The Solicitor General’s Ghost

The creation in 2015 of Wisconsin’s Office of the Solicitor General drew vigorous reaction across the political spectrum, for much of the new office’s caseload consisted of challenges to policies of the Obama administration.  Established by the state’s Republican Attorney General (Brad Schimel) during the administration of Republican Governor Scott Walker, the solicitor general’s office was described by Republicans as an essential tool for safeguarding state independence from federal overreach.  “Attorney General Schimel’s interest in joining multistate lawsuits that protect the powers constitutionally delegated to the states is also the people’s interest,” explained Johnny Koremenos, a spokesman for the Walker administration. “There’s nothing frivolous about protecting and preserving the rule of law.”[1]  [Continue Reading…]

Law Firm Fantasy League

This past week the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office added 16 points to their league-leading total (with a brief, oral argument and a 3-3 decision in Portage County v. E. R. R. and a brief, oral argument, and favorable decision in State v. Anthony James Jendusa).  Meanwhile, Reinhart Boerner Van Duren delivered a point to the Waivers with an amicus brief in Portage County v. E. R. R.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

Law Firm Fantasy League

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court Statistics, 1961-62

These tables are derived from information contained in 238 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1961, and August 31, 1962.  The total of 238 decisions does not include rulings arising from various petitions, motions, applications and the like (generally disposed of without oral argument and in short per curiam decisions).[1]

The tables are available as a complete set and by individual topic in the subsets listed below.  Justice Gordon replaced Justice Martin in January of 1962, and Justice Wilkie replaced Justice Broadfoot in May—which is why nine justices appear in the following tables.

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
Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice

[1] Among the omitted items is In re Estate of Todd, a brief deadlocked per curiam decision.

Law Firm Fantasy League

This week Godfrey & Kahn delivered 10 points to the Citations for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Ted Ritter v. Tony Farrow—thereby propelling the Citations into a tie with the Affirmed for second place.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

Law Firm Fantasy League

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

Law Firm Fantasy League

This week’s decisions enabled the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office to pad their lead slightly, with five points for a brief and oral argument in Waupaca County v. K.E.K.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

Law Firm Fantasy League

With seven points from Godfrey & Kahn (for a brief and a partially-favorable outcome in Mohns Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank National Association), the Citations leaped out of the cellar and past the Writs into fourth place—the only scoring generated by the sole decision filed this week.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

Law Firm Fantasy League

This week’s decisions nudged the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office into first place, with five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Brian L. Halverson.  Meanwhile, the Writs broke into the scoring with a point from Pines Bach for an amicus brief in Michael Anderson v. Town of Newbold.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

Fantasy League Update

I received an appeal from a reader regarding the Fantasy-League scoring in Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin.  In a nutshell, his protest contended that Husch Blackwell and Stafford Rosenbaum each won an issue and lost an issue—and that, on the “more important issue,” Husch Blackwell lost.   

So, I asked two appellate lawyers (with no connection to the case) to have a look at the decision with a focus on the question of whether it favored Husch or Stafford.  They agreed that the available information made it difficult to respond confidently—with one preferring not to name a “victor” and the other leaning toward Husch.  Thus, Husch will receive 8 points and Stafford 7—with the standings adjusted accordingly.