With this week’s decision in Marilyn Casanova v. Michael S. Polsky, Esquire, the Waivers picked up a point for an amicus brief by Boardman & Clark, but it was not enough to hold off the Writs, who vaulted to the top of the standings with 10 points from Godfrey & Kahn for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

The early months of 1999 delivered remarkable drama for supreme court watchers, as exceedingly unusual accounts of discord among the justices spread through the media.  Readers encountered revelations that Justice William Bablitch was working with two of his colleagues to gain support for a challenger to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in the spring election.  The motives of Bablitch and the others were said to include complaints that Abrahamson (1) made unilateral decisions in administering the court; (2) sought to display a picture of Lavinia Goodell (the first women admitted to practice law in the supreme court); (3) joined staffers the previous year for a one-time aerobics workout in the courtroom after hours; (4) had games deleted from the court’s computers; and (5) refused to invite Bablitch’s wife to a court-sponsored conference.  Abrahamson’s defenders alleged that Bablitch was maneuvering to become chief justice himself, and they dismissed his complaints as misguided or petty.^[1][Continue Reading…]

Once again, this week’s sole decision brought no points to the league’s teams–hence, no change in the standings.

This week’s sole decision brought no points to the league’s teams–hence, no change in the standings.

Recent news reports—and social media flamethrowing—have focused on a court of appeals decision in State v. Shirikian that rebuked circuit court Judge Jennifer Dorow for imposing a lenient sentence on a defendant convicted for the fifth time of drunk driving.^[1]  The court of appeals specified that the law required a sentence of at least one year of confinement, rejecting Judge Dorow’s decision to limit the defendant’s punishment to probation.  Commentators have raised various issues prompted by this dispute, but not, to my knowledge, the question of how Judge Dorow’s rulings have fared in other criminal cases that reached the court of appeals.  So, let’s have a look.[Continue Reading…]

Prior to this week, the Affirmed had not scored at all, but the week’s sole decision (Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC v. City of Delavan) brought them 11 points, moving the team back into contention.  Meanwhile, as detailed below, the Waivers picked up one point, maintaining their slim lead over the field.

Affirmed
Axley Brynelson, 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.
Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlick, 1 point for an amicus brief.

Waivers
Troutman Pepper, 1 point for an amicus brief.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 280 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1942, and August 31, 1943.  The total of 280 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) Gaber v. Balsiger (243 Wis. 314) and Gaber v. Balsiger (243 Wis. 317); and (2) Fox Point v. Public Service Commission, Shorewood v. Public Service Commission, and Whitefish Bay v. Public Service Commission. 

In Costello v. Polenska the court found its original mandate (January 12, 1943) to be erroneous and issued a new decision (March 9, 1943).  So, too, in Maloney v. Industrial Commission (January 12, 1943, and May 18, 1943).  In In re Des Forges’ Will the court modified its original (May 18, 1943) mandate on June 16, 1943.  In each instance, both decisions are counted. 

According to Portraits of Justice. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s First 150 Years, “[i]n 1940, [Justice George] Nelson became ill and was unable to attend court.  He resigned in December 1942.”  Nelson’s name does not appear on any of the decisions filed in 1942-43, and I am assuming that he did not participate at all during this term.  Thus, he is omitted from the following tables—which do include his replacement, Justice Elmer Barlow, who was appointed to the court in the same month that Nelson resigned.

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

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

The 2022-23 Fantasy League season in underway, with three of the four teams already scoring in multiple cases.  Last year’s champion, the Waivers, have taken the early lead, but they have certainly done nothing to discourage the Gavels or the Writs, as the following summary indicates.  Only the Affirmed have yet to score, but with several months remaining in the season, there is no reason to conclude, yet, that they will again finish in last place.

Click here to see the full team rosters.

The Waivers: (16 points)
von Briesen & Roper, 5 points for a brief and oral argument in Saint John’s Communities, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee.
Henak Law Office, 1 point for an amicus brief in State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman.
Crivello Carlson, 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Rachel Slabey v. Dunn County, Wisconsin.

The Gavels: (15 points)
David Malkus, 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in State v. Christopher D. Wilson.
Frances Reynolds Colbert, 5 points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman.

The Writs: (12 points)
Habush, Habush, & Rottier, 1 point for an amicus brief in Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation.
Doar, Drill & Skow, 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand.
Cannon & Dunphy, 1 point for an amicus brief Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand.

The Affirmed: (0 points)