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

For their brief and oral argument in Sheboygan County v. N. A. L., the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office gained five points—strengthening their position atop the standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 253 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1916, and August 31, 1917.  The total of 253 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges.[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.

In the aftermath of this week’s post “Are Petitions for Review Taking Longer to Decide?” I’ve been struck by the frustration conveyed privately by attorneys over the handling of petitions for review.  Along with their concern over delays in granting petitions (the subject of the aforementioned post), they also shared anecdotal impressions that the court is taking an even longer, perhaps much longer, time to deny petitions. [Continue Reading…]

Today’s topic arrived from a reader who practices regularly at the supreme court (and prefers to remain anonymous).  The question—said to be widespread among seasoned appellate attorneys—stems from their impression that the court is taking an unusually long time to process petitions for review.  I am grateful for research suggestions, and in this instance we can make some headway.[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.

Efforts to measure the influence of individual justices have employed a variety of methods over the years.  Ranging from simple calculations of the frequency with which justices appear in majorities to the number of law review citations of their opinions, these techniques all reveal significant information.  They also have limitations.  Regarding law-review citations, for instance, longevity alone often accounts for much of a justice’s total.  More importantly, these totals do not differentiate between a trivial note and an extended discussion—to say nothing of positive, negative, or neutral characterizations of a justice’s work.  As for frequency in majorities, such percentages distinguish little between members of a bloc who almost always vote together (a common phenomenon in recent years).  So, let’s enlist artificial intelligence—Anthropic’s Claude—and see how it copes with the challenge of gauging a justice’s clout.[Continue Reading…]