Last time, we analyzed the data on lag times in civil cases – grant of review to oral argument and argument to decision – to determine whether lag time is correlated with the result in the case: do affirmances or reversals take longer? We determined that there’s no consistent relationship over time between lag time
Last week, we compared lag times in the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision making – grant of review to argument and argument to decision – to the ultimate result in the case, analyzing whether lag time is correlated to the result. The answer is yes – for the most part, affirmances take longer to go from
Last time, we reviewed the lag time data – grant of review to oral argument, and oral argument to decision – for the Court’s civil cases between 1993 and 2017. Now, we’re turning our attention to the criminal docket.
Lag times for the criminal docket as a whole are skewed, of course, by the death
Last time, we were reviewing the data on the Court’s record with Court of Appeal cases that sparked a dissent below. This week, we’re addressing the controversial topic of appellate delays – both from the grant of review to oral argument, and from argument to decision.
We report the data for the years 1993 through
Yesterday, we asked whether the Court’s civil cases with a dissent below take longer to decide, charting divided and unanimous cases against the number of days from grant of review to scheduling of oral argument. Today, we’re looking at the criminal docket.
We can see from Table 421 below that the answer to the question
For the past several weeks, we’ve been comparing the data on cases which were decided unanimously at the Court of Appeal level to cases which had a dissent. This week, we’re considering another question: do divided cases from the Court of Appeal take longer to decide? Today, we’re looking at the Court’s civil docket.
In
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,
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
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
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.