State Court Litigation Procedures

State courts handle the vast majority of litigation in the United States. Unlike federal courts' uniform FRCP, state courts follow their own rules that vary significantly. Some states closely mirror federal procedures; others have substantial differences. Understanding state court procedures requires knowing both general patterns and specific state variations. Before providing state court guidance, identify the specific state—procedures differ meaningfully between California, New York, Texas, Delaware, and others.

State Court System Structure

State court systems typically have multiple levels. Trial courts (often called superior courts, circuit courts, district courts, or courts of common pleas depending on state) handle initial proceedings, trials, and initial decisions. Intermediate appellate courts (often called courts of appeal) review trial court decisions. Highest courts (supreme courts) provide final review, though many cases don't reach this level.

Limited jurisdiction courts (small claims, municipal, justice of the peace) handle smaller matters with simplified procedures. General jurisdiction courts handle larger cases with full procedures. Understanding which court has jurisdiction matters—procedures, rules, and practices differ.

State court judges are typically elected (some states) or appointed (others), with varying terms and selection methods. This can affect judicial philosophy, case management styles, and local practices. State court judges often have heavier caseloads than federal judges, affecting scheduling and case management.

State Pleading Standards

State pleading standards vary significantly. Many states still use notice pleading—complaints need only give notice of claims, not detailed factual allegations. This is more lenient than federal plausibility standard. However, some states (like Delaware for certain corporate matters) have heightened pleading requirements.

Fact pleading states require more detailed allegations. These states demand specific facts supporting each element of claims. Complaints in fact-pleading states are longer and more detailed than notice-pleading states.

Special pleading requirements exist for certain claims. Fraud, for example, often requires particularity even in notice-pleading states. Professional malpractice may require expert affidavits with complaints. Understanding state-specific requirements prevents dismissal.

Answer requirements vary. Some states require specific responses to each numbered paragraph; others allow general denials. Affirmative defenses must typically be pleaded or waived. Counterclaims and cross-claims have specific timing and pleading requirements.

State Discovery Procedures

State discovery is often broader than federal discovery. Many states allow discovery of anything "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence" without federal-style proportionality limits. This can make state discovery more extensive and expensive.

Initial disclosures are not universal in state courts. Many states don't require automatic disclosures—everything must be requested. This means state discovery requires more active requests and can be less efficient than federal initial disclosures.

Deposition procedures vary. Some states limit deposition time (like federal 7-hour rule); others don't. Some states require court approval for depositions; others don't. Non-party deposition procedures differ. Understanding local deposition practices matters.

Document production procedures vary. Some states have detailed ESI (electronically stored information) rules; others don't. Format requirements, cost allocation, and preservation obligations differ. State courts are often less sophisticated about ESI than federal courts.

Expert discovery varies enormously. Some states require written reports (like federal Rule 26); others don't. Some states allow broader expert discovery; others are more restrictive. Expert deposition rules differ. Understanding state expert discovery is critical for cases relying on experts.

Discovery deadlines are often less structured than federal. Many state courts don't set firm discovery cutoffs early in cases. Discovery can continue closer to trial. This affects motion practice timing and trial preparation.

Discovery disputes resolution varies. Some state courts actively manage discovery; others are more passive. Motion practice for discovery disputes differs. Some states have specialized discovery masters or referees; others don't.

State Motion Practice

State motion practice standards and procedures vary significantly. Understanding local practices is essential.

Motions to dismiss standards differ. Notice-pleading states have lower dismissal standards than federal plausibility. Many state courts are reluctant to dismiss, preferring to let cases proceed to discovery. This makes state court dismissals less common than federal.

Summary judgment standards and frequency vary. Some states mirror federal summary judgment (no genuine dispute of material fact); others are more restrictive. Some state courts grant summary judgment frequently; others rarely do, preferring jury resolution. Understanding local summary judgment practices affects case strategy.

Motion timing varies. Response times differ (often 15-30 days, but varies). Some states have strict motion cutoffs before trial; others allow motions closer to trial. Understanding local motion deadlines is critical.

Motion formats vary. Some states have detailed formatting requirements; others are more flexible. Page limits differ. Some states require specific motion types for specific issues; others are more general.

Hearing practices vary. Some state courts require hearings on most motions; others decide many motions on papers. Understanding whether hearings are typical or exceptional affects motion strategy.

State Trial Procedures

State trial procedures have both similarities and differences from federal procedures.

Jury selection procedures vary. Voir dire processes differ—some states allow attorney-conducted voir dire; others are judge-conducted. Peremptory challenge numbers differ. Understanding local jury selection practices matters for trial strategy.

Trial presentation styles vary. Some state courts are more formal; others more relaxed. Evidence presentation, witness examination, and exhibit handling differ. Understanding local trial practices helps effective advocacy.

Evidence rules generally follow state versions of rules of evidence, which often mirror federal rules but have variations. Understanding state-specific evidence rules matters for trial preparation and objections.

Jury instructions procedures vary. Some states use pattern instructions extensively; others allow more customization. Instruction timing and process differ. Understanding local instruction practices is important.

Verdict forms and procedures vary. Some states use general verdicts; others prefer special verdicts with specific questions. Understanding local verdict practices affects trial strategy.

State Appeals

State appellate procedures vary significantly. Understanding state-specific appeal processes is essential.

Appeal deadlines vary by state. Typical ranges are 30-60 days from final judgment, but specific deadlines matter. Missing appeal deadlines is usually fatal.

Standards of review generally mirror federal (de novo for legal questions, clear error for facts, abuse of discretion for procedural), but state-specific variations exist. Understanding the applicable standard matters.

Appellate brief requirements vary. Page limits, formatting, citation styles, and content requirements differ. Some states have strict brief requirements; others are more flexible.

Oral argument practices vary. Some states grant oral argument routinely; others rarely do. Understanding local practices affects brief writing strategy.

Appellate court structure varies. Some states have intermediate appellate courts covering the entire state; others have regional intermediate courts. Understanding the appellate structure matters for appeal strategy.

Significant State Variations

California has unique procedures. Complex litigation rules, extensive discovery, active case management, and specialized courts (complex litigation, probate, family) create distinct practices. California discovery is often broader than federal. California summary judgment is less common than federal.

New York has sophisticated commercial courts with specialized procedures. New York discovery can be extensive. New York motion practice is active. New York has specialized commercial divisions in some counties with their own rules.

Texas has distinct procedures. Texas discovery rules differ from federal. Texas has specialized business courts in some areas. Texas appellate procedures have unique aspects.

Delaware is important for corporate litigation. Delaware Chancery Court handles corporate disputes with specialized procedures, no juries, and sophisticated judges. Delaware corporate litigation is highly specialized.

Other states have their own variations. Understanding state-specific procedures requires local knowledge or research into specific state rules.

Key Differences from Federal Courts

State courts generally differ from federal in several ways:

Discovery is often broader in state courts. Many states don't have federal-style proportionality limits. Discovery can be more extensive and expensive.

Pleading standards are often lower in state courts. Notice pleading is common, making dismissals less frequent than federal.

Summary judgment is often less common in state courts. Many state courts prefer jury resolution, granting summary judgment less frequently than federal.

Case management is often less active in state courts. Many state judges have heavier caseloads and less time for active case management. Deadlines may be less firm.

Local practices matter more in state courts. Each county or judicial district may have distinct practices, making local knowledge valuable.

Less uniformity exists across state courts. Federal courts follow uniform FRCP; state courts have varying rules and practices.

When to Verify Specific State Rules

State court procedures vary enough that specific verification is often necessary. Verify state rules when:

Discovery disputes arise—state discovery rules and practices differ significantly.

Motion practice is needed—motion standards, timing, and procedures vary.

Trial approaches—trial procedures, evidence rules, and presentation practices differ.

Appeals are considered—appeal deadlines, procedures, and requirements vary.

Specialized matters (corporate, family, probate, etc.)—many states have specialized courts or procedures.

Multi-state litigation—when cases span states, understanding each state's procedures matters.

Key Numbers

Appeal deadlines: Typically 30-60 days from final judgment (varies by state—verify specific deadline)

Discovery deadlines: Often less structured than federal, may continue closer to trial

Motion response times: Typically 15-30 days (varies by state and motion type)

Deposition limits: Vary by state—some mirror federal 7-hour rule, others don't limit

Interrogatory limits: Vary—some states have limits (often 30-50), others don't

Summary judgment standards: Vary—some mirror federal, others are more restrictive

Jury size: Vary—some states use 6-person juries for civil cases, others use 12

Common State Court Practices

Less formal case management than federal. Many state courts set fewer deadlines early, manage cases less actively, and allow more flexibility.

More local variation than federal. Practices can differ significantly between counties or judicial districts within the same state.

Less ESI sophistication than federal. Many state courts are less experienced with electronically stored information, affecting discovery practices.

More jury trials than federal. State courts often have higher rates of cases proceeding to jury trial.

Less predictable than federal. State court procedures and outcomes can be less predictable due to local variation and less uniform rules.