It’s time again for SCOWstat’s annual prediction of the number of decisions that the supreme court will file by the end of its term this summer.  Using the court’s customary pace of work as a guide for assessing the information currently available, we can estimate the final total with confidence.[Continue Reading…]

This week’s decision in Allen Gahl v. Aurora Health Care delivered no points to any of the league’s teams—hence, no change in the standings.

This week the Waivers narrowed the gap between them and the first-place Writs, gaining 10 points from von Briesen & Roper for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Green Bay Professional Police Association v. City of Green Bay. 

Click here for the complete standings (which do not include Neil J. Rennick v. Teleflex Medical Incorporated, where the court failed to reach a decision).

This week’s sole decision—DEKK Property Development, LLC v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation—delivered five points to the Waivers by means of a brief and oral argument from von Briesen & Roper.  As a result, the Waivers edged ahead of the Gavels into second place.

Click here for the complete standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 305 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1940, and August 31, 1941.  The total of 305 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and the like.  In particular, cases are not included if they were decided during the previous term but appeared in the search results because motions for reconsideration were not rejected until 1940-41.  Also excluded are lawyer disciplinary rulings.   

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: (1) Nayes v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. (237 Wis. 141) and Nayes v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. (237 Wis. 146); (2) In re Hahto’s Estate and In re Laus’s Estate; (3) In re Wisconsin Power & Light Co. and In re Condemnation by Wisconsin Power & Light Co.

Nick v. American Lumber & Mfg. Co. resulted in a 3-3 split and is not included.

According to Portraits of Justice. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s First 150 Years, “[i]n 1940, [Justice George] Nelson became ill and was unable to attend court.  He resigned in December 1942.”  During the 1940-41 term he is listed as the author of only five majority opinions (decided in October and November of 1940), which raises the question of whether he participated in later cases.  He is not listed as “taking no part”—as are other justices on the rare occasions when they did not participate—but it seems doubtful that he was involved in most of the 242 cases decided after November 1940.  Thus, many of the (apparently) 7-0 decisions may actually have been 6-0.  I have included Justice Nelson in the “Distribution of Opinion Authorship” table, but he does not appear in any of the others.

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.

This week’s decisions removed any doubt as to the preeminent team during the first half of the season.  The league-leading Writs—especially Cannon & Dunphy and Habush, Habush & Rottier—towered over the rest of the field, as detailed below.  Among the other teams, the Gavels from the State Public Defender’s Office made the most noise and strengthened their hold on second place.

Click here for the complete standings.

The Writs: 22 points.
11 points from Cannon & Dunphy for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in ACUITY v. Estate of Michael Shimeta and one point for an amicus brief in Beatriz Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority.
10 points from Habush, Habush & Rottier for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Banuelos.
1 point from Godfrey & Kahn for an amicus brief in ACUITY.

The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office: 5 points.
5 points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Jovan T. Mull. 

The Waivers: 2 points.
1 point from Quarles & Brady for an amicus brief in Banuelos.
1 point from von Briesen & Roper for an amicus brief in Banuelos.

Coverage of this spring’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election has included assertions that a victory by Janet Protasiewicz would provide the court with a liberal majority for the first time since the tenure of Justice Louis Butler (2004-05 through 2007-08).^[1]  Such statements invite us to explore two questions:  How “liberal” was the Butler court, and how might it compare in this regard with the court in 2023-24, following the replacement of Justice Patience Roggensack with Justice Protasiewicz?[Continue Reading…]

This week’s pair of decisions rewarded the Waivers and the Gavels, as detailed below.  The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office were the big winners, jumping over both the Affirmed and the Waivers into second place behind the idle Writs.

The Gavels: five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle.

The Waivers: one point from Henak Law Office for an amicus brief in State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr.

Click here for the complete standings.

One of the decisions filed this week—Secura Supreme Insurance Company v. The Estate of Daniel Keith Huck—yielded points for two teams, as detailed below.  The Writs, powered primarily by Habush, Habush & Rottier, solidified their position at the top of the standings, while Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen moved the Affirmed ahead of the idle Gavels into third place.

Click here for the complete standings.

The Writs: 13 points.
Habush, Habush & Rottier, 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.
Cannon & Dunphy, 2 points for an amicus brief and oral argument.
Godfrey & Kahn, 1 point for an amicus brief.

The Affirmed: five points.
Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, five points for a brief and oral argument.