Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Divided Criminal Cases, 2002-2007

Last time, we reviewed the Justices’ agreement rates in divided criminal cases – how many times did each possible combination of Justices vote the same way in criminal cases with at least one dissenter.  This time, we’re looking at the years 2002 through 2007.

Justice Baxter’s agreement rate with Justice Moreno was 65.74%.  He agreed with the pro tems 63.64% of the time.  Justice Brown’s two highest agreement rates were with Justice Chin (72.86%) and Justice Baxter (72.46%).  Chief Justice George and Justice Brown were at 66.67%.  Justice Brown agreed with Justices Werdegar and Moreno 58.57% of the time.  Her agreement rate with the pro tems was 50%, and with Justice Kennard – 37.14%.  Justice Chin had an agreement rate of 88.89% with Justice Baxter, 70% with Justice Moreno and 69.23% with the pro tem Justices.

Justice Corrigan had an agreement rate with the pro tem Justices of 100%.  Justice Corrigan was in the nineties with Justices Chin (92.31%) and Baxter (92%).  Chief Justice George (88.46%) and Justice Baxter (81.31%) were next.  Justices Corrigan and Werdegar had an agreement rate of 73.08%.  Justices Kennard and Moreno were next at 65.38%.  Chief Justice George had an agreement rate of 83.33% with the pro tems, 82.57% with Justice Chin and 77.06% with Justice Moreno.  Justices Kennard and Baxter have an agreement rate of 45.79%.

Justice Kennard had an agreement rate in the fifties with Justices Werdegar (58.18%), Moreno (55.45%) and Chief Justice George (54.13%).  She agreed with Justice Chin in 48.18% of divided criminal cases, and with the pro tems in 46.15%.  Justice Moreno’s agreement rate with the pro tems was 76.92%.  Justice Werdegar’s agreement rate with Chief Justice George was 74.31%.  Next were pro tem Justices at 69.23%, Justice Moreno at 69.09%, Justice Chin at 68.18% and Justice Baxter at 64.81%.

Join us back here Thursday as we complete this subject with a look at the years 2008-2013 and 2014-2018.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Trophygeek (no changes).

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Divided Criminal Cases, 1996-2001

Today, we’re continuing our review of the Justices’ agreement rates in divided criminal cases, this time looking at the data for the years 1996 through 2001.

Justice Arabian had a 50% agreement rate with Justice Baxter, but 0% with Justice Mosk.  Justice Baxter agreed with pro tem Justices half the time, but with Justice Mosk in only 32.67%.  Justice Brown’s voting during this period was at least relatively comparable to Justice Baxter (76.04%), Justice George (73.68%) and Justice Chin (72.63%), but her agreement rates with Justice Kennard (50%), Mosk (39.36%) and the pro tems (0%) were much lower.  Justices Brown and Werdegar had an agreement rate of 63.54%.  Justice Chin had an agreement rate of 86.21% with Justice Baxter, and 35% with Justice Mosk.

Justice George’s agreement rate with Justice Arabian before his departure was 100%.  Justice Chin was right behind at 91.75%, and Justices George and Baxter had similar voting records as well (80.39%).  Justice George agreed with the pro tems only half the time, and with Justice Mosk only 43%.  Justice Kennard’s agreement rates were 61.17% with Justice Werdegar, 59.8% with Justice George, 53.47% with Justice Mosk, 52.42% with Justice Baxter, 52.04% with Justice Chin, 50% with the pro tems and 25% with Justice Kennard.  Chief Justice Lucas had an agreement rate with Justice Arabian of 50%.

Chief Justice Lucas had agreement rates prior to his retirement of 100% with three of his colleagues: Justices Baxter, Chin and Werdegar.  His agreement rate with his successor Justice George was 66.67%, with Justice Kennard, 50% and with Justice Mosk, 33.33%.  Justice Mosk had an agreement rate of 50% with the pro tems.  Finally, Justice Werdegar had an agreement rate of 76.47% with Justice George, 72.45% with Justice Chin, 64.08% with Justice Baxter, 57.43% with Justice Mosk, and 50% with Justice Arabian and the pro tem Justices.

Join us back here later today as we address the criminal agreement rates for the years 2002-2007.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jeff P. (no changes).

Welcoming Three New Appellate Experts to Our Growing San Francisco Office

I’m delighted to welcome three new experienced and talented appellate specialists to our growing San Francisco office!  Here’s the firm’s press release –

Horvitz & Levy Expands San Francisco Office with Three Experienced Appellate Hires

Bay Area Office for Nation’s Largest Appellate Boutique Offers Unmatched Expertise

Horvitz & Levy LLP, the country’s largest boutique law firm dedicated to civil appeals and trial  consulting, has expanded its San Francisco presence with three strategic hires. The firm operates on an experienced-hire model and in keeping with this strategy has added appellate experts Beth Jay, Christopher Hu, and Andrea Russi.

Beth Jay, former principal attorney to three California chief justices, brings 35 years of California Supreme Court experience and three years of federal appellate court insights to Horvitz & Levy’s clients. In addition to serving as a senior adviser to the Chief Justice,  Jay has served on numerous Supreme Court, Judicial Council, and State Bar committees with a focus on judicial ethics and multi-jurisdictional issues. She served former Chief Justices Malcolm M. Lucas and Ronald M. George for their entire tenure on the Supreme Court, and assisted Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye from the beginning of her term in January 2011 until Jay’s retirement in 2015.  Jay is a recipient of the Bernard E. Witkin Medal for her lifetime body of work and influence on the legal landscape.

Christopher (Chris) Hu brings to bear significant appellate expertise, having served as a judicial law clerk to Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the Ninth Circuit and Justice Goodwin Liu of the Supreme Court of California.  Hu is a graduate of Stanford Law School and won the Judge Thelton E. Henderson Prize for Outstanding Performance in Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

Andrea Russi most recently served as a staff attorney to Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo (retired) of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four.  She also served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, worked as an associate at Latham & Watkins, and was a Lecturer in Residence for the UC Berkeley School of Law where she was the Managing Director and Director of Criminal Justice for The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy.     Horvitz & Levy’s Bay Area office opened in June of 2018 at 505 Sansome Street in the city’s iconic Transamerica Pyramid Center, and is led by Kirk C. Jenkins, the former Chair of Sedgwick LLP’s Appellate Task Force. “The business growth in the Bay Area and the need for deep and strategic insights into the appellate process before, during, and after trial, is the catalyst for our swift expansion. Each of these hires brings unique and highly sought-after skills to our already robust platform,” said Jenkins.  Horvitz & Levy has 40 attorneys focused on civil appeals in state and federal courts nationwide and is known throughout the legal community as the nation’s premier appellate boutique.

About Horvitz & Levy

Horvitz & Levy is the largest law firm in the nation specializing exclusively in civil appellate litigation and trial strategy consultation.  Clients turn to Horvitz & Levy for its demonstrated collaborative think-tank culture and its unmatched skill in preserving and developing issues for appellate review, helping to shape the law for the firm’s clients. For more information visit www.horvitzlevy.com.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Tiocfaidh ar la 1916 (no changes).

Join Me on Tuesday for a Strafford Data Analytics Webinar!

Tuesday, March 12, I’ll be a panelist for a Strafford webinar on Data Analytics and Litigation.  The other two panelists are Steve Embry, publisher of Tech Crossroads (and a former colleague of mine many years ago) and Evan Moses, a partner at Ogletree Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart.  The time is 10:00 – 11:30 Pacific.  Here’s the link and the full description is below. 

This CLE webinar will guide litigators on how to use big data leading up to, and during, litigation. The panel will explore how data is being used to govern decisions as trial approaches, including settlement conditions, surveying potential jury member demographics, and use of psychographics for desired outcomes at trial.

Description

The legal profession is entering its data-driven phase. With the advent of litigation analytics, attorneys can finally quantify the prospects of success or the scope of risk for almost every option during a case.

Analytics has a role to play in every phase of litigation, from evaluating the plaintiff and opposing counsel, to the consideration of appellate issues. Understanding how to obtain and use this data is critical for litigators.

Previously, big data was only available to jury consultants or large law firms with deep pockets and enough resources to wade through immense and confusing amounts of information. But investigative programs that provide easy access to data are emerging as powerful everyday tools for lawyers seeking the bests outcomes for their clients.

Listen as our distinguished panel guides litigators on how to harness big data analytics for use during litigation. The panel will also discuss how data governs business decisions for corporations and law firms alike leading up to trial.

Outline

I.      Overview of big data and what types of analytics it offers to litigators

II.      Discussion of pre-trial data analytics, including case budgets and business decisions

III.      Discussion of data analytics during litigation, including panel selection, AFAs and exposure calculations

IV.      Best practices for obtaining and using big data analytics before and during litigation all the way from pre-trial motions through the appeal

Benefits

The panel will review these and other relevant topics:

·      What does big data include?

·      How can big data be used to govern business decisions leading up to trial?

·      How can big data analytics be leveraged both in the trial court and on appeal?

Image courtesy of Flickr by Luckey_Sun (no changes).

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 2014-2018

For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing the Justices’ agreement rates in civil cases since 1990, six years at a time.  Today, we’ve reached the final post in that five-post series, as we take a look at the Court’s past five years.  One caution – Justice Kennard is the highest agreement rate with most of the other Justices because she voted in relatively few divided civil cases before her 2014 retirement.

Among the Justices who served most or all of this period, Justice Corrigan’s highest agreement rate was with Justice Baxter – 85.71%.  She voted with the Chief Justice in 79.41% of non-unanimous civil cases.  She voted with Justice Kruger in 67.86%, with Justice Chin 67.65%, and with Justice Werdegar in 65.63% of divided civil cases.  Justice Corrigan voted with Justices Cuellar and Liu in 57.14% of cases.  Lastly, Justice Corrigan agreed with pro tem Justices in only one third of divided civil decisions.

As shown below, in her final cases in 2014, Justice Kennard agreed 100% with the Chief Justice and Justices Corrigan, Werdegar, Baxter and Liu.  Justices Kennard and Chin had an agreed rate of two thirds.

Justice Kruger’s highest agreement rate was with Justice Liu: 71.43%.  Justice Kruger’s rate was in the sixties with three of her colleagues: Justice Corrigan (67.86%), the Chief Justice (62.96%) and Justice Werdegar (60%).  Interestingly Justice Kruger has voted with Justice Cuellar, another appointee of former Governor Brown, in only 53.57% of divided civil cases.  She has voted with Justice Chin in 44.44% of such cases, and with the pro tem Justices only 40% of the time.

Prior to her retirement, Justice Werdegar voted with Justice Cuellar in 80% of divided civil cases.  She voted with the Chief Justice 77.42% of the time.  She voted with Justice Liu in 68.75% of cases and with Justice Kruger in 60%.  Justice Werdegar agreed with Justice Baxter in 57.14%, with Justice Chin in 54.84%, and with the pro tem Justices 50% of the time.

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye had an agreement rate of 85.71% with Justice Baxter.  Three Republican appointees and one Democratic one were next – Justice Corrigan (79.41%), Justice Cuellar (77.78%), Justice Werdegar (77.42%), and Justice Chin (70%).  The Chief Justice agreed with Justice Liu two-thirds of the time, and with Justice Kruger in 62.96% of divided civil cases.  Her agreement rate with the pro tem Justices in divided civil cases was zero.

Justice Chin’s highest agreement rates were two colleagues in the seventies – Justice Baxter at 71.43% and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye at 70.59%.  Two more Justices were in the sixties – Justice Corrigan at 67.65% and Justice Kennard, 66.67%.  Two more were in the fifties and in the forties – Justices Cuellar (59.26%), Werdegar (54.84%), Liu (47.06%) and Kruger (44.44%).  Justice Chin agreed with pro tem Justices in only 28.57% of divided civil cases.

Justice Baxter’s highest agreement rates before his retirement were with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Corrigan – both 85.71%.  His rate with Justice Chin was 71.43%.  Justice Baxter had identical agreement rates of 57.14% with Justices Werdegar and Liu.  He agreed with none of the pro tem Justices in divided civil cases prior to his retirement.

Justice Cuellar’s data for civil cases is interesting – disregarding for the moment the pro tem Justices, four of the five highest agreement rates with Justice Cuellar were with Republican appointees – Justice Werdegar 80%, the Chief Justice 77.78%, Justice Chin 59.26%, and Justice Corrigan 57.14%.  The exceptions were the pro tems at 80% and Justice Liu at 67.86%.  Justice Cuellar’s lowest agreement rate during these years was Justice Kruger – 53.57%.

In contrast, two of Justice Liu’s three highest agreement rates were with his fellow Democratic appointees – Justices Kruger (71.43%) and Cuellar (67.86%).  Justice Werdegar fell between the two Democratic appointees at 68.75%.  Justice Liu agreed with the Chief Justice in two thirds of divided civil decisions between 2014 and 2018.  His agreement rate with Justices Baxter and Corrigan was identical – 57.14%.  His agreement rate with Justice Chin was 47.06%.  Finally, Justice Liu agreed with the pro tem Justices in 77.78% of divided civil cases.

With the exception of Justices Cuellar (80%) and Liu (77.78), the pro tems had quite low agreement rates across the board.  The pro tems and Justice Werdegar had an agreement rate of 50%.  Their agreement rate with Justice Kruger was 40%, and with Justice Corrigan, 33.33%.  The pro tems and Justice Chin agreed in only 28.57% of divided civil cases, while their agreement rate with two permanent Justices was zero – Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Baxter.

Join us back here tomorrow and we’ll begin our journey anew – this time looking at the criminal docket for the years 1990 and 1995.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Dennis Jarvis (no changes).

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Criminal Cases, 1990-1995

Following up on our five posts reviewing the Justices’ agreement rates in civil cases from 1990 to 2018, six years at a time, we now begin our trip through the criminal docket.  Today: 1990 to 1995.

In Table 804, we report the first fourteen combinations.  Three combinations had an agreement rate in the nineties – Justices George and Arabian (95.24%), Arabian and Baxter (92.74%) and Arabian and the pro tems (90%).  Justice Eagleson’s agreement rate with the pro tem Justices was 85.71%, and Justice Baxter’s was 77.78%.  Justices Broussard and Mosk had an agreement rate of 75.56%.  Two combinations were in the fifties – Justices Broussard and Baxter (52.63%) and Broussard and Kaufman (50%).  Justices Broussard and Arabian had an agreement rate of 41.67%.  Two combinations were in the twenties – Justices Arabian and Mosk (29.08%) and Baxter and Mosk (27.42%).  Justice Eagleson was in the teens with two of his colleagues – Justices Mosk (16%) and Broussard (12%).  Finally, Justice Broussard in no divided cases with pro tem Justices.

Justices George and Baxter had an agreement rate of 95.24%.  Justice Kennard had agreement rates in the eighties with two seats on the Court – the pro tem Justices at 82.35% and Justice Eagleson at 80%.  Justice George and the pro tems had an agreement rate of 77.78%.  Four combinations were in the sixties – Justices Kaufman and Arabian (66.67%), Justices Kennard and Panelli (65.77%), Justices Kennard and Baxter (62.1%) and Justices Kennard and George (61.9%).  Justices Kaufman and Eagleson had an agreement rate of 50%.  Justice Kennard’s agreement rate was in the forties were two colleagues – Justices Mosk (48.67%) and Broussard (44.44%).  Justices Mosk and George had an agreement rate of only 27.62%.  Justices Kaufman and Mosk disagreed on every divided civil case they voted on before Justice Kaufman’s departure.

Justices Kennard and Werdegar had an agreement rate of 66.67%.  Chief Justice Lucas’ highest agreement rate in this period was with his eventual successor as Chief, Justice George (93.33%).  The Chief Justice’s agreement rates were also in the nineties with Justices Arabian (92.2%), Baxter (90.32%), and Eagleson (92%).  The Chief Justice was in the eighties with three additional colleagues – pro tem Justices (88.24%), Justice Panelli (87.39%) and Justice Werdegar (83.33%).  Chief Justice Lucas had an agreement rate of 66% with Justice Kennard, 50% with Justice Kaufman, 24% with Justice Mosk and 22.22% with Justice Broussard.  Justice Mosk’s agreement rate with the pro tem Justices was only 23.53%, and Justices Panelli’s highest agreement rate in criminal cases was with Justice Arabian – 93.14%.

Justice Panelli had two additional agreement rates in the nineties – Justices Baxter (92.94%) and George (91.2%).  Justices Panelli and Eagleson were at 88%.  Justice Panelli agreed with pro tems 75% of the time.  Justices Panelli and Kaufman’s rate was 50%.  Justice Panelli had an agreement rate under half with only two of his colleagues – Justices Broussard (40%) and Mosk (27.93%).  Finally, Justice Werdegar had an agreement rate with both Justice George and Justice Arabian of 86.67%.  Her agreement rate with Justice Baxter was 80%, and with Justice Mosk, 40%.

Join us back here next Thursday as we review more of the criminal docket – 1996-2001 and 2002-2007.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Gregory Smith (no changes).

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 2008-2013

Yesterday, we reviewed the data on the Justices’ agreement rates with each other in divided civil cases between 2002 and 2007.  Today, we’re looking at the next six year period, from 2008 to 2013.  One change from the last three posts – since five current-day Justices (if you include the recently retired Justice Werdegar) were seated by the end of this period, we present the data this time by gathering every agreement rate for a particular Justice into a single Table.  To make the numbers easier to follow, this will involve a bit of repetition – for example, the agreement rate for Justices Corrigan and Chin is included in both Justices’ tables.

For this period, Justice Corrigan’s highest agreement rates were with Justice Chin (88.89%) and Justice Baxter (80%).  Two things to note about our next two entries, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (77.78%) and Justice Liu (73.33%) – each of these new Justices agreed with Justice Corrigan more often than their predecessors, Chief Justice George (66.67%) and Justice Moreno (42.86%).  Justice Corrigan’s agreement rate with Justice Werdegar was 57.78%.  Her agreement rate with the pro tem Justices was 45.45%.  Finally, she agreed with Justice Kennard in 37.78% of divided civil cases.

Justice Kennard’s highest agreement rates were with three Justices in the sixties – Chief Justice George, (65.22%), the pro tems (64.29%) and Justice Werdegar (62.22%).  In contrast to Justice Corrigan, the two new Justices moved the Court further away from Justice Kennard – her rate with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye was 52.63%, and with Justice Liu, 37.5% (his predecessor Justice Moreno was at 48.15%).  Justices Kennard and Baxter agreed in 50% of divided civil cases.  Justices Kennard and Chin agreed 40.91% of the time, and as mentioned above, Justices Kennard and Corrigan agreed in 37.78% of cases.

Justice Werdegar’s agreement rates were comparatively close for the two newly-nominated Justices.  Justice Werdegar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye had a rate of 84.21% to the agreement rate of Justice Werdegar and Chief Justice George – 78.26%.  Justices Werdegar and Moreno had an agreement rate of 70.37%.  She had an agreement rate with Justice Liu of 81.25%.  Justice Werdegar’s agreement rate with the pro tem Justices was 76.92%.  Her rate with Justice Kennard was 62.22%.  Her rate was in the fifties with two Justices – Justice Corrigan (57.78%) and Baxter (52.27%).  Justice Werdegar and Justice Chin had an agreement rate of 45.83%.

Chief Justice George’s agreement rate with the pro tem Justices was 100%.  The Chief’s agreement rate with Justice Werdegar was 78.26%, with Justice Chin was 75%, and with Justice Baxter – 70.83%.  Chief Justice George’s agreement rate with Justices Corrigan and Kennard were 66.67% and 65.22%, respectively.  Chief Justice George had an agreement rate of 54.17% with Justice Moreno.

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Werdegar had an agreement rate of 84.21%.  Her agreement rate was in the seventies with four Justices – Justice Corrigan (77.78%), Justice Baxter (76.47%), Justice Liu (75%) and Justice Chin (70.59%).  Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye had an agreement rate with the pro tem Justices of 62.5%.  Finally, the Chief Justice had an agreement rate with Justice Kennard of 52.63%.

Justice Chin’s agreement rate with Justices Corrigan (88.89%) and Baxter (88.64%) were nearly identical.  Justice Chin’s rates with the two Chief Justices was nearly identical too – Chief Justice George (75%) and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (70.59%).  Justice Chin’s agreement rates with Justices Moreno and Liu were quite close too – 50% (Justice Liu) and 42.86% (Justice Moreno).  Justice Chin had an agreement rate of 50%.  Justices Chin and Werdegar had an agreement rate of 45.83%, and Justices Chin and Kennard had a rate of 40.91%.

Justices Baxter and Chin had an agreement rate of 88.64%.  Justices Baxter and Corrigan had a rate of 80%.  Justice Baxter and Chief Justices Cantil-Sakauye and George were both in the seventies – 76.47% and 70.83%, respectively.  Four combinations were in the fifties – Justices Baxter and Liu, 57.14%, Justices Baxter and Werdegar, 52.27%, and Justice Baxter and Justices Kennard and the pro tems (both 50%).  Justice Baxter and Justice Moreno had an agreement rate of 39.29%.

Justices Moreno and Werdegar had an agreement rate of 70.37%.  His agreement rate with the pro tems was 66.67%.  His rate with Chief Justice George was 54.17%.  Justice Moreno had an agreement rate in the forties with three Justices – Justice Kennard (48.15%) and Justices Corrigan and Chin (both 42.86%).  Justices Moreno and Baxter had an agreement rate of 39.29%.

Justices Liu and Werdegar had an agreement rate of 81.25%.  Justice Liu and the pro tems were just behind at 80%.  Justice Liu and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye had an agreement rate of 75%, and Justices Liu and Corrigan were at 73.33%.  Justice Liu was in the fifties with Justice Baxter (57.14%) and Justice Chin (50%).  Justices Liu and Kennard had an agreement rate of 37.5%.

The pro tem Justices and Chief Justice George had an agreement rate of 100%.  The pro tems and Justice Liu, as noted just above, were at 80%, and the pro tems and Justice Werdegar were at 76.92%.  The pro tems were in the sixties with three Justices – Justice Moreno (66.67%), Justice Kennard (64.29%) and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (62.5%).  The pro tem Justices were at 50% with Justice Chin and Justice Baxter.  The pro tems and Justice Corrigan had an agreement rate of 45.45%.

Join us back here next week as we review the data for the years 2014 through 2018.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Mike Baird (no changes).

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 2002-2007

Last week, we reviewed the Justices’ agreement rates in civil cases between 1990 and 1995 and 1996 to 2001.  This week, we’re taking two further steps – today, agreement rates for the years 2002 to 2007, and tomorrow, Justice-by-Justice agreement rates for the years 2008 through 2013.

Justice Baxter had an agreement rate with the pro tem Justices of 61.54 during these years, and a rate of 56.44% with Justice Moreno.  Justice Brown had an agreement rate in the seventies with two Justices – Justice Chin (77.97%) and Justice Baxter (76.67%).  Justice Brown had an agreement rate of 55.74% with Chief Justice George, 50.81% with Justice Werdegar and 50% with the pro tem Justices.  She had an agreement rate of 48.39% with Justice Moreno and 46.77% with Justice Kennard.  Justice Chin had an agreement rate of 87% with Justice Baxter, a rate of 62% with Justice Moreno, and a rate of 58.33% with the pro tem Justices.

Justice Corrigan had an agreement rate with Justice Chin of 81.82%.  His agreement rate was 75.76% with Justice Baxter and 75% with the pro tem Justices.  Justice Corrigan and Chief Justice George had an agreement rate of 62.5%.  Justice Corrigan was in the fifties with two Justices – Justice Moreno (54.55%) and Justice Werdegar (53.33%).  Justice Corrigan’s agreement rate with Justice Kennard was 36.36%.  Chief Justice George had an agreement rate with Justice Moreno of 81%.  His agreement rate with the pro tem Justices of 77.78%.  His agreement rate with Justices Chin and Baxter were 75.26% and 69.07%, respectively.  Justices Kennard and Baxter had an agreement rate of 43.56%.

Justice Kennard had an agreement rate in the sixties with four Justices – Justice Moreno (68.93%), Justice Werdegar (67.68%), the pro tems (66.67%) and Chief Justice George (65%).  Justices Kennard and Chin had an agreement rate of 48%.  Justice Moreno agreed with the pro tem Justices in 80% of divided civil cases.  Justice Werdegar had an agreement rate with Justice Moreno and the pro tems of 70%, of 68.04% with Chief Justice George, of 53.61% with Justice Chin and of 51.02% with Justice Werdegar.

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the data for the years 2008 through 2013.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jan Arendtsz  (no changes).

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 1996-2001

Yesterday, we reviewed the Justices’ agreement rates in civil cases between 1990 and 1995 – the first in a five-part series bringing the civil data all the way up to 2018.  Today, we’re looking at the years 1996 through 2001.

Justice George, who succeeded Chief Justice Lucas as Chief on May 1, 1996 had an agreement rate with Justice Arabian of 83.33%.  Justice Baxter had an agreement rate of 72.73% with the pro tem Justices, and a rate of 38.89% with Justice Mosk.  Justice Brown’s agreement rates ranged across the board from the seventies (Justices Baxter – 77.78% and Chin – 71.65%) to the sixties (Chief Justice George – 61.36% and the pro tems – 60%), to the fifties (Justice Werdegar – 53.44%), to the forties (Justice Kennard – 44.36%) to the thirties (Justice Mosk – 34.71%).

Justice Chin’s agreement rate with Justice Baxter during these years was 76.34%.  He agreed with the pro tems in 63.64% on non-unanimous civil cases, and with Justice Mosk in 50.42%.  The new Chief Justice had an agreement rate of 76.15% with Justice Chin and was in the sixties with four more members of the Court: Justice Baxter (68.89%), Justice Mosk (64.42%), the pro tem Justices (62.5%) and Justice Kennard (61.27%).  Justice Kennard’s agreement rate with Justices Baxter and Chin was almost identical – 50.37% and 50.38%, respectively.

Chief Justice Lucas and Justice Chin had a 100% agreement rate in the retiring Chief Justice’s partial year of 1996.  Chief Justice Lucas and Justice Baxter had a rate of 75%.  The retiring Chief had an agreement rate in the sixties with his successor Chief Justice George (62.5%) and Justice Arabian (66.67%).  Justice Kennard was also in the sixties with Justice Werdegar (69.29%) and the pro tem Justices (66.67%).  Chief Justice Lucas agreed with Justice Werdegar 50% of the time, and Justices Kennard and Mosk had an agreement rate of 56.06%.  Chief Justice Lucas and Justice Kennard agreed in 42.86% of non-unanimous cases, and Chief Justice Lucas and Justice Mosk agreed in 37.5%.

Justice Werdegar’s agreement rates with the pro tem Justices during these years was 85.71%.  Chief Justice George and Justice Werdegar agreed 77.54% of the time.  Six combinations of Justices were in the sixties – Justice Mosk and the pro tems (66.67%), Justices Werdegar and Baxter (60.9%), Justices Werdegar and Chin (61.24%), Justices Werdegar and Mosk (61.72%), Justices Arabian and Baxter (66.67%) and Justices Werdegar and Arabian (66.67%).  Justice Arabian had an agreement rate of only 33.33% with two of his colleagues – Justice Kennard and Justice Mosk.

Join us back here next week as we address the next two six-year blocks on the civil docket: 2002-2007 and 2008-2013.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Don Graham (no changes).

 

Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 1990-1995

For the past few weeks, we’ve been reviewing the data on how often each of the Justices voted with the majority in non-unanimous civil and criminal cases.  For the next three weeks, we’ll be reviewing a related statistic – how often did each Justice agree with each of his or her individual colleagues on the Court?  Today, we’ll begin a three-week trip through the Court’s recent history on the civil side, then we’ll look at the criminal side.

But first, a few ground rules.  In order to smooth out random variations from year to year, we’ll group the twenty-nine-year period by looking at six years at a time – thus better seeing real relationships and trends.  Second, just as with the last series of posts, “agreement” means complete agreement – a Justice who votes to affirm and another who votes to affirm in part and reverse in part are not counted as agreeing in this data.  Third, because the Court’s unanimity rate is typically so high, we’re addressing non-unanimous decisions only (otherwise, most of these combinations would be clustered relatively high on the bar charts).  Fourth, in the data below, we address every possible combination of Justices who voted in even a single case during these years.

Between 1990 and 1995, Justices Arabian and Baxter had an agreement rate of 83.21%.  Justices Arabian and Eagleson had an agreement rate of 78.57%.  Justices Arabian and Baxter each had an agreement rate with the various pro tem Justices of 66.67%.  Justice Broussard had an agreement rate with Justices Kaufman and Mosk in the fifties – 50% and 56.41%.  Four combinations of Justices had agreement rates in the forties – Justices Arabian and Mosk (42.86%), Justices Baxter and Mosk (45.8%), Justices Broussard and Arabian (45.16%) and Justices Broussard and Eagleson (45.45%).  Justice Broussard had an agreement rate with the pro tems of 36.36%, and Justices Broussard and Baxter (21.43%) and Justice Eagleson and Mosk (27.27%) had agreement rates in the twenties.

Justices Kaufman and Eagleson had an agreement rate during these years of 100%.  Justices George and Baxter’s rate was 82.46%.  Three combinations of Justices had rates in the seventies – Justices Eagleson and the pro tems (71.43%), Justices George and Arabian (77.78%) and Justice George and the pro tems (78.57%).  Justices Kennard and Eagleson had an agreement rate of 63.64%.  Six combinations of Justices had agreement rates in the fifties – Justices Kaufman and Mosk (50%), Justices Kennard and Arabian (51.02%), Justices Kennard and Baxter (51.91%), Justices Kennard and Broussard (56.41%), Justices Kennard and Kaufman (50%) and Justices Kennard and Mosk (54.14%).  Justices George and Mosk had an agreement rate of 48.7%, and Justices Kennard and George had a rate of 48.28%.

Chief Justice Lucas had very high agreement rates with several of his colleagues – Justice Kaufman 100%, Justice Baxter 83.85%, Justice Eagleson 86.36%, Justice George 84.96%, Justice Panelli 86.67%, Justice Arabian 79.59% and Justice Werdegar 80.95%.  On the lower end of the scale were his agreement rates with Justice Kennard – 55.48%, Justice Mosk – 45.81% and Justice Broussard, 38.46%.  The Chief Justice voted with pro tem Justices in 70.37% of divided cases.  Justice Kennard’s agreement rate with Justice Panelli was 56.19%.  She agreed with pro tems 62.07% of the time, and with Justice Werdegar 62.79%.

Justices Panelli had a very high agreement rate with several Justices – Justice Kaufman 100%, Justice Baxter, 92.5% and Justices Eagleson and George, 81.82% and 81.25%, respectively.  Justices Werdegar and Baxter were also in the eighties – 82.93%.  Justices Panelli and Arabian were at 78.72%, and Justice Werdegar had a civil agreement rate in the seventies with Justice Arabian (71.43%) and Justice George (78.05%).  Three different Justices – Panelli, Mosk and Werdegar – had agreement rates in the sixties with the various pro tems (62.5%, 65.52% and 66.67%, respectively).  Justices Werdegar and Mosk had an agreement rate of 54.76%.  Justice Panelli was in the thirties with Justices Broussard (35.9%) and Mosk (39.05%).

Join us back here tomorrow as we explore the Court’s civil agreement rates between 1996 and 2001.

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

LexBlog