A recent post on juvenile-defendant decisions filed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court from September 1, 1992, through August 31, 2017, omitted termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) cases, as these did not concern juveniles charged with crimes.  However, the set of TPR decisions accumulated during this research merits a brief post of its own, for these decisions contain some interesting features and, of course, center on an emotional question.

That question—“Should a parent be deprived of future involvement with his or her children?”—was answered “yes” by the justices in 71% (5/7) of their decisions.^[1][Continue Reading…]

This week’s decisions favored the Citations, who gained ten points from the work of Crivello Carlson (brief, oral argument, and favorable decision in Springer v. Nohl Electric).  Although this left the Citations in last place, they pulled to within four points of the Waivers (who picked up three points for the brief filed by Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown in Springer v. Nohl Electric).

Meanwhile, at the top of the standings, the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office padded their lead with five points from a brief and oral argument in State v. Sholar. 

Click here for the current standings.

This week’s decisions brought points to three teams, with the Affirmed making the biggest jump thanks to ten points from Kasdorf Lewis & Swietlik (brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Thoma v. Village of Slinger) and five points from Axley Brynelson (brief and oral argument in McNally v. Capital Cartage).  As a result, the Affirmed took over second place in the standings and cut deeply in the Gavels’ lead. 

Meanwhile, the Writs picked up ten points from Nash, Spindler, Grimstad, & McCracken (brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Talley v. Mustafa), which left them only one point behind the Affirmed.  The Citations remained at the bottom of the standings but did add a point from Godfrey & Kahn (amicus brief in Talley v. Mustafa).

Click here for the current standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 196 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Lexis search for decisions filed between September 1, 1979, and August 31, 1980.  The total of 196 decisions does not include rulings arising from (1) disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and judges, and (2) various motions and petitions.

When two or more cases were “consolidated” by the supreme court in a single decision, but listed as separate entries by Lexis, I counted each set of the consolidated cases only once in the total of 196 decisions and in the following tables.  There were three cases titled Milwaukee Police Association v. Milwaukee (77-115, 77-116, and 77-117) that yielded three separate decisions and are treated as three distinct cases here.

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

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…]