Last time, we began reviewing the Supreme Court’s civil cases from the First District, tracking the counties in which the cases originated, five years at a time. Today we’re reviewing the data for the years 2005-2019.
In 2005, the Court decided five cases from San Francisco, two from Alameda and one from Marin. In 2006,
Last time, we reviewed which Districts and Divisions of the Court of Appeal produced the Supreme Court’s civil and criminal dockets. This week, we’re drilling down a bit more and looking at the originating trial courts. Since we reviewed this data about eighteen months ago, we’re looking at it this time in a slightly different
Last time, we reviewed the Court’s oral arguments in criminal cases at the macro level – data on the whole court. This time, we’re going micro – what can we predict about individual Justices’ votes and writing based on the oral arguments?
In Table 1024, we report average questions per Justice in criminal cases. All
In our next two posts, we’re reviewing the data for the Court’s oral arguments in criminal cases during 2018.
In all, the Justices asked 1,103 questions of appellants and 896 of appellees.
That works out to 22.06 questions to the appellant, and 17.92 to the appellee.
We’ve shown before that most argument analytics studies have
Justices Cuellar and Liu were the most frequent questioners during civil cases in 2018. Justice Cuellar averaged 5.42 questions of appellants, 5.94 of appellees and 0.48 in rebuttals. Justice Liu averaged 4.33 of appellants, 6.15 of appellees and 1.24 in rebuttals. Justice Corrigan averaged 2.42 questions in appellants, 2.18 of appellees and 0.64 in rebuttals.
This time, we’re looking at the oral arguments in civil cases in 2018. For new readers, you can review the history of data analytics for oral arguments here.
For civil cases decided last year, the Court asked 958 questions of appellants and 889 of appellees – an average of 29.03 questions to appellants and
Today, we’re looking at the Justices’ agreement rates in divided criminal cases for the years 2008 through 2013. As we did on the civil side, since during this period the Court was drawing closer to having its current membership, we present the data Justice by Justice in order to facilitate comparisons.
Justice Corrigan’s closest match
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