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

In the aftermath of this week’s post “Are Petitions for Review Taking Longer to Decide?” I’ve been struck by the frustration conveyed privately by attorneys over the handling of petitions for review.  Along with their concern over delays in granting petitions (the subject of the aforementioned post), they also shared anecdotal impressions that the court is taking an even longer, perhaps much longer, time to deny petitions. [Continue Reading…]

Today’s topic arrived from a reader who practices regularly at the supreme court (and prefers to remain anonymous).  The question—said to be widespread among seasoned appellate attorneys—stems from their impression that the court is taking an unusually long time to process petitions for review.  I am grateful for research suggestions, and in this instance we can make some headway.[Continue Reading…]

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

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

Efforts to measure the influence of individual justices have employed a variety of methods over the years.  Ranging from simple calculations of the frequency with which justices appear in majorities to the number of law review citations of their opinions, these techniques all reveal significant information.  They also have limitations.  Regarding law-review citations, for instance, longevity alone often accounts for much of a justice’s total.  More importantly, these totals do not differentiate between a trivial note and an extended discussion—to say nothing of positive, negative, or neutral characterizations of a justice’s work.  As for frequency in majorities, such percentages distinguish little between members of a bloc who almost always vote together (a common phenomenon in recent years).  So, let’s enlist artificial intelligence—Anthropic’s Claude—and see how it copes with the challenge of gauging a justice’s clout.[Continue Reading…]

This week’s decision in Estate of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Company brought a point to the Writs (from an amicus brief by Godfrey & Kahn) and a point to the Affirmed (from an amicus brief by the WMC Litigation Center).  As a result, the standings tightened, with the Writs moving into a third-place tie with the Waivers.

Three teams gained from the decision in Savannah Wren v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital Milwaukee, Inc.  The Writs collected two points for an amicus brief and oral argument by Cannon & Dunphy, while both the Affirmed and the Waivers picked up a point for an amicus brief by Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols and von Briesen & Roper.

Now, only two points separate places two through four in the standings.

With the arrival of spring, the time has come for our annual estimate of the number of decisions that the supreme court will file by the time summer brings the term to an end.  Following a surprising drop in the court’s output over the last two terms, speculation naturally arises as to whether a larger volume of decisions may return in 2025-26.  Let’s find out.[Continue Reading…]

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