This week, the supreme court’s filings delivered 10 points to the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office (for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Langlade County v. D. J. W.). It seems clear that the Gavels are staging a breakaway, and the trailing pack can ill afford to wait much longer to reel them back in.

Click here for complete, updated standings.

The surprising scale of Judge Jill Karofsky’s triumph in April’s election may well immunize her victory from legal challenges spawned by the bizarre circumstances of the voting. Thus, it does not seem premature to speculate on the impact of her arrival among the justices for the 2020-21 term. The likelihood that her opinions will differ dramatically from those of her electoral opponent, Justice Daniel Kelly, invites predictions regarding the justices’ voting in a variety of cases, including their most contentious—those decided by 4-3 votes, which is our topic for today.[Continue Reading…]

Both decisions filed this week resulted in points for contestants. The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office kept their position at the head of the pack with five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Harrison. However, the Affirmed stole the show with ten points from Stafford Rosenbaum for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Pulkkila v. Pulkkila. This performance propelled the Affirmed over both the Citations and the Waivers into second place.

Click here for complete, updated standings.

This week’s decision in Winnebago County v. C.S. delivered a point to the Citations (for an amicus brief by Godfrey & Kahn) and, more dramatically, 10 points to the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome. As a result, the Gavels tightened their hold on first place, and the Citations inched farther ahead of the pack in second.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

The Supreme Court did not file any new decisions this week, and thus there are no changes in the standings.

The Supreme Court did not file any new decisions this week, and thus there are no changes in the standings.

In 2015, during the NCAA basketball tournament, SCOWstats conducted a university contest of another sort by comparing the number of oral arguments delivered at the Wisconsin Supreme Court by graduates of participating law schools. Although the cancellation of the basketball tournament this year has eliminated the prospect of coordination with the NCAA, we will persevere—with five more years of data—to stage the law-school portion of the event.

The big picture.
For an overview, let’s begin with all 604 oral arguments in cases decided during the past five terms (2014-15 through 2018-19).^[1] Table 1 displays every law school whose graduates engaged in at least six arguments (1% of the total) over this period.[Continue Reading…]

This week, Axley Brynelson contributed 8 points to the Affirmed with a brief, oral argument, and partially-favorable decision in Steven J. Piper v. Jones Dairy Farm. As a result, only two points now separate the Affirmed, the Waivers, and the Citations—all still trailing the first-place Gavels.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

The Supreme Court did not file any new decisions this week, and thus there are no changes in the standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 283 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1968, and August 31, 1969.  The total of 283 decisions does not include rulings arising from (1) disciplinary matters involving lawyers, and (2) various petitions, motions, applications and the like (generally disposed of without oral argument and in short per curiam decisions). Smith v. State, a 3-3 per curiam decision, is omitted, as is Rich v. Schweda, a two-sentence per curiam ruling “without opinion.”

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
Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice