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.

This week the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office collected seven points for a brief, oral argument, and partially-favorable outcome in State v. K.R.C, thereby strengthening their position at the top of the standings.  The Affirmed moved into sole possession of second place with an amicus brief by the Frank J. Remington Center.

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

This installment of our “bygone justice” series provides more cases on marriage and divorce that seem provocative or otherwise intriguing.[Continue Reading…]

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

These tables are derived from information contained in 194 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1917, and August 31, 1918.  The total of 194 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges.

Cases are omitted if they were decided during the previous term but appeared in the search results because motions for reconsideration were not decided until 1917-18.  Such cases will be included in the tables for 1916-17. 

Also omitted are two deadlocked (3-3) cases: ESTATE OF CARTER: STATE v. CARTER and Rathenberger v. Jacob.

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.  For instance: Simon v. de Gersdorff (166 Wis. 170) and Simon v. de Gersdorff (166 Wis. 177).

Eight justices appear in the tables because Walter Owen defeated incumbent Justice Roujet Marshall in April 1917.  Justice Marshall remained on the court until January 7, 1918, when Justice Owen replaced him.  It is generally possible to determine if Justice Marshall or Justice Owen participated in decisions filed shortly after January 7, and thus I included both men in the tables.  However, I occasionally had to guess from internal evidence whether one or the other of the two justices took part, and this should be borne in mind when viewing the statistics.

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