Yesterday, we addressed trends in the California Supreme Court’s special concurrences in civil cases between 2000 and 2015. Today, we turn to the Court’s special concurrences in criminal cases for the same years.
Between 2000 and 2007, the Court’s unanimity rate was typically between sixty and seventy percent. The unanimity rate was up sharply in
Last week, we began analyzing how often the California Supreme Court is closely divided in civil and criminal cases with a look at the years 2000 through 2007. This week, we’ll address the years 2008 through 2015.
Between 2000 and 2006, the California Supreme Court typically decided between sixty and seventy percent of its cases
Yesterday, we began our analysis of how often the California Supreme Court is closely divided with a look at the civil docket between 2000 and 2007. Today, we turn to the criminal docket for the same years.
For most of the period, the Court’s unanimity rate in criminal cases was anywhere from fifteen to twenty
Last week, we asked how often the California Supreme Court reviews unpublished decisions on both the civil and criminal dockets. Today, we move to two new questions: how often are the Court’s decisions unanimous, and how often is the Court closely divided?
In Table 88, we report the share of the Court’s civil decisions which
Last week, we reviewed the primary theories of judicial decision making, including two – attitudinalism and legal realism – which are the foundation for empirical research into appellate decision making. Today, we begin our review of the data.
Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2015, the California Supreme Court published 1,602 decisions – 636
Yesterday, we began our analysis by addressing the competing theories of judicial behavior. Formalism, the oldest theory, teaches that judicial decision making can be explained and predicted based upon the facts, the applicable law and precedent and judicial deliberations – and nothing more. But if formalism explains all of judicial decision making, then many of
We begin our analysis by addressing the foundation of the entire body of data analytic scholarship on appellate judging: competing theories of judicial decision making.
The oldest theory by far is generally known in the literature as “formalism.” This is the theory we all learned in law school, according to which every decision turns on
It was inevitable, of course, that we at Sedgwick Appellate would turn our data analytic approach to the work of the California Supreme Court. California is where Sedgwick was founded and grew into an international law firm, our appellate group has several experienced lawyers resident in California, and it continues (even after twelve years resident
The application of data analytic techniques to the study of judicial decision making arguably begins with political scientist Charles Grove Haines’ 1922 article in the Illinois Law Review, General Observations on the Effects of Personal, Political, and Economic Influences in the Decisions of Judges. (17 Ill. L. Rev. 96 (1922)). Reviewing the records
One of the primary reasons why appellate lawyering is a specialty is because appellate lawyers must contend with persuading a collective, institutional decision maker. An appellate panel isn’t like a jury. The members of a jury come together for the first time for a particular case, and part forever when it’s over. Members of an