These tables are derived from information contained in 45 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions filed between September 1, 2022, and the end of the court’s term in the summer of 2023.  The total of 45 decisions omits orders pertaining to various motions, petitions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges. 

Also excluded are (1) Neil J. Rennick v. Teleflex Medical Incorporated (a 3-3 per curiam decision); (2) Robert L. Slamka v. General Heating and Air Conditioning and State v. Daimon Von Jackson, Jr. (both dismissed as improvidently granted); and (3) Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (Justice Ziegler did not participate, and Justice Hagedorn withdrew from participation.  No trio of the remaining justices could agree on a ruling.)

When two cases were consolidated and decided with a single decision, they are counted as only one.

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

Today we’ll supplement last week’s post with findings on four additional topics: (1) the length of decisions; (2) the number of concurrences and dissents; (3) the number of days between oral argument and decision filing; and (4) the frequency of fractured decisions.[Continue Reading…]

Now that the court has filed its final substantive decision of the term, the time has arrived for our annual statistical examination of the justices’ activity.  Interesting topics abound, including the surprising number of decisions, the issue of polarization, the role of Justice Hagedorn, and a mounting liberal voice—all of which we’ll consider today, before moving on to other matters in a week or two.[Continue Reading…]

A pair of decisions filed on June 30 rewarded the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office (five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. A. G.) and the Waivers (five points from Quarles & Brady for a brief and oral argument in Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Board).

Click here for the complete standings.

This week’s decisions rewarded only the Writs, who picked up 10 points from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc. v. Town of Buchanan—thereby enabling them to maintain their lead over the second-place Gavels.

Click here for the complete standings.

Originalism has stirred much controversy in recent years, with numerous prominent figures taking up cudgels pro and con.  Simply defined, the label originalism stands for the view that such documents as the US and state constitutions should be interpreted as they were understood by the people who drafted them—or, as defenders of originalism have insisted tirelessly, according to the documents’ “original public meaning.”

Nationally, originalism is associated with conservative viewpoints, and such has been the case at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially over the last several years following the arrival of a new cohort of conservative justices.  Beginning with the 2019-20 term the court has filed roughly twice as many decisions per term containing non-trivial discussions of originalism as it did from 2015-16 through 2018-19—and approximately five times as many per term as appeared from 2010-11 through 2014-15.^[1][Continue Reading…]

This week’s flood of six decisions delivered points to three of the league’s teams, with the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office the big winners.  By collecting 15 points (10 for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes and five for a brief and oral argument in State v. Eric J. Debrow) they pulled to within two points of the league-leading Writs—who retained their position at the top of the standings only because of five points from Tracey Wood & Associates for a brief and oral argument in State v. Quaheem O. Moore.  The Waivers completed the scoring with three points from von Briesen & Roper for a brief in 5 Walworth, LLC v. Engerman Contracting, Inc.

Click here for the complete standings.

This week’s decision in State v. Michael K. Fermanich brought 10 points to the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office on the strength of a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.  As a result, the Gavels have overtaken the Waivers and moved to within shouting distance of the first-place Writs.

Click here for the complete standings.

While three teams were idle his week, the Affirmed gained 10 points from Axley Brynelson for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Thomas G. Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Lyndon Station.

Click here for the complete standings.

This week, the Waivers collected 11 points—10 from von Briesen & Roper for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy Desmond SC, and one point from Quarles & Brady for an amicus brief in State v. Wilson P. Anderson.  Close behind, the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office received ten points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Anderson.

Click here for the complete standings.