Today, we’re continuing our review of civil reversal rates of the Districts and Divisions of the Appellate Court, divided by areas of civil law for the years 2000 through 2009.

Overall, the Supreme Court reversed 100% of the decisions from the First District in wills and estates law and arbitration.  Four-fifths of domestic relations decisions were reversed.  Three-quarters of cases involving property law were reversed, and 72.7% of tort cases were.  The reversal rate was 60.2% in tax cases, 50% in employment law, 44.4% in constitutional law cases, one-third in government and administrative law and commercial law, and 25% in contract law and election law.  The rate in insurance law was lowest: 11.2%.  None of the decisions in workers compensation or secured transactions were reversed.

Reviewing the individual divisions for outliers, everyone was very tightly clustered in tort cases except Division Five of the First District, which had a tort reversal rate of 100%.  Government and administrative law reversal rates ran from 50% in Division Two to zero in Division Four.  Divisions One, Two and Three had reversal rates of 100% in domestic relations cases – the reversal rate in Division Four for the decade was zero.  Civil procedure rates were all over the place – 100% in Divisions One and Three, 75% in Division Four, half in Divisions Five and Six and only 25% in Division Two.  All the constitutional law cases in Division Six were reversed.  The rate in Division Five was two-thirds.  The rate for Division Four was 50%.  All the constitutional law cases in Divisions Two and Three were affirmed.  In tax law, the reversal rate for Division Four was 100%, but the rate was zero for Divisions One, Two, Five and Six.

Join us back here next time as we review the reversal rates for the first decade of this century in the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Districts of the Appellate Court.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Daniel X. O’Neil (no changes).

This time, we’re concluding the first step in our review of the Districts’ reversal rates, one area of civil law at a time, for the 1990s.  Overall, the reversal rate was 100% in wills and estates law and property law.  The reversal rate for workers compensation law was 82.4%.  Insurance law’s reversal rate was 78.3%.  The reversal rate for government and administrative law and contract law was 75%.  Domestic relations cases were reversed at a rate of 58.8%.  The reversal rate for tort cases was 57.8%.  The rate for environmental law cases was 57.1%.  Civil procedure cases were reversed at a rate of 55.6%.  Half the cases in constitutional law, arbitration law and election law were reversed.  One-third of decisions in employment law and commercial law were reversed.  The reversal rate for tax law cases was only 14.3%.

In tort law, the reversal rate was for the Fifth District was 73.1%.  Two-thirds of decisions in the Third District were reversed.  The reversal rate for the Fourth District was 52.4% and for the Second District – 44.4%.  Government and administrative law reversal rates were flat – 77.8% for the Fifth District, 75% for the Second and Fourth, and 71.4% for the Third District.  Domestic relations cases were flat too – two-thirds reversal for the Fourth and Fifth Districts, 60% for the Second and 50% for the Third.  The reversal rate for civil procedure cases was 82.6% in the Fifth District, 50% for the Fourth, 38.1% for the Second District and 33.3% for the Third.  All the insurance law cases for the Third and Fourth District were reversed.  The reversal rates for the Fifth District were 62.5% and for the Second – 60%.

The reversal rate for the Third District in constitutional law was 100%.  Half the con law cases for the Second and Fifth Districts were reversed, and one-quarter from the Fourth District.  All the workers compensation cases from the Fourth District were reversed.  The rate was 80% for the Fifth District and two-thirds for the Second and Third Districts.

Join us back here next time as we move forward to the reversal rates for the second decade – 2000 through 2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Kathleen (no changes).

Today, we’re beginning a new multi-part series of posts, looking at the reversal rates for each District and Division of the Appellate Court by the area of law involved in the case.  First up: the First District Appellate Court in the 1990s.  There was only one environmental law and one election law case, and each was reversed.  Three areas had a 75% reversal rate: domestic relations, property law and commercial law.  The reversal rate for tort law was 65.7%.  In civil procedure, it was 65.6%, and for government and administrative law cases, just a bit lower still – 65%.  The reversal rate for constitutional law was 54.6%.  Half of the wills and estates cases were reversed.  The reversal rates for both contract and arbitration cases were 40%.  Insurance was slightly lower at 38.5%.  One-third of workers compensation cases were reversed.  The lowest subject matter reversal rates for First District cases were in tax law – 25% – and employment law – 20%.

Reviewing the divisions of the First District for outliers, tort decisions were reasonably uniform.  The reversal rate from Division One was 87.5%, down to a low of 50% for Division Six.  Government and administrative law decisions were similar – 50% from Divisions One, Two and Four, 80% from Division Three.  The lowest overall reversal rate – employment law – also saw the widest variance: 100% for Division Two, zero from Divisions One, Four, Five and Six.  Civil procedure cases ranged from 28.6% reversal in Division One to 75% in Division Six.  Insurance decisions had a 100% reversal rate in Division Five, 50% in Divisions One through Three, and zero in Division Four.  Constitutional law had the same wide spread as employment law: 100% reversal rate in Division Two; 50% in Divisions Three, Four and Five; and zero in Divisions One and Six.

Join us back here next time as we review the data for the rest of the state.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Tomosius (no changes).

Today, we’re wrapping up our review of the tenures of all seven Justices.  This time, we’re reviewing Justices Carter and Overstreet’s record in criminal cases.

Justice Carter has written eight majority opinions in criminal cases.  Four have involved constitutional law, three have been in criminal procedure cases, and one opinion involved sex offenses.

Justice Carter has written only one dissent in a criminal case, in a case involving criminal procedure.

Justice Overstreet has written two majority opinions in criminal law.  One involved criminal procedure and one was in a constitutional law case.  Justice Overstreet has written no dissents so far in criminal cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by James Jordan (no changes).

This week, we’re wrapping up our review of the records of all seven Justices of the Supreme Court.  Today, we’re looking at the opinions of Justices Robert Carter and David Overstreet in civil cases.  Tomorrow, we’ll turn our attention to the criminal cases.

Justice Carter has written a total of five majority opinions in civil cases.  Two involved civil procedure, one constitutional law, one tax law and one was a workers compensation case.

Justice Carter has written three dissents in civil cases – two in civil procedure cases and one in a tort case.

Justice Overstreet has written eight majority opinions in civil cases.  Two were in civil procedure cases, two in government and administrative law, and one each were in tax law, employment, election law and workers compensation.

Justice Overstreet has written only one dissent so far in a civil case – a matter last year involving tort law.

Join us back here tomorrow when we’ll conclude our series.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Giuseppe Milo (no changes).

In this post, we’re reviewing the voting records of Justices Carter and Overstreet in criminal cases.

Justice Carter has cast eleven votes to affirm in criminal cases – ten in 2021 and one in 2022.  He has cast five split votes – four in 2021 and one in 2022.  He has cast eleven votes to reverse – nine in 2021 and two in 2022.

Justice Carter voted with the majority in 91.3% of all criminal cases in 2021 and 100% so far in 2022.

Justice Overstreet has cast fifteen votes to affirm, four split votes and thirteen votes to reverse in criminal cases.  In 2021, he voted to affirm fourteen times, cast three split votes and voted eleven times to reverse.

Justice Overstreet voted with the majority in 89.29% of criminal cases in 2021.  He has voted with the majority in all of the criminal cases s far in 2022.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Gary Todd (no changes).

In the next two posts, we’re reviewing the civil voting records for Justices Carter and Overstreet and their alignment with the majorities in their cases.

In 2020, Justice Carter cast one vote to affirm in a civil case.  In 2021, he voted to affirm 18 times, cast two split votes (to affirm in part and to reverse in part) and thirteen times to reverse.  In 2022 to date, he has cast three votes to affirm and one to reverse.

Justice Carter has voted with the majority in all of his civil cases in 2020 and 2022.  He was with the majority in 88.24% of civil cases in 2021.  Overall, he has voted with the majority in 90% of his civil cases.

Justice Overstreet has cast twenty votes to affirm, three split votes and a dozen votes to reverse.  He cast seventeen votes to affirm in 2021 and three so far this year.  All three split votes were cast in 2021.  He voted to reverse in eleven civil cases in 2021 and cast one vote to reverse in 2022.

Justice Overstreet has voted with the majority in 97.3% of his civil cases –  96.88% in 2021 and 100% in 2022.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Matt Turner (no changes).

As our review of the tenures of Justices Robert Carter and David Overstreet continues, we begin our review the Justices’ records in criminal cases.

Justice Carter has participated in 27 criminal cases so far – 23 in 2021 and four so far in 2022.

Justice Carter has written nine opinions in criminal cases.  During 2021, he wrote seven majority opinions and one dissent.  This year so far he has written one majority opinion in a criminal case.

Justice Overstreet has participated in thirty-two criminal cases since taking his seat – 28 in 2021 and four so far this year.

Justice Overstreet has written only two majority opinions in criminal cases.  Both were majority opinions filed in 2021.

Join us back here next time as we continue our review of the tenures of Justices Carter and Overstreet.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Pom’ (no changes).

In the final six posts of our series, we review the brief tenures of the two newest members of the Supreme Court, Justices Robert Carter and David Overstreet.

Justice Carter has participated in forty civil cases since taking his seat – one in 2020, 34 in 2021 and five so far in 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Carter has written nine opinions in civil cases – five majorities, one concurrence and three dissents.  All but one of those opinions were filed in 2021.  Justice Carter has written one majority opinion in a civil opinion so far this year.

Justice Overstreet has participated in thirty-seven cases so far – thirty-two in 2021 and five so far this year.

Justice Overstreet has written nine opinions in civil cases.  In 2021, he wrote seven majority opinions and one dissent.  So far this year, he has written one majority opinion.

Join us back here next time for Part 2 of our review of Justices Carter and Overstreet’s tenures.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Doug Kerr (no changes).

Since taking his seat, Justice Michael Burke has written nine majority opinions in cases involving criminal, quasi-criminal, juvenile justice and mental health issues.  One majority involved habeas corpus law.  Two (both from 2021) involved criminal procedure.  Justice Burke has written six majority opinions in constitutional law – two in 2020 and four in 2021.

Justice Burke has written four dissents in criminal cases – one in 2020 and three in 2021.  His dissents were evenly distributed – one each in constitutional law, criminal procedure, habeas corpus and violent crimes.

Join us back here next week as we continue our analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision making.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Teemu008 (no changes).