Nature of matters handled in state courts

Civil cases

The vast majority of non-criminal cases in the United States are handled in state courts, rather than federal courts. For example, in Colorado, in 2002, which is typical, roughly 97% of all civil cases were filed in state courts and 89% of the civil cases filed in federal court were bankruptcies. Just 0.3% of the non-bankruptcy civil cases in the state were filed in federal court.

A large share of all civil cases filed in state courts are debt collection cases. For example, in Colorado, in 2002, about 87% of all civil cases filed in the courts of inferior jurisdiction were debt collection and eviction cases, while in the court of general jurisdiction, about 60% of all civil cases (other than domestic relations and probate cases) were debt collection, foreclosure and tax collection cases. A large share of the balance of civil cases in courts of limited jurisdiction involve temporary restraining orders, typically in non-marital domestic relations contexts, and name change petitions (generally for marriage, divorce or child custody reasons). A large share of the balance of civil cases in courts of general jurisdiction involve divorces, child custody disputes, child abuse cases, uncontested probate administrations, and personal injury cases that do not involve workplace injuries (which are usually handled through a non-judicial workers compensation process).

Many state court civil cases produce quick default judgments or pretrial settlements, but even considering only cases that actually go to trial, state courts are the dominant forum for civil cases.

Essentially all probate and divorce cases are also brought in state court, even if the parties involved live in different states. In practice, almost all real property evictions and foreclosures are handled in state court.

State courts systems always contain some courts of "general jurisdiction." All disputes which are capable of being brought in courts, arising under either state or federal law may be brought in one of the state courts, except in a few narrow cases where federal law specifically limits jurisdiction exclusively to the federal courts. Some of the most notable cases exclusively in federal jurisdiction are suits between state governments, suits involving ambassadors, certain intellectual property cases, federal criminal cases, bankruptcy cases, large interstate class action cases, and most securities fraud class actions. There are also a handful of federal laws under which lawsuits can be pursued only in state court, such as those arising under the federal "junk fax" law. There have been times in U.S. history where almost all small claims, even if they arose under federal law, were required to be brought in state courts.

State court systems usually have expedited procedures for civil disputes involving small dollar amounts (typically under $5,000 to $25,000 depending upon the state court in question), most of which involve collection of small contractual debts (such as unpaid credit cards) and landlord-tenant matters. Many states have small claims divisions where all parties proceed in civil cases without lawyers, often before a magistrate or justice of the peace. Federal courts do not have parallel small claims procedures and apply the same civil rules to all civil cases, which makes federal court an expensive venue for a private party to pursue a claim for a small dollar amount.

Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of "limited jurisdiction", that can only hear the types of cases specified in the Constitution and federal statutes (primarily federal crimes, cases arising under federal law, cases with a United States government party, and cases involving a diversity of citizenship between the parties).

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

In civil cases, all or some of the substantive law issues decided by a state court may be determined under the law of another state or country, if that state's choice of law rules provide for the application of another state's laws. For example, if someone sued a resident of Missouri in a Missouri state court for an automobile accident arising in France because it was not possible to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant in a French court for some reason, the Missouri state court might apply the French law applicable to lawsuits arising from automobile accidents. Similarly, a Missouri state court presented with a Last Will and Testament signed in Florida, might apply Florida law rather than Missouri law to determine if the document was signed with the proper formalities.

Criminal cases

About 91% of people in prison at any given time in the United States were convicted in state court for violating state criminal laws, rather than in federal court for violating federal criminal laws, including 99% of defendants sentenced to death.

The proportion of criminal cases brought in state court rather than federal court is higher than 91% because misdemeanor and petty offense prosecutions are disproportionately brought in state courts and most criminal prosecutions involve misdemeanors and petty offenses. The number of trials conducted in each system is another way to illustrate the relative size of the two criminal justice systems. In Colorado, in 2002, there were approximately 40 criminal trials in federal court, and there were 1,898 criminal trials (excluding hundreds of quasi-criminal trials in juvenile cases, municipal cases and infraction cases) in state courts, so only about 2% of criminal trials took place in federal court. Most jury trials in the United States take place in criminal cases in state courts.

State courts do not have jurisdiction over criminal cases arising on Indian reservations even if those reservations are located in their state. Less serious crimes on Indian reservations are prosecuted in tribal courts. A large share of violent crimes that are prosecuted in federal court arise on Indian reservations or federal property, where state courts lack jurisdiction, since tribal court jurisdiction is usually limited to less serious offenses. Federal crimes on federal property in a state are often defined with reference to state criminal law.

Federal courts disproportionately handle white-collar crimes, immigration-related crimes and drug offenses (these crimes make up about 70% of the federal docket, but just 19% of the state court criminal docket).

Federal courts have the power to bring death penalty charges under federal law, even if they arise in states where there is no death penalty under state law, but the federal government rarely utilizes this right.

Many rights of criminal defendants in state courts arise under federal law, but federal courts only examine if the state courts applied those federal rights correctly on a direct appeal from the conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, after state court direct appeals have been exhausted, or in a collateral attack on a conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding after all state court remedies (usually including a state court habeas corpus proceeding) have been exhausted. Some rights of criminal defendants that apply in federal court do not exist in state court. For example, in many states there is no constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury before facing a criminal prosecution for a felony or infamous misdemeanor. Two states (Louisiana and Oregon) do not require unanimous juries in non-capital criminal cases.

Unlike non-criminal cases, criminal proceedings in state courts are primarily conducted orally, in person, in open court.

Administration

In most, but not all states (California and New York are significant exceptions), the state supreme court or a related administrative body has the power to write the rules of procedure that govern the courts through a rule making process. In a few states, court procedures are largely dictated by state law.

Most states model their general jurisdiction trial court rules closely upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with modifications to address types of cases that come up predominantly in state practice, and model their professional ethics rules closely upon models drafted by the American Bar Association with minor modifications. A minority of states, however, have idiosyncratic procedural rules, often based on the Field Code in place in many states before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. Importantly, neither California nor New York State follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure model.

Typically, state trial courts of limited jurisdiction have generally similar rules to state trial courts of general jurisdiction, but stripped of rules applicable to special cases like class actions and most pre-trial procedures (such as non-court ordered discovery).

Most state supreme courts also have general supervisory authority over the state court system. In this capacity they are responsible, for example, for making budget requests and administrative management decisions for the court system as a whole.

It is not uncommon for justice system functions like assisting indigent parents collect child support, and probation supervision, to be located bureaucratically in the judicial branch, rather than the executive branch. Some states give the judiciary supervisory authority over the law enforcement officers who provide court house security, enforce civil judgments and run the local jail, while reserve these functions for in executive branch governmental officials. Law enforcement officers who are in the judicial branch are typically called bailiffs or marshals. Law enforcement officers who are in the executive branch and serve a state court are often part of the office of the sheriff in the county.