Decisions filed this week featured two five-point performances by the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office—for briefs and oral arguments in State v. Hendricks and State v. Bartelt—thereby moving them ahead of the Writs and into sole possession of first place.

Click here for current standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 134 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Lexis search for decisions filed between September 1, 1980, and August 31, 1981.  The total of 134 decisions does not include rulings arising from (1) disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, and (2) various motions and petitions.

Also omitted is Furuseth v. Lowe, in which the court decided that review had been improvidently granted.

When individual cases were explicitly “consolidated” by the supreme court, but listed as separate entries by Lexis, I counted each set of the consolidated cases only once in the total of 134 decisions and in the following tables.  Thus, State v. J. Kramer includes State v. Mills, while State v. Machner includes State v. Flakes and State v. Higginbotham.

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
Number of Oral Arguments Presented by Individual Firms and Agencies

The court did not file any decisions this past week—hence, no change in the standings.

Two decisions filed this week produced significant changes in the standings.  The Citations moved out of the cellar, one point clear of the Waivers, with five points from Crivello Carlson (a brief and oral argument in Westmas v. Creekside Tree Service) and a point from Godfrey & Kahn (an amicus brief in Madison Teachers v. Scott).

However, the Writs eclipsed this performance on the strength of 10 points from Habush Habush & Rottier (a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Westmas v. Creekside Tree Service) and five points from Pines Bach (a brief and oral argument in Madison Teachers v. Scott).  This vaulted the Writs all the way up the standings, past the Affirmed, into a first-place tie with the Gavels.

Click here for current standings.

Yesterday’s post elicited a communication from the Department of Justice, requesting that I inform readers of certain developments pertaining to the current term–most notably, opportunities for women from the Solicitor General’s Office to present oral arguments in the supreme court. I am happy to relay this information, which may be found in the following email.[Continue Reading…]

Two years ago, a post titled “Women and the Wisconsin Supreme Court” found that after delivering only 10% of the oral arguments presented to the supreme court in 1981-82, women appeared in this role at a steadily rising rate until their share of oral arguments had more than tripled, climbing to 33% in 2014-15.  Following such a pronounced increase, could the day be far off when women would address the justices with nearly the same frequency as did male attorneys?  Data from the next two terms help answer that question, and what they reveal is surprising in more ways than one.[Continue Reading…]

The court did not file any decisions this past week—hence, no change in the standings.

The two decisions filed this past week did not result in any points for Fantasy League teams—hence, no change in the standings.

Both decisions filed this week resulted in points for the league’s competitors.  The Gavels added five points (for a brief and oral argument in State v. Arberry) and remain atop the standings.  However, their lead shrank considerably as the Affirmed closed to within four points, thanks to a 10-point performance by Lindner & Marsack (for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Manitowoc Company v. Lanning).

Click here for current standing.

As the court enters a six-month stretch during which the large majority of the year’s decisions will be filed, a SCOWstats reader has asked how things stand regarding the number of cases likely to be decided by the end of the 2017-18 term.  We have been offering such predictions at roughly this time of year ever since Justice Abrahamson voiced concern on the subject in the autumn of 2015, and this post amounts to a continuation of that practice by responding to the reader’s question.^[1][Continue Reading…]