The Affirmed bolstered their position at the top of the standings this week when O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing contributed 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Karen Elizabeth Morway v. David Seth Morway.

These tables are derived from information contained in 304 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1925, and August 31, 1926.  The total of 304 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges.[Continue Reading…]

The first decision filed during the 2024-25 season delivered a point to the Affirmed via an amicus brief from Stafford Rosenbaum in Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Kristina Secord.

Click here for the current standings.

Eight years ago, a post commented on supreme court decisions filed in 2014/15 and 2015/16 concerning attorneys subject to disciplinary proceedings.  Today, we’ll compare these findings with those for 2022/23 and 2023/24 to see what has changed, and what has not.[Continue Reading…]

After last season’s remarkably close competition—all four teams separated by only six points—the league saw no need to address competitive balance during its autumn meeting.  Thus, with the rosters essentially unchanged, we can anticipate the same spirited competition that distinguished the preceding season.

As in past seasons, scoring summaries will be posted here later this month, with weekly updates following until the season concludes in July.  Meanwhile, click on the corresponding links to view the scoring rules and the full team rosters of competing law firms.

These tables are derived from information contained in 296 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1926, and August 31, 1927.  The total of 296 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions and motions. 

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 1926-27.  Such cases will be included in the tables for 1925-26.

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) First State Bank v. Harrington and Millar v. Waukegan Nat’l Bank; (2) New York Life Insurance Co. v. State and Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. State; (3) Rusczck v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. and Rutkowski v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.; (4) State ex rel. Baxter v. Beckley and State ex rel. Nord v. Baxter; and (5) Stephens v. Wheeler and Walbridge v. Wheeler.

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

Last week’s post examined four aspects of decisions from the supreme courts of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa: (1) the number of decisions filed in 2023-24; (2) the length of these decisions; (3) the number of separate opinions; and (4) the distribution of vote margins.  Today, we’ll see how the supreme courts of Wisconsin’s other two neighbors compare in these regards.[Continue Reading…]

Years have passed since our last comparison of midwestern supreme courts, so let’s return for a look at four indicators: (1) the number of decisions filed; (2) the length of these decisions; (3) the number of separate opinions; and (4) the distribution of vote margins.  As Minnesota and Iowa once served as the starting point for these posts, we’ll begin again with them.[Continue Reading…]

Observers of the US Supreme Court have devised methods for determining which justices author the most consequential majority opinions.  For instance, cases described as unusually “salient,” “significant,” or “important” have been identified by the frequency with which they are mentioned in the New York Times and other media shortly after the decisions are released.  Recently, attorney Bill Tyroler kindly brought to my attention a different technique for assessing the importance of US Supreme Court decisions and wondered if it could be applied credibly to the justices in Madison.[Continue Reading…]

Previous posts^[1] in this series have noted an increase in the number of original-action petitions accepted by the supreme court, and today we’ll see if this trend continued over the past three terms.  Although most cases reach the justices in more leisurely fashion—passing through a circuit court and then the court of appeals before reaching the supreme court—the justices may accept a case as an original action, skipping the lower courts altogether.  Such cases serve as an indication of the court’s priorities and sense of urgency—and, particularly for those who disagree with the decisions, evidence of “judicial activism.”[Continue Reading…]