As the Wisconsin Supreme Court approached the start of its 2023-24 term, observers were struck by the scarcity of cases on the court’s calendar.  In July 2023, for instance, attorney Dustin Brown reported that the court had granted review in only six cases for the upcoming term—just a “tiny fraction” of the number accepted by this point in prior summers.  Indeed, a year earlier, the justices had already granted review in more than five times as many cases.^[1]  Was the court thus bound to issue markedly fewer decisions in 2023-24 than ever before?  With the justices’ holiday lull now behind us, let’s take an initial look at the prospects. [Continue Reading…]

So far this term, the court has filed only one decision—Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission—but this major case showered points on three of the league’s four teams.  Eight different firms scored, propelling the Writs (15 points) to an early lead, just ahead of the Waivers (12 points) and the Affirmed (10 points), as detailed below.

The Writs
Pines Bach, 10 points (brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome)
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, 5 points (brief and oral argument)

The Waivers
Boardman & Clark, 8 points (brief and favorable outcome)
Bell Giftos St. John, 3 points (brief)
Hawks Quindel, 1 point (amicus brief)

The Affirmed
Stafford Rosenbaum, 8 points (brief and favorable outcome)
WMC Litigation Center, 1 point (amicus brief)
Wisconsin Justice Initiative, 1 point (amicus brief)

Click here for the complete standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 328 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1934, and August 31, 1935.  The total of 328 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges. [Continue Reading…]

Now that two more terms are in the books following our last update on Fourth-Amendment cases, we’ll return to see how receptive the justices have been to Fourth-Amendment arguments recently—and how they compare in this regard to their predecessors on the bench over the past few decades.[Continue Reading…]

After last season’s thrilling duel between the Writs and the Gavels, the league saw no need to address competitive balance during its autumn meeting.  Instead, the Competition Committee focused its attention on identifying firms least active at the supreme court over the past three seasons and relegated them to the Developmental League.  Their roster spots have been assigned to six newcomers, and fans will doubtless enjoy seeing which firms among them make the most of this opportunity.

As in past seasons, scoring summaries will be posted here later this month, with weekly updates following until the season concludes in July.  Meanwhile, click on the corresponding link to view the full team rosters of competing law firms.

These tables are derived from information contained in 356 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1935, and August 31, 1936.  The total of 356 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and the like. 

When two or more cases were, in effect, consolidated—one was simply said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the cases are counted as only one: (1) Cherney v. Simonis (220 Wis. 339) and Cherney v. Simonis (220 Wis. 346); (2) Hanley v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. (220 Wis. 281) and Hanley v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. (220 Wis. 288); (3) Schaefer & Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (220 Wis. 289) and Schaefer & Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (220 Wis. 384); (4) State v. Kitzerow (221 Wis. 436), State v. Kitzerow (221 Wis. 443), State v. Fons (221 Wis. 439), State v. Warnimont (221 Wis. 442), State v. Wilkinson (221 Wis. 440), and State v. Johnson (221 Wis. 441); (5) O’Connell v. New York Life Ins. Co. and Hruzek v. Old Line Life Ins. Co.; (6) Motor Castings Co. v. Industrial Comm. (219 Wis. 204) and Sivyer Steel Casting Co. v. Industrial Comm. (220 Wis. 252).

This appears to have been done as well with Hautenen (Syma) v. Dewey; Hautenen (Larry) v. Dewey; and Hautenen (Henry) v. Dewey—judgment affirmed in all three, without any explanation, in unanimous per curiam decisions.

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

As debate swirls around the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to review maps of election districts, the issue of stare decisis has attracted attention.  A Latin term usually translated as “to stand by things decided,” stare decisis means that courts should respect the precedent set by previous rulings in similar cases.  Regarding the present case, Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and others who endorse the existing maps—approved by the Supreme Court in 2022—argue that revisiting the issue now would offend stare decisis.  “I’m not a lawyer,” Vos declared, “but the most important thing in our legal system is the ability to have stare decisis where when a court makes a decision, every time a new person enters the court, you don’t upset everything just because you have new people on the court.”^[1][Continue Reading…]

Four years have passed since our last update on the success rates in Public Defender cases, so it’s time to see if the interim has witnessed any change—which it certainly has. 

Following the lead of the first two posts in this series,^[1] we’ll weigh the performance of public defenders against that of other defense lawyers in a set of 86 decisions filed from 2019-20 through 2022-23—and also compare these findings with those from the previous decade.^[2][Continue Reading…]

These tables are derived from information contained in 322 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1936, and August 31, 1937.  The total of 322 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and the like.  In particular, cases are not included if they were decided during the previous term but appeared in the search results because motions for reconsideration were not rejected until 1936-37.

When two or more cases were, in effect, consolidated—one was simply said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the cases are counted as only one: (1) Marwalt Realty Co. v. Greene (224 Wis. 1, 224 Wis. 7, 224 Wis. 8, 224 Wis. 9, 224 Wis. 10, and 224 Wis. 11); (2) Gardner Baking Co. v. Public Service Commission and Colvin Baking Co. v. Public Service Commission; (3) Anderson v. Seelow and Neyers v. Seelow; (4) In re Le Feber’s Will and In re Will of Akin; (5) State ex rel. Attorney General v. Fasekas and State ex rel. Attorney General v. Noyes; (6) Swanson  v. Schultz and Hale v. Schultz; (7) Canzoneri v. Heckert and Canale v. Heckert.

In Estate of George v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company the court filed its original decision on December 8, 1936.  After a motion for rehearing was granted, the court ruled on June 21, 1937, that its December 8 decision was in error and replaced its previous mandate with a new ruling.  Both decisions are included in our tables.

In McCaffrey v. Minneapolis S. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. the court filed its original decision on June 2, 1936.  Then, on September 15, 1936, following motions by the appellants, the court modified its June 2, 1936, mandate.  The September decision is included in these tables, and the June decision will be included in tables for 1935-36.

In Newbern v. State the court filed its original decision on April 2, 1935.  Then, on September 15, 1936, following a motion for rehearing, the court replaced its original mandate with a new one.  The September decision is included in these tables, and the April decision will be included in tables for 1934-35.

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

Which law schools groomed the oral advocates who appear at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and where are these law schools most conspicuously represented among the state’s private firms and state agencies?  Since our last post on the topic,^[1] four terms have passed, leaving abundant data to explore in today’s update.[Continue Reading…]