Several years ago, a post showcased the varying frequency with which justices joined the concurrences and dissents written by each of their colleagues over a period of seven terms (2008-09 through 2013-14).  During that entire interval the court experienced no turnover at all, but its lineup has altered markedly since then, thereby inviting us to revisit the topic of the original post.  Although certain themes remain as clear as before, they have been joined by some intriguing developments. [Continue Reading…]

The 2021-22 Fantasy League season has begun, with all four teams scoring in double figures.  To no one’s surprise, the defending-champion Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office set a brisk pace with 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and successful outcome in Waukesha County v. E.J.W. and five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Cesar Antonio Lira.  However, the league’s offseason effort to create more robust competition appears to have paid off—at least in the early going—as two of the newly-fortified teams surpassed the Gavels, and the third trails them by only two points.  Here’s a breakdown of the scoring for all three of the Gavels’ rivals.

The Writs (22 points)
10 points, Godfery & Kahn, for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Daniel J. Hennessy, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank.
8 points, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, for a brief and favorable outcome in Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
3 points, Pines Bach, for a brief in Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
1 point, Cannon & Dunphy, for an amicus brief in Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC.

The Waivers (18 points)
8 points, Troutman Pepper, for a brief and favorable outcome in Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
5 points, Crivello Carlson, for a brief and oral argument in Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc.
4 points, Boardman & Clark, for a brief in Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission and an amicus brief in Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc.
1 point, Husch Blackwwell, for an amicus brief in Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc.

The Affirmed (13 points)
10 points, Foley & Lardner, for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC.
3 points, Stafford Rosenbaum, for a brief in Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

(The scoring does not include Timothy Rave v. SVA Healthcare Services, in which the petition for review was ultimately dismissed on grounds of mootness.)

These tables are derived from information contained in 230 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1952, and August 31, 1953.  The total of 230 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to disciplinary matters involving lawyers nor to petitions, motions, applications, and the like (generally disposed of without oral argument and in short per curiam decisions). 

After deciding Plainse v. Engle, the justices responded to a motion for reconsideration by modifying their mandate slightly, and there was a similar outcome to a motion for reconsideration in Wannmacher v. Baldauf Corporation.  I have counted each of these cases only once, though one could argue that they should be counted twice. 

I have also omitted Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Milwaukee, a deadlocked (3-3) per curiam decision.

When two (or more) cases were, in effect, consolidated—that is, when one was said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the cases are counted as only one.  This occurred with State ex rel. Kojis v. Barczak (264 Wis. 136) and State ex rel. Kojis v. Barczak (264 Wis. 142)—and also in State v. Friedrich & Loots Company, State v. Shilts, and State v. Tomlin, all said to be ruled by State v. Stang Tank Line.    

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
Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice

The Competition Committee had finally seen enough.  Dissatisfied with efforts in previous years to provide stiffer competition for the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office, the Committee devoted its entire winter meeting last month to a discussion of more fundamental measures.  Not content with simply adding another law firm to each of the league’s other teams—the Affirmed, Citations, Writs, and Waivers—the Committee voted to disband the Citations entirely and distribute their firms to the other three contenders.  This dispersal yielded three powerhouse teams to whom the early line gives better than even odds to dethrone the six-time defending champion Gavels.  The Waivers, for instance, are now fielding a lineup that features Husch Blackwell, Troutman Pepper, Quarles & Brady, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, von Briesen & Roper, Boardman & Clark, and a capable supporting cast of six other firms.

As in the past, scoring summaries will be posted here later this month, with weekly updates following until the season concludes in July.  Meanwhile, fans can click on the appropriate links to view the scoring rules and full team rosters.

These tables are derived from information contained in 235 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1953, and August 31, 1954.  The total of 235 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, applications, and the like (generally disposed of without oral argument and in short per curiam decisions). 

Also excluded is State ex rel. Sommer v. Stauff, a per curiam decision in which the court made permanent a previously-temporary writ of prohibition.

When two (or more) cases were, in effect, consolidated—one was simply said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the pair of cases is counted as only one.  (Both Continental Ins. Co. v. Badger Paint & Hardware Stores, Inc. and Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Badger Paint & Hardware Stores, Inc., for instance, were said to be ruled by the decision in Commerce Ins. Co. v. Badger Paint & Hardware Stores, Inc.)          

Eight justices appear in a number of the tables, because Justice Oscar Fritz retired on January 1, 1954, and was replaced by Roland Steinle three days later.

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
Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice

Some time ago an acquaintance recommended that I take a look at cases in which the court’s staunchest allies failed to see eye to eye, thereby raising the question of what could have prompted them to part company on these unusual occasions.  There have certainly been pairs of justices in past decades who qualified for this scrutiny by voting together almost invariably, but readers will likely find it of greater interest to pose this question of current justices—and so we shall.[Continue Reading…]

These tables are derived from information contained in 241 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1954, and August 31, 1955.  The total of 241 decisions does not include rulings on disciplinary matters involving lawyers, as well as various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, applications, and the like (generally disposed of without oral argument and in short per curiam decisions).  However, if, on a motion for rehearing, the court issued a substantial decision vacating its original mandate, the original and the second decision are each counted—assuming that each was filed during the period under our consideration. 

When two cases were, in effect, consolidated—that is, when one was said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the pair of cases is counted as only one.  (Milprint, Inc. v. Bach Sales Co., for instance, was said to be ruled by the decision in Peterson Cutting Die Co. v. Bach Sales Co.)  There were only a handful of such pairs.

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
Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice

Numerous researchers have used computer programs to scrutinize large volumes of text, searching for patterns or tendencies that might otherwise escape detection.  One such program is Linguistic Inquiry Word Count software (LIWC), employed by scholars in diverse fields, including the legal profession.^[1]  Among the findings were a pair of SCOWstats posts in the spring of 2019,^[2] reporting on LIWC’s analysis of Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions issued from 2015-16 through 2017-18.  Three terms have passed since then, and with new justices joining the court,^[3] it’s time for another look at their labors through the lens of LIWC.^[4][Continue Reading…]

These tables are derived from information contained in 226 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1955, and August 31, 1956.  The total of 226 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, applications, and the like (generally disposed of without oral argument and in short per curiam decisions). [Continue Reading…]

In the spring of 2019 we examined the success rates of law firms most active in the Wisconsin Supreme Court over the previous decade (2008-09 through 2017-18), and today we’ll update that post by exploring data from the most recent three terms.^[1]  As in the original post, our focus remains confined to private law firms, with state agencies and non-profit organizations excluded.^[2][Continue Reading…]