Last time, 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
Our latest repost:
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
Our short series of contextual reposts continues:
Although the state Supreme Courts have not attracted anything near the level of study from academics engaged in empirical legal studies that the U.S. Supreme Courts and Federal Circuits have a number of different researchers have attempted to compare how influential the various state courts are for the
I’m always surprised when I encounter litigators who dismiss litigation analytics as a passing fad. In fact, as shown in the reprint post below, it’s a century-long academic enterprise which has produced many hundreds of studies conclusively proving through tens of thousands of pages of analysis the value of data analytics in better understanding how
The Illinois Supreme Court Review recently marked its sixth anniversary. In April, this blog turns five.
So I thought it was time for a first: cross-posted reprints from the earliest days of the blogs. My early attempts to provide context for the work and to answer the question I often heard in those days: “Interesting,
Last time, we reviewed Justice Corrigan’s voting record to see how often she has been in the minority in civil cases, year by year since joining the Court. Overall, Justice Corrigan has been in the minority in 5.98% of the civil cases she’s participated in. Today, we’re looking at Justice Liu’s numbers.
Justice Liu has
Last week, we looked at how often the Chief Justice is in the minority in civil cases as one measure of how much in sync with the rest of the Court she has been from one year to the next. Since joining the Court, the Chief Justice has been in the minority only 3.85% of
Today, we begin the second phase of our review of the Justices’ individual voting records. The percentage of the time a particular Justice votes in the majority and the minority is one measure of to what degree she or he is in philosophical sync with the rest of the Court. When applied to a Chief
Today we’re concluding our initial review of the Justices’ voting records by reviewing Justice Cuellar and Justice Groban.
Since joining the Court in 2015, Justice Cuellar has voted in 201 civil cases. He has voted in affirm in 73 cases and to reverse 90 times. Those votes show a curious time pattern: in 2015 and
Justice Leondra R. Kruger took her seat on the Court on January 5, 2015. Between that time and the end of 2020, she had voted in precisely 200 civil cases. She has voted to affirm in only 63 of those cases, or 31.5% of the total. She had voted to reverse in full 95 times,