The filing of Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Company of America (June 29), David M. Marks v. Houston Casualty Company (June 30), and State v. Mastella L. Jackson (July 1) brought points to five of the league’s firms. 

The Writs made the biggest jump—eight points contributed by Michael Best & Friedrich (a brief and a favorable outcome, but no oral argument, in Marks v. Houston Casualty).  Right behind them in the week’s scoring came the Citations, with five points from Crivello Carlson (a brief and oral argument in Fontana Builders) and two points from Godfrey & Kahn (an amicus brief and oral argument in Marks v. Houston Casualty).  Had the Gavels remained idle, they would have been joined at the top of the standings by the Citations.  However, the five points gained by the State Public Defender’s Office (a brief and oral argument in State v. Jackson) maintained the Gavels’ (now smaller) lead for another week.  Rounding out the scoring, Boardman & Clark picked up one point for an amicus brief in Fontana Builders, giving the Waivers sole possession of third place.

As a result, the standings are tighter than ever, with all five teams still in with a chance as the court’s term heads into its final weeks.

The term “polarized” has hovered over the Wisconsin Supreme Court in recent years, and it continues to provoke controversy regarding its applicability to the justices in Madison.  One of the reasons for the dispute is the absence of a generally-accepted way to gauge “polarization” in this context.  After all, there will always be two or three justices who agree with each other more frequently than they do with their other colleagues when voting on contentious cases.  To what extent, then, is the resulting disagreement “normal,” and when does it reach a level of acrimony and predictability that merits the label “polarization”?

One way to assess the current court’s degree of polarization is to compare the justices’ decisions with those of justices who served on the court in earlier decades (which SCOWstats has done).  Another method—the subject of this post—employs a comparison of the Wisconsin Supreme Court with the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Of course, it would be necessary to study the supreme courts of several states before reaching a conclusion that Wisconsin’s voting pattern was normal, or polarized, or something else.  But, as a starting point, it will be interesting to see what impressions arise from some of the ways in which the two neighboring courts can be measured against each other.[Continue Reading…]

Two of the three decisions released today affected the league’s standings.  Riding the performance of Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & McCracken in John Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health System – Eau Claire Clinic (a brief and a favorable outcome, but no oral argument), the Writs picked up 8 points—their first of the season.

However, the Affirmed emerged as the big winner, scoring a total of 16 points in two cases.  Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry earned 6 points in Prince Corporation v. James N. Vandenberg (a brief, an oral argument, and a decision that was partly favorable and partly unfavorable), while Axley Brynelson contributed the 10-point maximum in John Doe 56 (a brief, an oral argument, and a favorable outcome).

As a result of today’s activity, the Affirmed vaulted into contention—tied with the Waivers just one point back of the Citations and only eight points behind the league-leading Gavels.

SCOWstats has, until now, measured the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent activity against earlier years of the court’s work.  Other reference frames are also available, however, and today launches what I hope will be the first in a series of posts comparing the output of the Wisconsin Supreme Court with that of its counterpart in Minnesota—paying particular attention to some of the themes featured in previous posts devoted solely to Wisconsin.

I selected Minnesota because it resembles Wisconsin more closely than most other states—location, climate, economy, demographics, and so forth—while recognizing that it would likely be just as interesting to compare Wisconsin’s supreme court with that of a state that has little in common with the Midwest, especially a state where the justices are appointed rather than elected.  That will have to wait for another day, though, as Wisconsin’s western neighbor takes precedence for now over more exotic alternatives.[Continue Reading…]

Today’s decision in State v. Salinas earned the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office five points (for a brief and oral argument) as they try to hold off the Citations and the Waivers, their two closest challengers.

Multiple locations on the Wisconsin court system’s website introduce visitors to the moving story of Lavinia Goodell.[1]  In 1875, after she had begun practicing law in Rock County the previous year, Goodell sought permission from the Wisconsin Supreme Court to argue a case in that forum.  A unanimous three-justice panel denied her petition in an opinion written by Chief Justice Edward Ryan in 1876.  Although he deemed women fit for a variety of functions, Justice Ryan concluded that “the profession of law is surely not one of these.”  After all, he explained, “the peculiar qualities of womanhood” gave rise to a “tender susceptibility,” “emotional impulses,” and a “subordination of hard reason to sympathetic feeling,” among other traits unsuitable in the legal profession.  Instead, nature had prepared women “for the bearing and nurture of the children of our race and for the custody for the homes of the world …”  Activities contrary to the “sacred duties of their sex, as is the profession of law, are departures from the order of nature; and when voluntary, treason against it.”[Continue Reading…]

Today’s decision in Peggy Z. Coyne v. Scott Walker brought one point to the Waivers (from the amicus brief filed by Boardman & Clark), leaving them a single point back of the second-place Citations.

The release of St. Croix County Department of Health and Human Services v. Michael D. brought the Office of the State Public Defender five points for a brief and oral argument, thereby nudging the Gavels into first place, just two points ahead of the Citations.  The Waivers are only four points back in third place, with the Affirmed and the Writs trailing badly.

The other decision released today— Cheryl M. Sorenson v. Richard A. Batchelder—did not affect the standings.

These tables are derived from information contained in 70 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions filed between September 1, 1991, and August 31, 1992.  The total of 70 decisions does not include rulings arising from such undertakings as (1) disciplinary proceedings against lawyers; (2) bar admission issues; and (3) various motions and petitions.

In School District of Shorewood v. Wausau Insurance Companies, the court withdrew the decision that it had filed on May 20, 1992, and replaced it with a decision filed on August 27, 1992.  The August 27 decision is included in the total of 70 decisions noted above, while the May 20 decision is not.  However, information from the May 20 decision does appear in the “Number of Oral Arguments Presented” table.

The tables are available as a complete set and by individual topic according to 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

On the strength of an amicus brief filed in Walworth State Bank v. Abbey Springs Condominium Association, Boardman & Clark picked up one point for the Waivers, now only two points behind the Citations at the top of the league’s standings.