With five points this week for a brief and oral argument in State v. Jones, the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office extended their lead.

Click here for the current standings.

This is a monthly reminder to readers to “nominate” any Wisconsin Supreme Court cases from the 2017-18 term that contain surprising aspects.  I will maintain a collection of cases submitted and post them at the end of the summer.  “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 suffice) indicating the case’s curious feature.  Some nominations are already in hand, and I hope that the collection will continue to grow.

The court did not file any decisions this past week—hence, no change in the standings.

After posting recently on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, I’m happy to respond to a request for information on the votes cast by individual justices in First Amendment cases.  The findings below are derived from a set of eleven cases turned up in a Lexis “First Amendment” search for the period September 1, 2004, through March 2018.^[1]  They show not only how often the justices approved First Amendment arguments, but, more important, what types of claims seemed compelling to each justice individually.  I have divided the eleven cases into categories—“political-ideological,” “religious organization,” and “non-ideological”—which helps in identifying the justices’ tendencies.  A reference list of the eleven cases appears at the end.[Continue Reading…]

This week’s flurry of decisions brought points to four of the league’s five teams.  The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office tightened their grip on first place with a ten-point performance (briefs and oral arguments in both Winnebago County v. J.M. and State v. Hager), while the Writs moved past the idle Affirmed into second place on the strength of a five-point performance by Pines Bach (brief and oral argument in Deutsche Bank v. Wuensch).  Not only did the Affirmed fall into third place, they had to share this position with the Waivers, who picked up five points from a brief and oral argument by Henak Law Office in State v. McAlister.  Even the Citations joined the action, though the one point that they gained from an amicus brief in Winnebago County v. J.M., furnished by Godfrey & Kahn, was not enough to threaten the other competitors.

Click here for the current standings.

This post examines the supreme court’s handling of juvenile cases over the 25 years from September 1, 1992, through August 31, 2017.  By itself, the phrase “juvenile cases” could refer to a variety of actions, including termination-of-parental-rights proceedings and cases in which juveniles were victims, but we will concentrate on cases pertaining to the trial or punishment of juveniles.^[1]  These guidelines yield a total of 22 cases, which I have divided into categories that address the following questions: (1) adult court or juvenile court, (2) constitutional violations, (3) sentence credit, and (4) miscellaneous issues.[Continue Reading…]

The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office gained 10 points from this week’s decisions (for briefs and oral arguments in State v. Bell and State v. Grandberry), thereby extending their lead over the second-place Affirmed. 

Click here for current standings.

The filing of a decision in Shugarts v. Mohr brought five points to the Affirmed (from a brief and oral argument by Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik)—nudging them back into second place, one point ahead of the Writs.  Meanwhile, the Citations picked up two points (from an amicus brief and oral argument by Cannon & Dunphy), though this was not enough to lift them out of the cellar.

Click here for the current standings.

This is a monthly reminder to readers to “nominate” any Wisconsin Supreme Court cases from the 2017-18 term that contain surprising aspects.  I will maintain a collection of cases submitted and post them at the end of the summer.  “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 suffice) indicating the case’s curious feature.  Three nominations are already in hand, and I hope that the collection will continue to grow.

The court did not file any decisions this past week—hence, no change in the standings.