ONE PURPOSE OF FRIEDMAN AND PERCIVAL'S SURVEY WAS TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS THAT OVER TIME TRIAL COURTS HAVE DONE LESS WORK IN SETTLING DISPUTES AND MORE WORK OF A ROUTINE, ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE. THE DATA IS INTERPRETED BY THE AUTHORS AS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THIS HYPOTHESIS. THIS STUDY EXAMINES FRIEDMAN AND PERCIVAL'S DATA FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE THAT INVOLVES AN EXAMINATION OF THE MEASURES OF THE COURT FUNCTION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACTIVITY OF THE COURTS OVER TIME. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COURTS TO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT RANGE FROM DEFINING NORMS THAT INFLUENCE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS TO AN AUTHORITATIVE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AFTER FULL ADJUDICATION. ANY GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF COURTS TO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SHOULD CONSIDER THE FULL RANGE OF JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTIONS. THIS SHOULD INCLUDE MEDIATIVE AS WELL AS ADJUDICATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS. ONE REASON FRIEDMAN AND PERCIVAL'S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE DIMINISHMENT IN THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACTIVITY OF TRIAL COURTS ARE OVERSTATED IS BECAUSE THEY NEGLECT THE MEDIATIVE ACTIVITY OF JUDGES AND COURT STAFFS. IN FOCUSING ON RATES OF CASES PER 1,000 ADULTS RATHER THAN ON THE NUMBER OF CASES OF A GIVEN TYPE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CASES FILED, THIS STUDY DIFFERS FROM THAT OF FRIEDMAN AND PERCIVAL'S IN ITS EFFORT TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PUBLIC USES THE COURTS TO SETTLE DISPUTES. THIS APPROACH SHOWS THAT SINCE 1890, THERE HAS BEEN A MARKED INCREASE IN THE RATE OF FAMILY AND TORT ACTIONS AND A SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE IN THE RATE OF CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LITIGATION IN THE COUNTIES STUDIED (ALAMEDA AND SAN BENITO). THESE CHANGES IN THE RATE OF THE PUBLIC'S USE OF THE COURTS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF CASES CAN BE EXPLAINED FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF A NUMBER OF LEGAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHANGES OVER TIME. RATHER THAN DIMINISHING OVER TIME, THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT FUNCTION OF THE COURTS MAY SIMPLY CHANGE ITS FORM ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY NEEDS. TABULAR AND GRAPHIC DATA AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)