These tables are derived from information contained in 304 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1974, and August 31, 1975.  The total of 304 decisions does not include rulings arising from (1) disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges, and (2) short orders, with no author identified, pertaining to petitions, motions, and various other actions.  

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
Number of Oral Arguments Presented by Individual Firms and Agencies

Three teams made gains this week, led by the Waivers (10 points from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Rural Mutual Insurance Company v. Lester Buildings, LLC and one point from Boardman & Clark for an amicus brief in League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Tony Evers). With this haul, the Waivers moved ahead of the idle Citations into second place.

Meanwhile, the Writs tallied five points (from Pines Bach for a brief and oral argument in League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Tony Evers), as did the Affirmed (from Stafford Rosenbaum, also for a brief and oral argument in League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Tony Evers).

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

With this week’s decisions from the supreme court, the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office stunned the rest of the league by adding 21 points to their total: six points for a brief, oral argument, and 3-3 decision in Raytrell K. Fitzgerald v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; ten points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in State v. Raytrell K. Fitzgerald; and five points for a brief and oral argument in Waukesha County v. S.L.L.

However, I have been given to understand (unofficially) that there are not likely to be any more public-defender decisions this term, thereby providing the rest of the league an opportunity to reel the Gavels back in during the season’s closing weeks. One team to watch in this regard is the Waivers, who gained a point for an amicus brief by Quarles & Brady in State v. Raytrell K. Fitzgerald.

Click here for the updated, current standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 289 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1975, and August 31, 1976.  The total of 289 decisions does not include rulings arising from (1) disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges, and (2) per curiam decisions involving various motions and petitions.

Security Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Wauwatosa Colony, Inc. yielded a fragmented decision. Thus, I will only include this case in the following tables: “Distribution of Opinion Authorship,” “Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice,” and “Number of Oral Arguments Presented by Individual Firms and Agencies.”

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
Number of Oral Arguments Presented by Individual Firms and Agencies

In this week’s batch of decisions, Habush Habush & Rottier delivered seven points to the Writs (for a brief, oral argument, and partially-favorable ruling in David W. Paynter v. ProAssurance Wisconsin Insurance Company)—moving them ahead of the Affirmed into fourth place.

Click here for the updated, current standings.

This is a monthly reminder to readers to “nominate” Wisconsin Supreme Court cases from the 2018-19 term that contain surprising aspects.  As I did last year, I will maintain a collection of cases and comments submitted and post them at the end of the summer. (Click here to see the results for 2017-18.)

“Surprising aspects” could include (1) decisions featuring odd combinations of justices dissenting or in the majority; (2) arguments in a majority or separate opinion that one might not expect from the author in question; (3) an unusual source in a footnote; (4) a popular-culture reference out of the blue; (5) a humorous passage; (6) a case in which a husband and wife delivered oral arguments on opposing sides; (7) something else unusual about the law firms involved—in short, pretty much anything unexpected.

Please email me your nominations (alan.ball@marquette.edu), as many as you wish, confident in the assurance that I will not reveal the names of nominators or their firms when I display our harvest at the end of the summer.  Please also include a brief explanation (just a sentence or two would likely be sufficient) indicating the case’s curious feature.  I hope that we can gather enough to yield an interesting array.

After this week’s flurry of decisions, the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office are still clinging to their perch at the top of the standing, thanks to five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Javien Cajujuan Pegeese and one point for an amicus brief in State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell. However, the second-place Citations crept even closer on the strength of a 10-point performance by the Frank J. Remington Center (brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann). Meanwhile, the Waivers maintained their hold on third place with two points from Henak Law Office (amicus briefs in Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann and State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell). Farther down the standings, the Affirmed climbed past the idle Writs when Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry delivered five points for a brief and oral argument in Leicht Transfer & Storage Company v. Pallet Central Enterprises.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

Following a recent post on success rates of 15 private firms responsible for the most oral arguments at the Wisconsin Supreme Court over the past ten years, we turn our attention to the attorneys from these firms who appeared most frequently. We’ll see how often they achieved favorable outcomes and how they fared with each of the justices individually.[Continue Reading…]

Three teams picked up points from decisions filed this week, including the league-leading Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office (five points for a brief and oral argument in Portage County v. J. W. K.).  At the other end of the standings, the Affirmed also collected five points—from Stafford Rosenbaum for a brief and oral argument in Cacie M. Michels v. Keaton L. Lyons.  However, the Citations made the boldest move, easing past the Waivers into second place, thanks to 10 points from O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in J. Steven Tikalsky v. Susan Friedman.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

This week’s lone decision brought a point to the Waivers (via an amicus brief by von Briesen & Roper in Town of Rib Mountain v. Marathon County), leaving them only seven points back of the league-leading Gavels.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.