Where Do the Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 2)?

15765008412_7eb2e25223_z

Yesterday, we began our year-by-year review of where the Court’s civil cases have originated since 1994.  By doing so, we can see trends in the administrative and executive agencies where the Court’s cases come from.  Last time, we reviewed the data for 1994, 1995 and 1996.  Today, we’re looking at the years 1997-1999.

For 1997, the Court heard sixteen civil cases which began in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The Court heard three each from Sacramento and San Mateo counties, and two cases apiece from San Diego, Orange, Fresno, Riverside, Solano, Alameda and Stanislaus counties, as well as two from the Workers Compensation Commission.  The Court decided one case each from Santa Clara, San Francisco, Marin, Ventura, San Luis Obispo and Kings counties, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Governing Board of the Rialto Unified School District, the City of Piedmont School District, the City of Piedmont Planning Commission, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Board of Retirement of the Ventura County Employees Association, the Kern County Department of Planning and Development Services and the Commission on State Mandates.

Table 230

We report the data for 1998 in Table 231.  That year, the Court decided fifteen civil cases which began in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The Court heard four cases apiece from San Francisco, San Diego, and Riverside counties, three from Sacramento and Alameda counties and the Workers Compensation Commission and two each from Santa Clara, Orange and Solano counties.  The Court decided one civil case which originated in the following counties: Lake, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Ventura and Kern, as well as the State Board of Equalization, the California Coastal Commission, the Labor Commission and the Board of Architectural Examiners.

Table 231

In 1999, the Court decided eighteen cases from Los Angeles.  The Court heard four cases from Santa Clara, three from San Diego and two each from San Francisco, Orange and San Bernardino counties. The Court heard one case from Sonoma, Lake, Marin, Santa Barbara, Alameda, San Luis Obispo and Tuolomne counties, as well as one apiece from the following governmental entities: the State Board of Equalization, the Workers Compensation Commission, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, the San Francisco Airports Commission, the City of Angels City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board and the state Commission on Professional Competence.

Table 232

Join us back here next Thursday as we continue our review of the originating jurisdictions of the Court’s civil cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Keoni Cabral (no changes).

Where Do the Supreme Court’s Civil Cases Originate (Part 1)?

6953330797_140b11a2b0_z

In our recent expansion of Sedgwick’s California Supreme Court database, one of the variables we added was the originating jurisdiction.  Given that the Court always has a significant number of administrative mandate cases, originating jurisdiction is a more precise measure of where the Court’s cases are coming from than solely tracking the original trial court.

The data from 1994 is reported in Table 227 below.  The Court handled fifteen civil cases originating in the Los Angeles Superior Court.  The Court decided four cases which originated in Orange County, three from San Francisco and two each from Santa Clara, San Diego, Marin, Fresno and Riverside County.  The Court heard one case each which originated with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the State Board of Equalization, the State Fair Political Practices Commission, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Governing Board of the Marin Community College District, the State Board of Forestry, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board.  The Court also heard one case each from Sonoma, San Diego, Lake, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Solano, San Mateo, Contra Costa and Ventura counties.

Table 227

In 1995, the Court heard fifteen cases which originated in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seven in San Francisco, three each in Santa Clara and Sacramento counties, two in Santa Barbara, San Mateo, Contra Costa and Alameda counties.  Four cases originated in the Commission on Judicial Performance.  One each arose in San Diego, Marin, Orange, Riverside, Solano and San Benito counties, as well as the Fair Political Practices Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the California Personnel Board, the Santa Ana City Council, the Department of Education, the Napa County Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Tax Collector and the Air Resources Board.

Table 228

For 1996, the Court heard six civil cases which originated in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, three in San Diego and two each in San Francisco, Orange, San Mateo and Mendocino counties.  The court heard one case each from Sacramento, Sutter and Kern counties, the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Board of Mining and Geology, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Workers Compensation Commission, the Medical Board, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the Department of Health Services, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Culver City Council.

Table 229

Join us back here tomorrow as we look at the originating jurisdictions for the Court’s docket for the years 1997-1999.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Chad McDonald (no changes).

How Have Public Entities Fared in Civil Cases (Part 2 – 2006-2016)?

2443479894_467217cf71_z

Last time, we looked at public entities’ winning percentage in civil cases at the California Supreme Court between 1994 and 2005.  Today, we look at the second half of our study period – how did public entities fare between 2006 and 2016?

Public entities have done even better during these years than they had in our earlier period.  Only once in the eleven years between 2006 and 2016 did either public entity petitioners or respondents fall below a winning percentage of 50%.  In 2006, public entity petitioners won 75% of their cases, while respondents won 52.38%.  In 2007, petitioners won three-quarters of their cases, while respondents won sixty percent.  In 2008, public entity petitioners won 71.43% of their cases, while respondents won half of theirs.  In 2009, public entities won five cases as petitioner, with one partial affirmance/reversal, while respondents won only 55.56% of their cases.  In 2010, the sides were roughly equal – public entity petitioners won 55.56% of their cases, while respondents won 57.14%.  For 2011, public entities won three quarters of their cases, while respondents evenly split theirs.  In 2012, petitioners won five cases with one split decision, while respondents won 83.33% of theirs.

Between 2013 and 2015, the Court granted relatively few petitions filed by public entities.  In 2013, public entity petitioners lost both of their cases.  Respondents won half of their six cases.  In 2014, petitioners won both their cases, while respondents won two-thirds of theirs.  In 2015, petitioners won two-thirds of their cases.  Respondents won half.  Finally, in 2016, petitioners won seven of their nine cases for a winning percentage of 77.78%.  But public entity respondents managed to win only one of their five cases last year for a winning percentage of 20%.

Table 226

Join us back here Thursday as we turn to our next issue in our ongoing research – tracking the originating jurisdictions of the Court’s civil cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Peasap (no changes).

How Have Public Entities Fared in Civil Cases? (Part I – 1994-2005)

4982842116_2e09d6b4f5_z

Last week, we looked at how defendants have fared in criminal cases.  Of course, in a sense that amounts to asking how prosecutors are doing.  So this week, we ask the flip side of that question – how have public entities fared in civil cases between 1994 and 2016?

In Table 225, we report the data for the years 1994 through 2005, reporting the percentage of cases with a clear winner – either an affirmance or reversal – which public entities won.  For the most part, public entities have been faring quite well.  In only two of these twelve years did public entities win less than half of their cases as petitioner.  Public entity respondents fell below fifty percent in only three of twelve years – quite a number given that in most years, the Court reverses fifty to sixty percent of the cases it hears.

In 1994, public entity petitioners got reversals in 83.33% of their cases.  Respondents prevailed 55.56% of the time.  The numbers flipped in 1995 – petitioners won only 55%, but respondents won 75% of their cases.  In 1996, public entity petitioners won all six of the cases with a clear winner.  Respondents won only 37.5% of their cases.  The following year, petitioners won 77.78% (seven of nine, with five split decisions), and respondents won even more often – 83.33% of their cases.  In 1998, both sides were quite close – petitioners won 61.54% of their cases and respondents won 63.64%.  In 1999, petitioners were 4-3 at the Court for a winning percentage of 57.14% (about the average for private entities).  Public entity respondents had a rough time of it, though, winning only 36.36% of their cases.  In 2000, it was petitioners’ turn, winning only 28.57% of their cases.  But respondents won three-quarters of theirs.

2001 was a comparatively rough year at the Court for public entities – petitioners won only 57.14% of their cases, and respondents won only 28.57% of their cases.  But things turned around the following year – petitioners won seven of eight for a winning percentage of 87.5%, and petitioners won 71.43%.  Meanwhile, public entity respondents won only five of twelve cases, for a winning percentage of 41.67%.  In 2004, public entity parties fared about as well as private entities did – petitioners won 60% of their cases, and respondents won half of theirs.  Finally, in 2005, public entity petitioners only won 28.57% of their cases, while respondents won 57.14%.

Table 225

Join us back here next time as we look at the years 2006-2016.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Nan Palmero (no changes).

Are Defendants Winning Criminal Appeals More Often (Part 2 – 2006-2016)?

14430214062_06cc7e3dda_z

Yesterday, we looked at whether defendants are winning a higher fraction of appeals in criminal cases between 1994 and 2005.  Today, we’re looking at the years 2006 through 2016.

In 2010, defendants won eleven criminal cases.  In 2012, defendants won ten cases.  Beginning in 2014, defendants have won more cases each year – twelve in 2014, thirteen in 2015 and 14 in 2016.  Defendants had mixed results in five cases in 2016, four in 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2015.  Defendants had partial wins in three cases in 2006 and 2013, and in two cases in 2014.  Defendants had one partial win in 2008, and none in 2009.

Defendants lost 63 cases in 2012.  They lost 51 in 2007, 56 in 2008, 53 in 2009 and 58 in 2010.  Defendants lost 43 cases in 2006, 44 in 2011 and 41 each in 2013 and 2014.  Defendants lost 33 cases in 2016 and 26 in 2015.

Table 223

Defendants won between ten and twenty percent of criminal cases in 2006 and 2008-2013.  Every year since, the winning percentage for defendants has increased, to 21.82% in 2014, 30.23% in 2015 and 26.92% in 2016.  Defendants won 13.21% of their cases in 2006, 13.64% in 2008, 13.11% in 2009, 15.07% in 2009 and 2010, 13.73% in 2011, 12.99% in 2012 and 12% in 2013.

Defendants have scored partial wins in 9.3% of cases in 2015 and 9.62% in 2016.  Defendants have had partial wins in 6.56% of cases in 2007, 5.66% in 2006, 5.48% in 2010 and 5.19% in 2012.  Defendants have fallen below a seventy percent losing percentage only twice during this period – 60.46% in 2015 and 63.46% in 2016.  Defendants lost 75.93% of their criminal appeals in 2014 and 79.45% in 2010.  Defendants have lost at least 80% of their cases in seven years – 2006 (81.13%), 2007 (83.61%), 2008 (84.85%); 2009 (86.89%); 2011 (86.27%); 2012 (81.82%) and 2013 (82%).

Table 224

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to the next facet of our analysis of the Court’s decision making.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Peter Alfred Hess (no changes).

Are Defendants Winning Criminal Appeals More Often (Part 1 – 1994-2005)?

33522835693_e3757f3d26_z

Earlier this week, I joined “Air Talk” on KPCC radio for a discussion of the California Supreme Court’s recent criminal decisions, beginning with People v. Gutierrez, in which the Court reversed three convictions for the first time in many years based upon Batson/Wheeler (strikes from the jury pool based on minority status) error.  So I thought we’d turn our attention to the issue we discussed – is the California Supreme Court turning in a more liberal direction in criminal cases?

In Table 221, we show the absolute numbers – the cases defendants have won, the partial affirmances and reversals, and the cases defendant have lost.  For the first half of our period, defendants have won ten or more cases only four times – 1996 (11 wins); 1999 (15 wins); 2002 (11 wins) and 2005 (14 wins).  The defense won nine cases each in 2000, 2001 and 2003.  In 1998 and 2005, they won eight cases per year.  In 1994 and 1997, they won five cases each year.  In 1995, they won three cases.

In 1997 and 2003, defendants got partial affirmances and partial reversals in four cases.  The Court won mixed results in three cases in 1998.  In 1995, 1996, 2001, 2002 and 2004, the Court scored two mixed results per year.  The Court had one mixed result per year in 1999, 2000 and 2005.

Between 2002 and 2005, the Court saw 50+ defense losses each year – 58 in 2002, 50 in 2003, 57 in 2004 and 52 in 2005.  The Court had 40+ defense losses in 1995, 2000 and 2001 (44, 45 and 47, respectively).  Defendants lost between thirty and forty cases in 1994 (36 cases); 1997 (35); 1998 (34); and 1999 (32).  Finally, defendants lost 29 cases in 1996.

Table 221

We report the percentage of criminal cases won by defendants in Table 222.  Defendants won 31.25% of cases in 1999 and 26.19% in 1996.  Every other year for the first half of the period, defendants lost between twenty and ten percent of the criminal cases.  Defendants won between five and ten percent of criminal cases in 1997 (9.09%), 1998 (6.67%) and 2003 (6.35%).

Defendants lost two-thirds of cases in 1999 and 69.05% of cases in 1996.  Defendants lost between seventy and eighty percent of their cases in 1997-1998 (79.55% and 75.56%) and 2003-2004 (79.37% and 78.08%).  Defendants averaged less than seventy percent of their cases only in 1996 (69.05%) and 1999 (66.67%).

Table 222

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the data for defense wins in criminal cases between 2006 and 2016.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Charlie Day (no changes).

Do Winning Parties Tend to Have More Amicus Support in Criminal Cases (Part 2)?

2261000764_f2ca9a4b91_z

Yesterday, we analyzed the Court’s experience with amicus briefs in criminal cases between 1994 and 2005.  Today, we’ll look at the Court’s experience with amicus briefs in criminal cases between 2006 and 2016.

Winners averaged more amicus support than losing parties in criminal affirmances only about one-third of the time during this period.  In 2006, neither winners nor losers received any amicus support in affirmances.  In 2007, winners averaged 0.21 amicus briefs, and losing parties averaged 0.15.  In 2008, winners averaged 0.1 briefs to 0.23 for losers.  In 2009, winners averaged 0.11 briefs to 0.31 for losers.  In 2010, winning parties averaged 0.02 amicus briefs to 0.25 for losers.

In 2011, winning parties (the respondents) averaged 0.03 amicus briefs to 0 for losing parties.  In 2012, winning parties averaged 0.1 briefs to 0.24 for losing parties.  In 2013, winning parties averaged 0.04 amicus briefs to 0 for losers.  In 2014, winning parties averaged 0.74 amicus briefs to 0.16 for losing parties.  In 2015, neither side received any amicus support, and in 2016, winning parties received 0.13 extra briefs to 0.09 for losing parties.

Table 218

In Table 219, we focus on reversals in criminal cases.  For these years, winning petitioners averaged more amicus support than losers somewhat more than half the time.  For 2006, winners averaged 0.19 amicus briefs to 0.13 for losers.  For 2007, winning parties averaged 0.31 briefs to 0.46 for losing parties.  In 2008, petitioners – the winning party – averaged 0.58 amicus briefs in support to 0.16 for losing parties.  In 2009, both sides averaged amicus support from 0.3 parties.  In 2010, winners averaged 0.39 briefs to 0.28 for losing parties.  In 2011, petitioners received amicus support from 0.27 amici to 0.13 for respondents.  In 2012, winning petitioners received amicus support from 0.27 parties to 0.36 for respondents.  In 2013, winners received an average of 0.22 briefs in support to 0.28 for losing parties.  In 2014, petitioners averaged half an amicus brief per party to 0.14 for losing parties.  In 2015, winners averaged 1.25 amicus briefs to 0.08 for losing parties.  In 2016, winning parties averaged 0.53 briefs to 0.24 for losing parties.

Table 219

Lastly, we turn our attention to partial reversals.  In 2006, petitioners averaged 0.18 briefs in partial reversals to 0 for respondents.  Neither side received amicus support in 2007, 2008 or 2009.  In 2010, petitioners averaged 1.33 amicus briefs more to 0.17 more for respondents.  Neither side received any amicus support in 2011 or 2012.  In 2013, petitioners averaged 0.2 amicus briefs to 0.4 for respondents.  Neither side received any additional support in 2014.  In 2015, petitioners averaged one amicus brief to 0.18 for respondents.  Finally, in 2016, petitioners averaged 0.27 amicus briefs in both partial affirmances and partial reversals.

Table 220

Join us back here tomorrow as we continue our data analytic review of the Court’s decision making.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jesse Richmond (no changes).

Do Winning Parties Tend to Have More Amicus Support in Criminal Cases (Part 1)?

10918574986_a33b28d0a6_z

Last week, we examined whether winning parties tended to average more amicus support in civil cases between 1994 and 2016.  This week, we look at the Court’s experience with amicus briefs in criminal cases.

In Table 215, we report the data for affirmances between 1994 and 2006.  We see very little correlation between the number of amicus briefs and winners in such cases.  In 1994, losers in affirmances averaged 0.48 amicus briefs to 0.33 for losing parties.  In 1995, winners averaged 0.25 briefs in affirmances to 0.21 for losing parties.  In 1996, losing parties averaged 0.24 briefs to 0.19 for winners.  In 1997, once again the winning parties averaged slightly more briefs – 0.25 to 0.2.  In 1998, losing parties averaged 0.23 amicus briefs to 0.19 for winners.  From 1999 through 2002, the sides were even – 0.17 amicus briefs apiece in 1999, 0.03 in 2000, 0.06 in 2001 and 0.13 in 2002.  In 2003, winning parties averaged 0.1 amicus briefs to 0.08 for losing parties.  In 2004, winners averaged 0.08 briefs to 0.05 for losing parties.  Finally, in 2005, winning parties averaged 0.28 amicus briefs in affirmances to 0.14 for losing parties.

Table 215

We report the data for reversals in Table 216 below, and interestingly, our result is different – winners in criminal reversals did typically average more amicus support.  In 1994, both sides averaged 0.64 briefs.  In 1995, winners in reversals averaged 0.07 amicus briefs to 0 for losers.  In 1996, losing parties in reversals averaged 0.64 briefs to 0.55 for winners.

In 1997, winners averaged 0.47 amicus briefs to 0.13 for losers.  The following year, winners averaged 0.14 briefs to 0 for losers.  In 1999, winners averaged 0.36 amicus briefs to 0.18 for losers.  In 2000, winners averaged 0.12 briefs to 0.18 for losers.  From 2001 through 2005, winning parties in reversals averaged more amicus briefs than losers each year – 0.38 to 0.19 in 2001, 0.73 to 0.63 in 2002, 0.78 to 0.17 in 2003, 0..45 to 0.05 in 2004 and 0.31 to 0.13 in 2005.

Table 216

Finally, we review the cases with mixed results – partial affirmances and partial reversals.  Petitioners averaged more amicus briefs than respondents nearly every year in such cases.  In 1994, petitioners averaged 0.33 amicus briefs to 0 for respondents.  In 1995, the comparison was 0.38 to 0.  In 1996, the sides tied, averaging 0.8 amicus briefs apiece.  In 1997, petitioners averaged 0.38 briefs to 0.13 for respondents.  In 1998, petitioners averaged 0.5 amicus briefs to 0.17 for respondents.  In 1999, petitioners averaged 0.5 amicus briefs to 0 for respondents.  In 2000, neither side in partial reversals got any amicus support.  In 2001, petitioners in such cases averaged 0.5 briefs to 0 for respondents.  In 2002, neither side had any amicus support.  In 2003, petitioners averaged 0.13 briefs in partial reversals to 0 for respondents.  In 2004, petitioners averaged 0.29 amicus briefs in partial reversals to 0.14 for respondents.  Finally, in 2005, petitioners in partial reversals got no amicus support, while respondents averaged 0.17 briefs.

Table 217

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s experience with amicus briefs in criminal cases between 2006 and 2016.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ron Kroetz (no changes).

Do Winning Parties Tend to Have More Amicus Support in Civil Cases (Part 2)?

6026494605_3e23771fa0_z

Yesterday, we reviewed who averaged the most amicus support in civil cases between 1994 and 2005 – winning parties, losers, or parties who won only in part.  Today, we address the data for the years 2006 through 2016.

Petitioners nearly always averaged more amicus briefs when the Court reversed (i.e., winning petitioners) than when the Court affirmed.  In 2007, winning petitioners averaged 2.04 amicus briefs to 1.05 for losers.  In 2008, winning petitioners averaged 2.95 amicus briefs to 2.33 briefs for losers.  Petitioners averaged more amicus briefs in reversals than affirmances for each of the most recent seven years.  In 2010, winning petitioners averaged 2.86 amicus briefs to 2 for losers.  The next year, winning petitioners averaged 2 amicus briefs to 1 for losers.  In 2012, winning petitioners averaged 2.71 amicus briefs to 2.67 briefs for losers.  In 2013, winning petitioners averaged 3.07 amicus briefs to 1.57 for losing petitioners.  In 2014, winning petitioners averaged 3.11 amicus briefs to 2.8 for losers.  In 2015, winning petitioners averaged 2.35 amicus briefs to 0.78 for losers.  Finally, in 2016, winning petitioners averaged 2.37 amicus briefs to 1.71 for losing petitioners.

Petitioners who only won in part seldom averaged more amicus briefs than clear winners or losers.  In 2006, part-winners averaged 2.4 amicus briefs to 1.94 for losers and 1.66 for winners.   In 2007, part-win petitioners averaged 3 amicus briefs to 2.04 for winners and 1.05 for losers.  In 2011, part-win petitioners averaged five amicus briefs to two for winning petitioners and one for losing petitioners.  In 2012, petitioners who scored a partial win averaged 7.5 amicus briefs to 2.71 for winners and 2.67 for losers.

Table 213

Over the past eleven years, respondents have not consistently averaged more amicus briefs in affirmances than reversals.  In 2006, winning respondents averaged 1.72 amicus briefs to 1.34 for losers.  In 2009 and 2010, winning respondents averaged 2.82 and 1.57 amicus briefs, to 0.95 and 2.13 for losers.  Between 2012 and 2014, winning respondents averaged 2, 1.79 and 3.3 amicus briefs, to 1.35, 1.73 and 1.11 briefs for losing respondents.

Respondents in partial affirmances and reversals averaged more amicus briefs than complete winners or losers in only three of the eleven years between 2006 and 2016.  In 2011, partial winners averaged 2 amicus briefs to 1.13 for losing respondents and 1 for winning respondents.  The following year, respondents who prevailed in part averaged seven amicus briefs to 2 for winning respondents and 1.35 for losers.  Finally, in 2016 respondents who prevailed in part averaged three amicus briefs to 2 for losing respondents and 1.43 for winning respondents.

Table 214

Join us back here next week as we analyze the data for amicus briefs in criminal cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ken Lund (no changes).

Do Winning Parties Tend to Have More Amicus Support in Civil Cases (Part 1)?

13419714013_35428de3cf_z

For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing the data on the Supreme Court’s experience with amicus briefs, asking whether petitioners or respondents tend to average more amicus support.  Now, as a further step towards modeling the impact of amicus briefs, let’s look at whether winning or losing petitioners or respondents average more amicus support.

In Table 211, we report the data for the years 1994-2005 for petitioners in reversals, cases which were affirmed in part and reversed in part, and affirmances.  The data does not strongly suggest that, for these years, winners were more likely to have more amicus support.  Winning petitioners only averaged more amicus briefs in seven of the first twelve years of our period.  In 1994, winning petitioners averaged 1.81 amicus briefs, while losing petitioners averaged 1.06.  In 1997, winning petitioners averaged 2.15 briefs to 1.83 for losers.  In 1999, winning petitioners averaged 2.29 briefs to 1.67 for losing petitioners.  The next year, winning petitioners averaged 2.17 briefs to 1.9 for losers.  In 2002, winning petitioners averaged 1.81 amicus briefs to 0.68 briefs for petitioners in affirmances.  The next year, winning petitioners averaged 2.89 amicus briefs to 1.92 for petitioners.  In 2004, winning petitioners averaged 1.95 amicus briefs to 1.33 extra briefs for losing petitioners.

In six of the twelve years of the period, petitioners in cases which ended in partial affirmances and partial reversals averaged more amicus briefs than either winning or losing petitioners (albeit with a smaller sample of cases).  In 1994, petitioners who won in part averaged 2.33 amicus briefs to 1.81 for winners and 1.06 for losing petitioners.  Two years later, petitioners who won in part averaged four amicus briefs to 1.4 for losing petitioners and 0.65 for losing petitioners.  In 1997, petitioners who scored a partial win averaged 2.67 briefs to 2.15 for winners and 1.83 for losing petitioners.  In 1999, petitioners who scored a partial win averaged 3.67 amicus briefs to 2.29 for winners and 1.67 for petitioners in affirmances.  In 2003, petitioners who prevailed in part averaged 4 amicus briefs to 2.89  extra briefs for petitioners who prevailed and 1.92 to petitioners who lost.  In 2005, petitioners in partial affirmances averaged 2.5 briefs, while petitioners in affirmances averaged 2.33 briefs and 2.13 briefs for petitioners in reversals.

Table 211

In contrast, respondents who won affirmances generally averaged more amicus support than losing respondents for these years.  Winning respondents averaged more amicus support than losers from 1995 through 2001 and in 2003.  In 1995, winning respondents averaged 2.17 amicus briefs to 0.92 for losers.  In 1996, winning respondents averaged 1.7 extra briefs to 0.71 for losers.  In 1997, winning respondents averaged 1.44 amicus briefs to 1.12 for losing respondents.  The next year, winning respondents averaged 1.7 briefs to 0.88 for losing respondents.  In 1999, winning respondents averaged almost twice as many briefs as losing respondents – 1.81 to 0.96.  For 2000, respondents averaged 1.65 amicus briefs in affirmances to 1.25 for respondents in reversals.  In 2001, respondents in affirmances averaged 1.63 briefs to 1.04 for respondents in reversals.  Finally, in 2003 respondents who won averaged 1.67 amicus briefs to 1.48 briefs for losers.

Once again, parties who scored partial wins averaged more briefs than either clear winners or losers.  In 1996, respondents who scored a partial win averaged 2 amicus briefs to 1.7 for winners and 0.71 for losers.  In 1999, respondents in partial affirmances and reversals averaged 2.33 amicus briefs to 1.81 extra briefs for winning respondents and 0.96 for losing respondents.  The following year, respondents who scored partial wins averaged 2.67 amicus briefs to 1.65 for winning respondents and 1.25 for losing respondents.  In 2001, respondents who won in part averaged 3 amicus briefs to 1.63 for winners and 1.04 for losing respondents.  The next year, partial winners averaged 2 amicus briefs to 1.57 for losing respondents and 1.26 for winning respondents.

Table 212

Join us back here tomorrow as we look at the data from 2006 through 2016.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Israel De Alba (no changes).

LexBlog