Last fall’s post on the Fourth Amendment found that (1) these cases have accounted for a growing portion of the court’s output in recent years, and (2) the court’s two newest members (Justices R.G. Bradley and Kelly—especially Justice Kelly) have been more receptive to Fourth Amendment arguments than were the two justices (Crooks and Prosser) whom they replaced.  The second point doubtless goes some way toward explaining why the court has accepted Fourth Amendment arguments in criminal cases more readily during the last two terms than it did from 2008-09 through 2014-15 (although it remains more hostile to such defenses than it was before Justice Gableman joined the bench in 2008-09).

Could something of the sort have happened as well with Sixth Amendment decisions, which reach the court as often as their Fourth Amendment cousins?  These cases focus on a defendant’s right to a fair trial—more specifically, the right (1) to have a prompt and public trial, with an impartial jury, (2) to know the nature of the charges and the identity of one’s accuser, (3) to confront adverse witnesses, (4) to testify and present witnesses on one’s behalf, and (5) to have a competent lawyer.  Today we’ll turn the spotlight on the Sixth Amendment and see if the arrival of Justices R.G. Bradley and Kelly has coincided with developments similar to those summarized above for Fourth Amendment decisions.^[1][Continue Reading…]

This week the Waivers picked up 11 points and jumped into a third-place tie with the Writs on the strength of their work in Horizon Bank, National Association v. Marshalls Point Retreat LLC—10 points from Quarles & Brady (brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome) and one point from Boardman & Clark (amicus brief).

Click here for current standings.

The lone decision filed by the court this past week did not result in any points for the league’s teams—hence, no change in the standings.

This is an invitation to readers to “nominate” any Wisconsin Supreme Court cases from the 2017-18 term that contain surprising aspects.  I will maintain a collection of cases submitted and post them at the end of the summer.  “Surprising aspects” could include (1) decisions featuring odd combinations of justices dissenting or in the majority; (2) arguments in a majority or separate opinion that one might not expect from the author in question; (3) an unusual source in a footnote; (4) a popular-culture reference out of the blue; (5) a humorous passage; (6) a case in which a husband and wife delivered oral arguments on opposing sides; (7) something else unusual about the law firms involved—in short, pretty much anything unexpected.

Please email me your nominations (alan.ball@marquette.edu), as many as you wish, confident in the assurance that I will not reveal the nominators’ names when I display our harvest at the end of the summer.  Please also include a brief explanation (just a sentence or two would likely be sufficient) indicating the case’s curious feature.  I hope that we can gather enough to yield an interesting array.

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…]