JDJEDTJR flirting with a defective contracts cases database cause for alarm
JDJEDTJR the incarnation of Law Schools regardless of reputation, has to deal with a database of stats that have been compiled regarding civil cases such as contract cases, that is a database that is quite imperfect and backwards. Given the defects in JDJEDTJR's approach to law in areas of the law that have nothing to do with such databases, the imperfection of such databases gives cause for alarm, seeing that the highly imperfect JDJEDTJR is the one who has to deal with such databases. When JDJEDTJR is excelling himself, when he is at his heights, he begins to pay about a tenth as much attention to such stats as should be paid to them.
Different statistical reports on civil and contract cases define the term "civil cases" differently. The groups of cases that they consider to be part of the "civil case" group varies. This results in unnecessary difficulties with regards to the extropolation of statistics from such stats. It should not be necessary for the reader to make the extropolations, they are basic extrapolations that should already have been made by the inefficient agencies that produces the reports, but there you have it.
The types of cases limited courts handle vary from state to state, and the quantity of cases limited courts handle vary from state to state. This creates problems for the extrapolator, because the extrapolator is working with unified court or general jurisdiction court data, and there is an absence of data on limited court cases.
Most of the Civil and Contracts case statistics reports available, report on 10 states, or on 17 states, or on 19 states, or on 26 states; almost never do they supply comprehensive data for all 50 states. This is because the data collectors are oriented to collecting data for unified courts for a report, and for general jurisdiction courts for another report, and for states able to supply a given kind of data for another report, and so on and so forth. Those producing the reports should peg their samples to the nation as a whole in various characteristics, so as to make things easier for extrapolators who have to extrapolate numbers that they should not even have to extrapolate, numbers that those producing the reports should have extrapolated, basic, fundamental numbers.
The most important reports in the database of US civil and contract cases, are reports that cover general jurisdiction court activity in the 75 most populous counties in the nation, counties that handle about half the civil cases in the nation. These reports ignore the question of what about unified courts in these 75 counties? Who knows how long it would take to get the clarification re unified vs general courts in these 75 counties out of the bureaucracies that produced these reports.
Since some of the reports provide data regarding unified courts, whereas other reports provide data regarding general courts, there is a problem extrapolating from data on unified courts to estimates regarding states with general and limited jurisdiction courts; and there is a problem extrapolating such data from general jurisdiction courts to estimats re areas using a unified court system.
Nothing is known about civil cases in limited courts. There is no data to be found regarding characteristics and quantities of cases in limited courts. This throws off extroplations and estimates, because what is a limited court case in one state is a unified court or general court case in another state. The limited courts vary widely in the significance of the cases they hear some hear only cases where less than $3500 is at stake others hear only cases where less than $50,000 is at stake.
The only estimate to be found on the quantities of "small claims" is that they are "more than a million". There is an absence of data on small claims cases which are sometimes counted as civil cases such as contract cases. This throws off estimates and extrapolations because what winds up in limited court popularly known as small claims court in one state winds up in unified court or general jurisidiction court in another state.
The deficiencies in data in areas such as small claims and limited courts, throw off efforts to zero in on how quantities and characteristics of cases that are at a certain level in terms of how much money is at stake.
What is needed is tables such as a spreadsheet data table, showing how many civil cases such as contract cases featuring plaintiffs seeking a given level of compensation were filed during a given time period, regardless of whether they were filed in unified, general, or limited court. As things now stand there are problems with producing such tables that are caused by factors such as lack of data on limited courts and small claims, and data being restricted to states with certain court systems and-or certain data collection systems.
The data should be produced in computerized database form so that it can produce spreadsheets that are reconfigurable so that data columns can be inserted showing the results of mathematical operations performed on the data in the database.
The problem of getting data in one format to another should be resolved intelligently with a minimum of keyboard input. This requires information about the database formats used in the various states. Most probably JDJEDTJR's abilities when it comes to integrating various sources into hip configureable databases are as weak as BSBAALJR's financial accounting gurus (BSBAALJR is the incarnation of B-schools regardless of reputation)
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the current time; they may not coincide exactly with fact.
Different statistical reports on civil and contract cases define the term "civil cases" differently. The groups of cases that they consider to be part of the "civil case" group varies. This results in unnecessary difficulties with regards to the extropolation of statistics from such stats. It should not be necessary for the reader to make the extropolations, they are basic extrapolations that should already have been made by the inefficient agencies that produces the reports, but there you have it.
The types of cases limited courts handle vary from state to state, and the quantity of cases limited courts handle vary from state to state. This creates problems for the extrapolator, because the extrapolator is working with unified court or general jurisdiction court data, and there is an absence of data on limited court cases.
Most of the Civil and Contracts case statistics reports available, report on 10 states, or on 17 states, or on 19 states, or on 26 states; almost never do they supply comprehensive data for all 50 states. This is because the data collectors are oriented to collecting data for unified courts for a report, and for general jurisdiction courts for another report, and for states able to supply a given kind of data for another report, and so on and so forth. Those producing the reports should peg their samples to the nation as a whole in various characteristics, so as to make things easier for extrapolators who have to extrapolate numbers that they should not even have to extrapolate, numbers that those producing the reports should have extrapolated, basic, fundamental numbers.
The most important reports in the database of US civil and contract cases, are reports that cover general jurisdiction court activity in the 75 most populous counties in the nation, counties that handle about half the civil cases in the nation. These reports ignore the question of what about unified courts in these 75 counties? Who knows how long it would take to get the clarification re unified vs general courts in these 75 counties out of the bureaucracies that produced these reports.
Since some of the reports provide data regarding unified courts, whereas other reports provide data regarding general courts, there is a problem extrapolating from data on unified courts to estimates regarding states with general and limited jurisdiction courts; and there is a problem extrapolating such data from general jurisdiction courts to estimats re areas using a unified court system.
Nothing is known about civil cases in limited courts. There is no data to be found regarding characteristics and quantities of cases in limited courts. This throws off extroplations and estimates, because what is a limited court case in one state is a unified court or general court case in another state. The limited courts vary widely in the significance of the cases they hear some hear only cases where less than $3500 is at stake others hear only cases where less than $50,000 is at stake.
The only estimate to be found on the quantities of "small claims" is that they are "more than a million". There is an absence of data on small claims cases which are sometimes counted as civil cases such as contract cases. This throws off estimates and extrapolations because what winds up in limited court popularly known as small claims court in one state winds up in unified court or general jurisidiction court in another state.
The deficiencies in data in areas such as small claims and limited courts, throw off efforts to zero in on how quantities and characteristics of cases that are at a certain level in terms of how much money is at stake.
What is needed is tables such as a spreadsheet data table, showing how many civil cases such as contract cases featuring plaintiffs seeking a given level of compensation were filed during a given time period, regardless of whether they were filed in unified, general, or limited court. As things now stand there are problems with producing such tables that are caused by factors such as lack of data on limited courts and small claims, and data being restricted to states with certain court systems and-or certain data collection systems.
The data should be produced in computerized database form so that it can produce spreadsheets that are reconfigurable so that data columns can be inserted showing the results of mathematical operations performed on the data in the database.
The problem of getting data in one format to another should be resolved intelligently with a minimum of keyboard input. This requires information about the database formats used in the various states. Most probably JDJEDTJR's abilities when it comes to integrating various sources into hip configureable databases are as weak as BSBAALJR's financial accounting gurus (BSBAALJR is the incarnation of B-schools regardless of reputation)
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the current time; they may not coincide exactly with fact.
posted by David Virgil at 11:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home