


c 


a 




r>- p- 


CNJ r-H CNJ LO 


<=d- CO 


LO <— 1 








-o 


O CO 


COCOOlO 


CO LO 


r-». on 


"2 


-a 




e 




en lo «3- 


O «d- 


LO CNJ 


<*t 


c 


< 






* 





oaiLooo.— tcoco coco 
ttnrnincOHOcn lo on 

«— l LO CNJ CO O CO 



. CO LO <~o <3- - 



^■r-iajcoiDtOfHrviDr-i loco 



0) 



t— < LO LO LO CO LO VO CO 



Lr)LOtDC\JNrvN.^D «3- O 



lololoi— 'colo^oocnj or--. 



nfi 


N 


V 


u 


> 


o 


In 


i/> 


© 

© 


< 



LOLOCNj<3-rocncT>«3- co lo 



■"CT^J-rOCOLOCO LO LO 



ro ON ro lO CO lO cnj i 



I LO LO LO 



t/1 

©x 






CNJCNJ^1-LO«^-LO«^-CO "3" >— * 

COCNJOCOCOCn<d-CNJ LOCO 

Hr- 1 CO CO LO COLO COIN. 

.— I i—l CO •—* 



CO O CM rn in id LO O CnJ ON 

<3-«^-r».LOcoLOcocNj en r> 
i— i co co ro i— i *d" lo 



>s>s:>5:>s: >e: 



COLO^-LOrOCOl-OLOOr^ LO«— I 

OCTirOCO HIT) COCNJ Hr- ( LOCO 

CNJ CNJ i—t Hr-IHrH O «* 



> s: >■ s: > : 



> e: > s: 



I— ft) 



158 



A 






CM i— i 


CM CO 


LO LO 


<3" CM «^T CO 


CO «=r 


CO LO 


r-. CO lo lo ■— i 


CM o 


»3- ro 


r-. LO 


cnoot 


en xj- 


CO LO 


ro cnj cm «-h O 


ro cm 


r-t CM 


«— 1 CNJ 


r-H r-H r-H 


CM r-H 


CO r-H 


MHH r-H 



i LO LO CO CM CO CM 

i "d- cnj o ro t—< ^-i 

•— < "JO CM 



.2 S 



C\J CO lO <h CM CO ON r--~ 
LO ro «— i LO «ht "ST f—i^- 

CM C\J vtH CI^CM 



LO CTi 
LO LO 

CO CNJ 



on co lo <d- in ^ 
«^r lo on c\j ^j- co 

LD i— t LO t— I 



en CO 
ro r--. 
ro i— i 



LTHDOOJCO O CO'J COr- 1 coco 

tninoHNCOvotncnco coco 

LO <— < CNJ »-» r-t <\J CO 



3 
O 

U 



en 


o 

00 


5 


On 

r- 


4> 


©v 


J= 




•fc- 


59 


C 


> 


09 


"5 


41 


u 


(*■> 


in 


« 


U. 


u 


M 


^ s 


C 



5 




O 

r-j 


CO ro 
O O 
cr> cnj 


CNJ 
LO 


00 CO 

on on 

cnj on 


a;; 

UT) 


CO «h- 
<3" CO 

-* o 


ro co 

CO CNJ 


CM CM 
LO CM 


r-x lo 
O lo 


o 

CO 


CM 


O LO 

co o^ 
ro co 


r-H LO 

r-x ro 
<h- *h- 


01 




■O 










CVI «— ( 


xj" CNJ 


r-H r-H 


'""' 








1-1 






00 

U 

o 




o 
e 


«— < cr. 

ON O 
CNJ LO 


CNJ 

LO 
I — 


lo on. 
CO o 


CO 


CNJ CNJ 

r-- on 

o <— l 


xfr ON 

co «d- 


CM CO 

CO r-H 


CM 

ro 

LO 


CO 

LD 

LO 


o 

CO 


ro 


ro 
ro 
ro 


-J 

o 

a;: 


LO CM 

lo cn 

LO CO 


4/ 
OX 

< 






CO CM 


in 


CNJ i—t 


LO 


LD «— 1 

CNJ r-H 


CO LD 

^J- r-t 


CM CT^ 


<x> 


ro 


ro 


CM 


o 


LO 


CO o 


c 

09 


0) 


O O 


^ 


lo en 


- 


LO O 


LO CO 


CO O 


o 


r-». 


o 


LO 


<JD 


LO 


CTi CM 




■a 


< 


on lo 


00 


CO on 


LD 


o r- 

CNJ r~l 


CNJ «3" 
CNJ CNJ 


r— t CO 
CM CM 


CM 


CM 
CM 


o 

CM 


CM 


CM 
CM 


CM 
CM 


<Hr LO 



_ 4* 

2 o 



rOr—trOOLOO r-H CO 



vtCOtCOOH CON 

<3" ON LD LD LO LO LOO 

LOCOLOCMLOLO COCO 

ON. CM LO CO CM LO CO CM 



CO «3" 
ro ON 
CM O 



on cr> r-. o *cf co 



Ni£lCOH U1N 

LO CM r-H LO CO CO 

ro LO co *h- lo CD 

CO «3" x± CM C\JN 



CM LO 

lo r-- 
co r-- 



COCMCMLOLOOCMLOxJ-ON CMr-H 
nM-N(^Ol£)COHOst o on 
LO "d" CO r-H CMCMCMr-H LOON 



LO*OLOLOLOCOONr-H*H-LO ON LO 

Lorx<3-cocMCT>r-.ocM^t no 

LOCOr— It-hCOlOLOCMLOCO <t CM 



ONC^HrjOHrJ-^lO LOO 

<ht ON 



■^-LOCMrO«H r C0O s >CMC0<~O LOLO 



cnnnmooistCMHvt rx.ro 

r-HLOLOr— tr— l<H-OCMLOCM "xT f-x 

c\j HCOMNNOJinOH oco 



LO CO ^ r— I t-H 



CO CM CM r-H CO CO 



1 


■a 


z 


in 




o 


4i 


a. 






U 


a 


J= 


V) 


eu 


VI 


> 


M 

u 


h 


v> 


O 





o 




s 


< 


c 


■a 
c 


o 


S3 


Z 


e 

00 


13 


e 


C 


rn 


W 


^o 






> 


c 


s 


■a 
c 



a -r 



ro ro r— i on co 



1-H r-H cm 



LO CO <— I O LO CO t-HLO 

LOONr^-ONCMO Locn 

CTi CM LD CM CM \t r^-ON 

r-H CM 



ro r». 


O ro 


xt r^ r-H r-H 


LO CM 


LO ro 


«* CO 


LO LO 




r-H CM 


r-H CM 


xj- ro 











C-H LO 


LO r-H 


LO CO CO CT> 


on r-- 


n r-. 


LO CO 


r-H CO r-H 


"H- CM 


-J* -J- 









r-- «h- 

LO CM 

cm ro 



r-H O 


CTi CM 


CM LO LO LO 


cr. cm 


CZ> LO 


•— i ON LO ro 


CM «ht 


ro r-H 


CM 



<ht CM 


r-H LO 


•— i cm O ro 


r-H LO 


-3- CO 


ON <h- 


CM LO 


K ro <3- O 


r-H ro 


LO LO 


ON CM 


ro O 


lO\t h-CsJ 


r-H LO 


o r-. 



xH-LOLOCOLOr-Hr— ixj-xHrcO Or~- 
cocolOxJ-cm CM<H-ro roro 

CNJ r-H 



CMx3tCO-h-CMOnlOlOCO«h- 

OLOON<H-LOr-HLOrororo 



r-HrococMLOrxCMr— irocM 
COOrocOLOLOOOONLO 

NfOvtHH 



r-H r-H CO CO 



LO ON CO LO r— IN COCO 



ro r— i cm O ro t 



OiMONOHNNlTiO COO 



"S u 

"^ o 

rU <* 

o < 



C/3 



rococMH-Ost r^-LO 



CMOLOLOCOrx. loco 

r-tCftCM N OO) <d-LO 

CMOOCOxTlOlO iDst 

r— t r-H CO r-H 



ON ON 

r-H -3- 



lo co 
lo xj- 
"5t co 



LO LO 

CO xHr 



CM CO LO LO r-H LO 



lo r-x on lo h- ro 

IDNNN xjr LO 
ON LO LO CM LO CO 



> s: > s; 



CMLOONCMCO«H-ror-.ONLO 



h- in o a\ cm cn coon oouo wn 

inCMCMHNaiCO^^CM COO 

r— i h-n ro cm ro ro cm r— i r-.ro 



:>^>s:>^ >s: 



CZl r— ^-> 



159 



rvcricriro^LnOoO'tCMCOOcriiri n co 

■— i CO .— < *^f CM «d" •— I ,— .,—i,_( uDCTi 



**■ o 

O CO 



COOC\JOrOCNJUT)"^-rOLO CM CO 
■— <r-»ororOr— i no «— t or-- 



O Ol 



3 


U 



Q Z 



Xfi 


s 
a© 


a 




V 


o> 


£ 


u 



UD «— I C\J CO ^f 



OCTicNjoocrtCTirorn^-tLnrvjojCTit^ >X)"^j- 
Or-noroncococNjrNio-HMi^N cm <— i 



ocoNincoLnnon^cooiiNN 



£« 



CC ro 



ro r-- 



r-. en 

00 o 

O *d- 

UD CO 

v£> CM 



.a > 



m 


a 


a. 


u 


(A 


\n 


a 


U. 


u 


D£ 


/*=v 


C 


> 


3 


5! 


Q 



H .2 

Q 



rHOJ^f^HDrvNCOrON^csjcjm Oc\j 



COlDMD^COMHOTN'JnO O CT\ 

ocrintDcxjrocoNOt'ococTicvjin ud^3- 



co I-** 

ro co 
o <=r 



r-- ro 

LT> LD 

h-. ro 



> 



o 
0. 



.2 Q 



u 



iO^ W LT> ^ UD CO N -^ OO 
kJO CM CM CT\ 1— < «3" 

CXI rHfO 



^WOOlDNQ- CO CO CM CM CTt k£> CTs 



O rH 

cn o 

C\J CM 



s 


< 


c 


C 





M 


Z 




-a 





c 


m 


S3 


v© 






> 


c 


S 


c 



D T 



4* »>« 



e S 



1 .— 1 1— 1 c\j ro 



NCOC0LT)CO , a-l£)LnPOCO'£lir)O0N 

CNjO^r^CMLr)«^r--c0Lnc0CNjMDrsj'^- 



UD CM 
C\J KO 



CO —1 
CO ro 
«*■ CO 



CT) CO 

ro <x> 

CSJ CM 



invONCOCOl/INrHiDstin tJDLO 



A 


88 


V 


O 


> 


O 


la 


M 




at 
< 






"3 .5 



owinHtooooifl^-HLncow mco 



^■LDCTiOCriOOOvJOCNJ'— 100^-CTtcO 
N-d-o^mN^--Ha3cO'3-Of f lr^ffi 
w h r~- r-~ c\j •-* 00 c\i -— < 



s-s:5»s>e:s>2:>s:=>: 



CM CO 


— 1 CO 


CTi CM 


cr> *t 


CM 


1-1 


CO «x> 


CM CO 


co r-- 


O CTi 


co ^r 










O ro 




O U") 



160 



RANKINGS FOR THE 33 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED 

July I, 1979- June 30, 1980 





Judicial 




Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 




District Court 






Civil 


Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 


Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Motor Vehicle 


Non-Motor 


Division 


District 
















Vehicle 


I 


1 


2 


4 


4 


29 


25 


14 


i 


2 




2 


22 


18 


16 


23 


33 


2 


2 


1 




3 


16 


9 


15 


7 


7 


24 


,'4 


18 




4 


10 


5 


23 


9 


17 


;■(■> 


22 


11 




5 


32 


7 


19 


26 


14 


il 


21 


27 




6 


13 


32 


27 


li, 


27 


5 


7 


6 




7 


19 


27 


28 


13 


28 


10 


30 


24 




8 


17 


15 


17 


10 


10 


18 


19 


21 


II 


9 


33 


31 


33 


21 


21 


16 


17 


19 




10 


4 


16 


11 


31 


22 


32 


10 


25 




11 


;.'h 


26 


20 


18 


20 


',(] 


11 


5 




12 


24 


20 


6 


1 


3 


7 


2/ 


2 3 




13 


2i 


25 


31 


12 


32 


27 


28 


1? 




14 


26 


6 


8 


25 


16 


11 


,") 


17 




15A 


11 


17 


22 


3 


8 


1 


8 


3 




1 SB 


18 


1 


12 


,'.' 


11 


25 


1 


14 




16 


3 


24 


25 


5 


24 


9 


9 


20 


III 


17 


14 


19 


9 


14 


19 


12 


12 


10 




18 


31 


30 


29 


20 


4 


22 


33 


31 




19A 


5 


12 


18 


11 


5 


2] 


25 


15 




19B 


1 


14 


10 


8 


12 


4 


13 


8 




20 


27 


2 


5 


33 


29 


1/ 


26 


28 




21 


25 


11 


1 


19 


1 


f, 


23 


30 




22 


8 


3 


14 


6 


6 


8 


14 


22 




23 


20 


28 


30 


4 


9 


13 


18 


7 


IV 


24 


9 


33 


26 


27 


31 


28 


4 


29 




25 


12 


13 


13 


28 


23 


,'f, 


20 


9 




26 


30 


22 


2 


17 


18 


n 


'22 


33 




27A 


21 


10 


7 


so 


16 


29 


15 


16 




27B 


7 


8 


21 


2 


2 


3 


16 


13 




28 


6 


21 


3 


24 


26 


16 


6 


4 




29 


15 


23 


24 


15 


13 


23 


il 


26 




30 


29 


29 


32 


!2 


30 


19 


5 


32 



161 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 




District Court 






Civil 




Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Motor Vehicle 


Non-Motor 


District 


County 
















Vehicle 


1 


Carnden 


41 


1 


59 


1 


46 


6 


75 


39 




Chowan 


59 


4 


6 


79 


87 


4 7 


11 


36 




Currituck 


11 


64 


9 


81 


77 


84 


38 


37 




Dare 


9 


2 


21 


08 


44 


78 


15 


64 




Gates 


1 


■:;■ 


7 


77 


91 


4 


9 


1 




Pasquotank 


7 


29 


22 


30 


29 


46 


18 


7 




Perquimans 


5 


70 


10 


85 


74 


15 


27 


6 


2 


Beaufort 


29 


56 


33 


62 


99 


9 


14 


12 




Hyde 


92 


41 


60 


3 


76 


4 3 


78 


2 




Martin 


3 3 


20 


66 


88 


53 


20 


16 


8 




Tyrrell 


13 


31 


3 


4 5 


61 


29 


72 


5 




Washington 


85 


/(., 


78 


73 


24 


34 


24 


3 


3 


Carteret 


42 


36 


53 


44 


27 


76 


94 


86 




Craven 


58 


4 7 


41 


4 1 


43 


68 


70 


49 




Pamlico 


41 


14 


50 


6 


97 


57 


1 


4 




Pitt 


40 


29 


43 


29 


7 


61 


58 


40 


4 


Dupl in 


43 


57 


88 


29, 


79 


17 


84 


42 




Jones 


97 


3 


62 


4 


81 


31 


32 


4 3 




Onslow 


34 


22 


14 


60 


37 


8,6 


65 


27 




Sampson 


8 


10 


31 


29 


25 


48 


66 


53 


5 


New Hanover 


86 


16 


47 


76, 


35 


99 


57 


84 




Pender 


99 


80 


84 


48 


62 


91 


85 


52 


6 


Bertie 


32 


65 


77 


33 


18 


1 


8 


17 




Halifax 


65 


89 


95 


65 


78 


44 


87 


34 




Hertford 


12 


91 


26 


3 7 


73 


35 


10 


25 




Northampton 


27 


86 


54 


61 


65 


13 


6 


14 


7 


Edgecombe 


18 


69 


71 


28 


55 


26 


77 


24 




Nash 


78 


49 


68 


54 


96 


28 


96 


79 




Wilson 


37 


77 


76 


50 


51 


65 


74 


87 


8 


Greene 


48 


38 


57 


8 


60 


19 


91 


81 




Lenoir 


1,8 


JO 


36 


10 


39 


23 


42 


59 




Wayne 


25 


52 


58 


68 


28 


73 


67 


74 


9 


Franklin 


76 


92 


96 


80 


68 


16 


63 


78 




Granville 


8 7 


81 


73 


20 


15 


7 


20 


11 




Person 


79 


85 


90 


82 


82 


22 


23 


22 




Vance 


99 


82 


99 


5 7 


47 


82 


86 


85 




Warren 


11)0 


99 


72 


51 


92 


89 


88 


80 


in 


Wake 


22 


44 


35 


86 


56 


98 


44 


75 


n 


Harnett 


74 


23 


51 


27 


84 


90 


33 


16 




Johnston 


83 


54 


49 


46 


12 


88 


69 


68 




Lee 


81 


98 


67 


87 


87 


02 


2 


10 


12 


Cumberland 


60 


58 


17 


16 


8 


38 


76 


72 




Hoke 


77 


46 


46 


7 


22 


2 


34 


35 


13 


Bladen 


64 


/4 


85 


24 


32 


56 


93 


67 




Brunswick 


9 1 


71 


7 9 


40 


90 


95 


96 


70 




Col umbus 


63 


48 


87 


52 


88 


72 


31 


1 < 


11 


Durham 


69 


21 


28 


71 


45 


42 


81 


55 


15A 


Alamance 


31 


50 


56 


19 


26 


10 


35 


19 


191'. 


Chatham 


19 


13 


55 


34 


4 8 


5 


3 


26 




Orange 


1,6 


19 


27 


71) 


33 


04 


39 


51 


lh 


Robeson 


10 


28 


38 


17 


50 


9, 


46 


73 




Scotland 


/I 


97 


94 


49 


94 


45 


21 


47 



162 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED 

July 1, 1979 — June 30, 1980 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 




District Court 






Civil 


C 


riminal 


Civil 


Criminal 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Motor Vehicle 


Non-Motor 


District 


County 
















Vehicle 


17 


Caswel 1 


96 


33 


25 


74 


89 


41 


28 


48 




Rockingham 


21 


72 


30 


38 


71 


33 


36 


23 




Stokes 


17 


18 


39 


21 


36 


21 


47 


63 




Surry 


52 


34 


32 


53 


16 


53 


68 


44 


18 


Guil ford 


89 


84 


74 


59 


9 


64 


99 


95 


19A 


Cabarrus 


45 


61 


52 


39 


31 


83 


90 


29 




Rowan 


14 


27 


48 


43 


6 


30 


40 


66 


19B 


Montgomery 


16 


6 


8 


58 


64 


75 


39 


65 




Randolph 


6 


67 


42 


23 


30 


3 


52 


18 


20 


Anson 


73 


8 


20 


96 


93 


37 


29 


38 




Moore 


93 


11 


4 


78 


2 3 


41) 


43 


69 




Richmond 


84 


26 


34 


94 


98 


1,9 


inn 


99 




Stanly 


75 


24 


29 


97 


75 


59 


22 


57 




Union 


49 


4 3 


11 


69 


52 


49 


80 


77 


21 


Forsyth 


62 


37 


12 


56 


3 


/5 


73 


89 


22 


Alexander 


55 


40 


19 


9 


63 


85 


17 


58 




Davidson 


61 


55 


70 


42 


11 


12 


62 


82 




Davie 


4 


7 


5 


5 


10 


74 


54 


21 




Iredel 1 


19 


9 


18 


31 


17 


32 


48 


50 


23 


Al leghany 


70 


45 


75 


18 


5 


8 


4 


33 




Ashe 


98 


78 


44 


11 


13 


52 


19 


9 




Wilkes 


36 


73 


92 


36 


38 


62 


79 


41 




Yadkin 


3 


96 


64 


13 


19 


18 


59 


46 


24 


Avery 


2 


87 


82 


64 


54 


71 


26 


92 




Madison 


47 


100 


65 


2 


83 


39 


51 


96 




Mitchell 


50 


51 


2 


100 


100 


63 


13 


83 




Watauga 


20 


90 


23 


89 


42 


9 3 


37 


28 




Yancey 


88 


95 


98 


66 


34 


70 


12 


93 


25 


Burke 


54 


15 


37 


75 


14 


87 


60 


60 




Caldwell 


30 


39 


45 


72 


86 


67 


61 


76 




Catawba 


23 


53 


40 


83 


70 


66 


64 


15 


26 


Mecklenburg 


80 


60 


13 


55 


49 


100 


97 


98 


27A 


Gaston 


53 


35 


24 


84 


41 


79 


55 


54 


27B 


Cleveland 


26 


62 


80 


12 


4 


24 


45 


45 




Lincoln 


35 


5 


1 


14 


1 


11 


71 


30 


28 


Buncombe 


24 


59 


16 


67 


67 


51 


30 


20 


29 


Henderson 


39 


12 


15 


22 


2 


80 


98 


61 




McDowell 


46 


63 


6 3 


35 


66 


54 


83 


94 




Polk 


82 


94 


83 


32 


20 


65 


92 


56 




Rutherford 


38 


4? 


61 


47 


72 


50 


56 


62 




Transylvania 


56 


93 


91 


90 


85 


77 


53 


31 


30 


Cherokee 


90 


75 


86 


95 


21 


96 


41 


91 




Clay 


57 


17 


69 


19 


58 


27 


89 


32 




Graham 


67 


66 


97 


92 


40 


58 


87 


71 




Haywood 


72 


88 


81 


63 


69 


14 


50 


100 




Jackson 


94 


79 


93 


99 


80 


60 


7 


90 




Macon 


28 


83 


100 


93 


95 


81 


5 


97 




Swa i n 


91 


68 


99 


91 


59 


97 


49 


88 



163 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 2417 



* 



Date Due 



J*^2JJ^_^ 































































































































BRODART, INC 


Cat No ; 


»3 233 p r 


nled in S A