Who can doubt that technology is supplanting human beings as an arbiter of our endeavors.  Whether replacing baseball umpires calling balls and strikes, HR personnel ranking job candidates, or university professors grading students’ work, such developments are proliferating along with our embrace of artificial intelligence (AI).

Could the day be far off when AI supersedes corporeal judges?  After all, an artificial judge would be incredibly fast, tireless, consistent and, it is said, free of human emotions and biases.  Current US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has likened a good judge to an umpire—a neutral figure who does not let personal penchants shape decisions^[1]—and some may contend that AI can (or soon will) fit that requirement better than humans. 

Indeed, countries around the world are already experimenting with AI to help judges, and AI-assisted arbitration platforms are gaining prominence.  Emboldened by this, let’s try an experiment that enlists Google’s NotebookLM to scrutinize the briefs in Wisconsin Supreme Court cases and appraise the persuasiveness of the parties’ arguments.  Not only can NotebookLM read a set of briefs in just a few seconds, it then explains in considerable detail which party was most convincing.^[2]  Although these “verdicts” are based on the parties’ briefs alone (not oral arguments)—and bearing in mind the familiar cautions associated with AI output of any sort—it should be interesting to compare NotebookLM’s conclusions with the positions taken by each of the seven justices.^[3][Continue Reading…]

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 292 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1924, and August 31, 1925.  The total of 292 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges. 

Cases are omitted if they were decided during the previous term but appeared in the search results because motions for reconsideration were not rejected until 1924-25.  Such cases will be included in the tables for 1923-24.

When two or more cases were, in effect, consolidated—one was simply said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the cases are counted as only one.  For instance: (1) Chicago, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Railroad Com. (187 Wis. 364) and Chicago, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Railroad Com. (187 Wis. 379); (2) Schmidt v. Riess (186 Wis. 574) and Schmidt v. Riess (186 Wis. 587); (3) Ajax Rubber Co. v. Western Petroleum Co. and Goetz v. Western Petroleum Co.; (4) Milwaukee v. Stachelski and Milwaukee v. Rozman.

The tables are available as a complete set and by individual topic in the subsets listed below.

Four-to-Three Decisions
Decisions Arranged by Vote Split
Frequency of Justices in the Majority
Distribution of Opinion Authorship
Frequency of Agreement Between Pairs of Justices

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

An earlier post examined a sample of supreme court decisions from the 1920s that spanned a wide range of concerns.  Today’s post draws from the same years but narrows its focus to the realm of marriage and divorce.^[1]  As with the first post, the cases on marriage and divorce were chosen because their analysis or facts evoke a bygone era.  Although the issues may be recognizable, something about the disputes or the justices’ thinking feels remote—an inevitable consequence of time passing.  Indeed, perusing these sources may tempt one to ponder which cases currently before the supreme court will appear strange, humorous, or regrettable to observers peering back at us a hundred years hence.[Continue Reading…]

This week’s decision in Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission catapulted the Writs all the way from the cellar to second place on the strength of a 13-point performance (8 for a brief and favorable outcome from Pines Bach and 5 for a brief and oral argument from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty).  This would have been enough to put them atop the standings had the Affirmed not collected 8 points for a brief and favorable outcome from Stafford Rosenbaum.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

As SCOWstats ranges back into the 1920s, beyond the point of living memory, cases turn up more frequently that have the aura of curiosities.  Perhaps the facts seem quaint, the issues remote, or the analysis surprising—at any rate, something in the litigation evokes a different era.  Many such cases are to be found among the hundreds processed by the supreme court in these years,^[1] and today’s post offers a small sample covering topics as provocative as the Ku Klux Klan, abortion, a perilous train ride, and a requirement that litigants pay extra for a jury trial.^[2][Continue Reading…]