Although proponents of unification continue to disagree on some details, they do concur that five components are necessary for a unified court system. The components include a consolidated court structure, centralized management of the court system, centralized rulemaking, unitary budgeting, and State financing of the courts. According to reformers, a nonunified system frustrates efforts to manage effectively and imperils uniform justice. To measure levels of court unification, the index developed by Berkson was used in the present study. Berkson computed the court unification scores for the index by first identifying four elements of court unification: consolidation, centralized rulemaking, centralized management, and State financing. Four measures were then devised to determine State scores for each element. Data developed using Berkson's methods were used to test several hypotheses derived from claims about the advantages and disadvantages of unification. For example, the findings failed to support the claim that unification requires large initial outlays for construction. Considering all the findings, it was concluded that empirical research fails to substantiate many of the claims advanced by proponents and opponents of court unification. Findings also suggested that the individual elements of court unification, and not the overall level of unification, affect court performance. Results suggested the feasibility and utility of additional studies using the same approach, incorporating previously collected data. Three tables and 19 footnotes are provided.