No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

This week’s decisions removed any doubt as to the preeminent team during the first half of the season.  The league-leading Writs—especially Cannon & Dunphy and Habush, Habush & Rottier—towered over the rest of the field, as detailed below.  Among the other teams, the Gavels from the State Public Defender’s Office made the most noise and strengthened their hold on second place.

Click here for the complete standings.

The Writs: 22 points.
11 points from Cannon & Dunphy for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in ACUITY v. Estate of Michael Shimeta and one point for an amicus brief in Beatriz Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority.
10 points from Habush, Habush & Rottier for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Banuelos.
1 point from Godfrey & Kahn for an amicus brief in ACUITY.

The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office: 5 points.
5 points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Jovan T. Mull. 

The Waivers: 2 points.
1 point from Quarles & Brady for an amicus brief in Banuelos.
1 point from von Briesen & Roper for an amicus brief in Banuelos.

Coverage of this spring’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election has included assertions that a victory by Janet Protasiewicz would provide the court with a liberal majority for the first time since the tenure of Justice Louis Butler (2004-05 through 2007-08).^[1]  Such statements invite us to explore two questions:  How “liberal” was the Butler court, and how might it compare in this regard with the court in 2023-24, following the replacement of Justice Patience Roggensack with Justice Protasiewicz?[Continue Reading…]

This week’s pair of decisions rewarded the Waivers and the Gavels, as detailed below.  The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office were the big winners, jumping over both the Affirmed and the Waivers into second place behind the idle Writs.

The Gavels: five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle.

The Waivers: one point from Henak Law Office for an amicus brief in State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr.

Click here for the complete standings.

One of the decisions filed this week—Secura Supreme Insurance Company v. The Estate of Daniel Keith Huck—yielded points for two teams, as detailed below.  The Writs, powered primarily by Habush, Habush & Rottier, solidified their position at the top of the standings, while Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen moved the Affirmed ahead of the idle Gavels into third place.

Click here for the complete standings.

The Writs: 13 points.
Habush, Habush & Rottier, 10 points for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.
Cannon & Dunphy, 2 points for an amicus brief and oral argument.
Godfrey & Kahn, 1 point for an amicus brief.

The Affirmed: five points.
Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, five points for a brief and oral argument.

These tables are derived from information contained in 276 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1941, and August 31, 1942.  The total of 276 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and the like.

When two or more cases were, in effect, consolidated—one was simply said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the cases are counted as only one: (1) Banking Com. v. Magnin (239 Wis. 36) and  Banking Com. v. Magnin (239 Wis. 40); (2) State v. Wagner (239 Wis. 634) and State v. Wagner (239 Wis. 642); and (3) Beck v. Baird; State ex rel. Krieser v. Baird; and State ex rel. Stecher v. Baird.       

Carpenter Baking Co. v. Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union; In re Gerlach’s Will and Radtke Bros. & Kortsch Co. v. Industrial Commission resulted in 3-3 splits and are not included.

Also excluded is State ex rel. State Central Committee of Progressive Party v. Board of Election Commissioners in which the court took original jurisdiction and then dismissed the case. 

According to Portraits of Justice. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s First 150 Years, “[i]n 1940, [Justice George] Nelson became ill and was unable to attend court.  He resigned in December 1942.”  Nelson’s name does not appear on any of the decisions filed in 1941-42, and I am assuming that he did not participate at all during this term.  Thus, he is omitted from the following tables.

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

With this week’s decision in Marilyn Casanova v. Michael S. Polsky, Esquire, the Waivers picked up a point for an amicus brief by Boardman & Clark, but it was not enough to hold off the Writs, who vaulted to the top of the standings with 10 points from Godfrey & Kahn for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.

The early months of 1999 delivered remarkable drama for supreme court watchers, as exceedingly unusual accounts of discord among the justices spread through the media.  Readers encountered revelations that Justice William Bablitch was working with two of his colleagues to gain support for a challenger to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in the spring election.  The motives of Bablitch and the others were said to include complaints that Abrahamson (1) made unilateral decisions in administering the court; (2) sought to display a picture of Lavinia Goodell (the first women admitted to practice law in the supreme court); (3) joined staffers the previous year for a one-time aerobics workout in the courtroom after hours; (4) had games deleted from the court’s computers; and (5) refused to invite Bablitch’s wife to a court-sponsored conference.  Abrahamson’s defenders alleged that Bablitch was maneuvering to become chief justice himself, and they dismissed his complaints as misguided or petty.^[1][Continue Reading…]

Once again, this week’s sole decision brought no points to the league’s teams–hence, no change in the standings.

This week’s sole decision brought no points to the league’s teams–hence, no change in the standings.