This week’s decisions produced another change in the seesaw struggle at the top of the standings.  The Affirmed picked up a point from an amicus brief in Smith v. Anderson, to which Axley Brynelson contributed, but it wasn’t enough to hold off the Gavels of the Public Defender’s Office, who edged back into first place on the strength of seven points from a brief and oral argument and an amicus brief and oral argument in State v. Suriano.

current standings

This week the Writs vaulted out of the cellar and over the Waivers on the strength of 10 points contributed by Habush Habush & Rottier (brief, oral argument, and favorable result in Donna Brenner v. National Casualty Company).

current standings

A few weeks ago, Justices Abrahamson, Ann Walsh Bradley, Roggensack, and Gableman combined to form a majority in Universal Processing Services v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County.  Shortly thereafter, a Wisconsin attorney noticed a query on a practice-group listserv that asked whether this unusual majority had ever coalesced before in a 4-3 decision.  She forwarded the question to SCOWstats, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond.[Continue Reading…]

Decisions filed this past week brought the Citations to within shouting distance of the Affirmed and the Gavels at the top of the standings, thanks to 10 points from Godfrey & Kahn (brief, oral argument, and favorable decision in Ricardo M. Garza v. American Transmission Company) and one point from Cannon & Dunphy (amicus brief in Taft Parsons, Jr. v. Associated Banc-Corp).  Meanwhile, the Waivers tallied their first two points of the season with amicus briefs from Quarles & Brady (Ricardo M. Garza v. American Transmission Company) and Boardman & Clark (Taft Parsons, Jr. v. Associated Banc-Corp).

current standings

These tables are derived from information contained in 83 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Lexis search for decisions filed between September 1, 1988, and August 31, 1989.  The total of 83 decisions does not include rulings arising from (1) disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and judges, and (2) various motions and petitions.[1]

The tables are available as a complete set and by individual topic according to 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

[1] The total of 83 decisions does include State v. Thomas (reconsideration denied) and Ziegler v. Rexnord (on motion for reconsideration, cause remanded for further proceedings), which involved briefs and oral argument, and which resulted in full-length decisions.

On the strength of a ten-point performance this week (briefs and oral arguments in State v. Maday and State v. Zamzow), the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office closed to within two points of the league-leading Affirmed.

current standings

It appears that in 2016-17 the “Attorneys” section on the title page of a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision will no longer include attorneys who filed amicus briefs but did not participate in oral argument.  After noticing this, I went back over the 16 decisions filed so far and added the following points to the teams’ totals.

The Gavels of the Public Defender’s Office: 2 points (from amicus briefs in State v. Kozel and State v. Lepsch).

The Affirmed: 1 point (from an amicus brief by Axley Brynelson in Seifert v. Ballink).

current standings

Last month’s decision in State v. Denny yielded a spirited discussion of stare decisis (often translated from Latin as “stand by things decided” or “let the decision stand”)—a principle that emphasizes the importance of adhering to the precedents set by earlier cases.  The precedent at issue in Denny was State v. Moran, a decision filed in 2005 that allowed petitioner James Moran to conduct DNA testing of evidence in possession of the state, if he could show that the evidence met certain statutory requirements, and if he paid for the testing himself.[Continue Reading…]

With the five points contributed by Foley & Lardner (a brief and oral argument in Smith v. Kleynerman), the Affirmed widened their lead to 13 points over the second-place Gavels of the State Public Defender’s office.

current standings

I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge two readers’ responses to yesterday’s post on attorney-discipline cases.  The first response wondered if it would be fruitful to “stratify” these cases to see if certain types of dereliction were more likely to find the court’s liberals favoring harsher punishments than those applied by the court’s conservative majority.  I don’t have the information at hand to venture an opinion on this at the moment, but it’s an intriguing question to bear in mind for future research.   [Continue Reading…]