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…]

This week’s decision in Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu commenced scoring for the Waivers, with five points from Troutman Pepper for a brief and oral argument.  The Affirmed remained atop the standings, picking up a point from Stafford Rosenbaum for an amicus brief.

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…]