What Can Individual Justices’ Questioning Forecast About the Result – Criminal Cases 2018

Yesterday, we addressed the court-wide data for the oral arguments in the criminal cases decided last year.  Now, let’s dig down to the Justice-by-Justice numbers.

Long-time readers will know that historically, the most active questioner on the Court during oral arguments tends to be Justice Thomas.  But last year on the criminal side, Justice Theis was the more active.  For appellants in the opening segment of argument, Justice Theis averaged 4.62 questions to 3.12 for Justice Thomas.  Justice Theis asked 3 questions of appellees to Justice Thomas’ 2.96.  Only in rebuttal did Justice Thomas lead, 0.58 questions to 0.27.  Behind Justices Theis and Thomas, the rest of the Court was less active.  For appellants, Justice Burke was third, Justice Garman next and Justice Neville after that.  Chief Justice Karmeier (0.96) and Justice Kilbride (0.08) asked very few questions of criminal appellants.  On the appellee side, the Chief Justice averaged 2 questions, Justice Garman 1.65 and Justice Burke 1.35.  Justices Neville and Kilbride both averaged under 1 per argument.  Questions are few during rebuttals – Justice Burke was second at 0.35, slightly ahead of Justices Theis and Kilbride at 0.27.

Does heavier-than-expected questioning from a Justice suggest he or she may be writing an opinion?  Although we must review the numbers with some caution, since during a single year individual Justices will write only a few opinions apiece (tending to end in results that are skewed high or low), the answer in 2018 on the criminal docket was generally yes.

Justice Theis averaged 15.25 questions to appellants when she was writing the majority (and yes, that number was largely the product of three cases in which Justice Theis asked 27, 15 and 13 questions of appellants while writing the opinion).  Justice Thomas averaged 6, Justice Neville 3, Justice Garman 2.67, Chief Justice Karmeier 2.4 and Justice Burke 2.  Justice Burke led with 5.67 questions to appellees.  The Chief Justice was next at 3.4.  Justices Theis (1.75) and Thomas (1.67) were next, with the other Justices asking few questions of appellees.  Justice Thomas led in rebuttal when writing the majority, averaging 0.67 questions to 0.5 for Justice Theis and 0.4 for Chief Justice Karmeier.

There were very few criminal special concurrences last year, so we move on to dissents.  Once again, the same caveat: these are very small data sets.  Justice Thomas averaged five questions to appellants, 3.67 to appellees and one in rebuttal when dissenting in a criminal case.  Justice Burke asked eight questions of appellees, but none of anyone else.  Chief Justice Karmeier and Justice Garman averaged four questions – Karmeier one to appellants and three to appellees, Garman two and two.

The obvious question after establishing that the party getting more questions is likely to lose is whether individual Justices tend to more heavily question the party the majority of the Court is likely to rule against or the party that Justice him- or herself disagrees with?  When voting in the majority of an affirmance, five Justices last year more averaged more questions of the losing appellant: Thomas, Theis, Karmeier, Kilbride and Garman.  Justice Burke was the lone exception, averaging 1.5 questions to appellants and 2.5 to appellees.

Things were different with reversals, however, with only two Justices more heavily questioning losing appellees: Chief Justice Karmeier and Justice Thomas.

When individual Justices were in the minority of a criminal affirmance, five Justices more heavily questioned the appellee – the party they thought should lose – rather than the appellant: Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Theis, Thomas, Garman and Burke.

There were very few minority votes in criminal reversals last year, but the Chief Justice averaged one question to appellants and 1.5 to appellees.  Justices Garman and Thomas averaged 2 questions to appellants and two to appellees.

Over much larger databases, asking the first question of either side is often an indication – particularly for Justices who seldom lead off – that the Justice in question is writing an opinion.  Last year, Justice Thomas most often led off in criminal cases – ten for appellants, eleven for appellees and seven for rebuttals.  Justice Theis was next with six appellants, six appellees and one rebuttal, followed by Justices Garman (four, five and one) and Burke (six, two and two).  Aside from Justice Neville, who joined the Court during the year, the least frequent lead-off questioner was Justice Kilbride: zero appellants, one appellee and one rebuttal.

Join us back here next week as we turn our attention to a new topic.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Roger W (no changes).

Is the Party Getting More Questions Likely to Lose – Criminal Cases 2018

In our last two posts, we took a close look at what the oral arguments data revealed for civil cases the Court decided last year.  Today we’ll be looking at the Court’s criminal decisions for 2018.

On the civil side, the Court’s total questions were almost evenly split between appellants and appellees.  The criminal side tells a different story.  For criminal cases decided in 2018, the Court asked 369 questions of appellants and only 290 of appellees.

That comes to an average of 14.19 questions per argument for appellants, 11.15 for appellees.

We’ve shown in many previous posts that previous scholarship about oral argument analytics – both ours and from several practitioners and academics – that in most appellate courts, the party getting the most questions is more likely to lose (weighing against the often-heard theory that questions during oral argument are “just the Court playing devil’s advocate).  So we divide up the data from last year by result.  For affirmances in criminal cases, the Court averaged 15.63 questions to appellants (the losing party) and 8.63 to appellees.

For split decisions – cases in which the Court affirmed in part and reversed or modified in part – the Court averaged 14.8 questions to appellants and 10.4 to appellees.

Although we would expect questioning of appellees to be heavier in reversals, the two sides were almost equal in 2018 – 13.08 questions to winning appellants and 13 to appellees.

Join us back here next time as we address the Justice-by-Justice data for 2018.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ron Frazier (no changes).

What Can Individual Justices’ Questioning Forecast About the Result – Civil Cases 2018

Last time, we began reviewing the Court’s oral arguments in civil cases decided in 2018.  This time, we’re finishing that review.

Who was the heaviest questioner?  Once again, Justice Thomas led, asking 201 questions in all.  Dividing the arguments by segment, we find that Justice Theis was the highest questioner for appellants’ initial argument, asking 68 questions to Justice Thomas’ 58 questions, Justice Burke’s 30 questions and Chief Justice Karmeier’s 24 questions.  Justices Kilbride and Garman asked 15 questions of appellants.  Justice Thomas was by far the heaviest questioner of appellees, asking 108 questions.  Justice Theis asked 57 questions, Justice Burke asked 34, Justice Garman asked 33, Chief Justice Karmeier asked 25 questions and Justice Kilbride asked 15 questions.  In rebuttal, Justice Thomas was once again the heaviest questioner, asking 35 questions.  Justice Theis asked 16, and everyone else was in single digits – Chief Justice Karmeier 8 questions, Justice Garman 5, Justice Burke 4 and Justice Kilbride 2.

Did writing a majority opinion result in asking more questions?  For almost all Justices, the answer was yes.  Justice Burke asked 2.25 questions of appellants when writing a majority and 3.5 questions of appellees.  Justice Garman asked 1 question of appellants and 2.33 questions of appellees when writing a majority.  Justice Kilbride, one of the less frequent questioners on the Court, averaged 1 question of appellants when writing a majority and 0.25 in rebuttal.  Justice Thomas averaged 3.6 questions of appellants, 4.4 questions of appellees and 1.6 questions in rebuttal.  Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 2.5 questions of appellants and four of appellees.  Justice Theis averaged 9 questions of appellants when writing the majority and 12 questions of appellees.

It’s difficult to draw strong conclusions, based on only one year’s data, as to whether concurrences and dissents impact questioning.  For 2018 civil cases, Justice Garman averaged 0 questions to appellants, 3 to appellees and 1 in rebuttals when writing a concurrence.  Justice Thomas averaged 4 questions to appellants, 8.5 to appellees and 1 in rebuttals.  Justice Burke asked 6 questions of appellants when writing a dissent and 4 more in rebuttal.  Justice Garman asked no questions at all in her civil dissents.  Justice Kilbride averaged 2 questions to appellants and none in the next two segments.  Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 1.5 questions to appellants in dissents, 1.25 to appellees and 0.5 to rebuttals.  Justice Theis averaged 5.5 questions to appellants when writing civil dissents, 1.5 to appellees and 2.0 in rebuttals.

So let’s divide the cases by comparing the majority result to the individual Justice’s vote.  When the Justice joined the majority in an affirmance, Justice Burke averaged 1 question of appellants and 1.22 of appellees.  Justice Garman averaged 0.75 of appellants and 0.25 in rebuttal to 1.125 of appellees.  Justice Kilbride asked 1 question of appellants, 0.11 in rebuttal and 0.67 of appellees.  Justice Thomas averaged 4 questions of appellants, 2.5 in rebuttals and 2.75 of appellees.  Chief Justice Karmeier asked 1.57 questions of appellants in civil affirmances and 0.57 questions in rebuttal and 1.29 questions of appellees.  Justice Theis asked 2.11 questions of appellants, 0.33 questions in rebuttals and 2.22 questions of appellees.

Next, we address reversals where the Justice joined the majority.  Justice Burke averaged 2 questions to appellants, 0.4 in rebuttals and 1.8 to appellees.  Justice Garman averaged 0.75 questions to appellants, 0.25 in rebuttals and 2 questions to appellees.  Justice Kilbride averaged 0.55 questions to appellants, 0.09 in rebuttals and 0.82 to appellees.  Justice Thomas averaged 2 questions to appellants, 1.15 questions in rebuttal and 6.15 questions to appellees.  Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 0.92 questions to appellants, 0.17 questions in rebuttal and 0.92 questions to appellees.  Justice Theis asked 3.33 questions to appellants, 0.75 in rebuttal and 3.08 questions to appellees.

What about where the Justice was in the minority?  Well, it’s a very limited data set.  Justice Thomas averaged zero questions to appellants, six to appellees and none in rebuttal when dissenting from an affirmance.  Chief Justice Karmeier averaged zero questions to appellants, 0.5 to appellees and zero in rebuttals.  When dissenting from a reversal, Justice Burke averaged six questions to appellants and four in rebuttal.  Chief Justice Karmeier averaged two questions to appellants, four to appellees and two in rebuttals.  Justice Theis averaged nine questions to appellants and four in rebuttals.

We also tracked which Justice asked the first question in each segment.  Over only one year, this metric isn’t especially informative, but over the longer term, asking the first question generally suggests that the Justice is writing an opinion.

Justice Burke led off twice to appellants and twice to appellees.  Justice Garman was first once to appellants and twice to appellees and in rebuttals.  Justice Kilbride began once with appellants and twice in rebuttals.  Chief Justice Karmeier began twice with appellants, once with appellees and three times in rebuttal.  Justice Theis began six times with appellants, three times with appellees and twice in rebuttals.  Justice Thomas led the Court, asking the first question ten times of appellants, sixteen times of appellees and six times in rebuttals.

Join us on Tuesday as we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal arguments last year.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Brian Crawford (no changes).

Is the Party Getting More Questions Likely to Lose – Civil Arguments 2018

This time, we’re tracking the oral arguments for the Court’s cases decided in 2018, beginning with civil cases.  If you’re a new reader of our blog, we reviewed the history of oral argument analytics here.

Among the civil cases decided in 2018, the Court asked 285 questions of appellant – opening segment and rebuttal – and 274 questions of the appellees.  Appellants averaged 12.95 questions per civil argument and appellees averaged 12.45 questions per argument.

As we show in the summary of past analytics on oral arguments, parties who will lose tend to be asked more questions.  So we divided the 2018 civil cases by the ultimate result.  Affirmances follow the expected pattern, as appellants averaged 12.89 questions while appellees averaged only 10 questions per argument.

What about split decisions, where the Court affirms in part and reverses in part?  In split decisions, appellants averaged 17 questions while appellees averaged 10.33 questions.

For reversals, once again the result is as expected – appellees averaged 15.3 questions while appellants averaged 11.8 questions.

Join us back here next time as we take a deeper look at the Court’s civil arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by HystericalMark (no changes).

How Have Non-Government Entities Fared in Cases Involving Governmental Agencies and Officers and Administrative Law (2014-2019)

The Court’s docket of government and administrative law cases is up a bit over the past six years, increasing to forty cases: seven in 2014, eight in 2015, eleven in 2016, nine in 2017, four in 2018 and one (up to early May) in 2019.

Nineteen of the Court’s cases were won by the government below and twenty-one were won by the challenger to government authority.

With each subject we’ve reviewed, we look at each side’s winning percentage at the Supreme Court by the winning party below.  In other words – are cases won by the challenger or defender of government action reversed at an unusually high rate?

Between 2014 and 2019, challengers to government conduct have won eleven cases at the Supreme Court while losing eight.

On the other hand, defenders of the government’s authority and actions have won nine cases at the Supreme Court while losing a dozen.

Merging this data to cover the entire docket, we find that challengers to government conduct, regardless of who won below, have won twenty-three cases at the Supreme Court while losing seventeen.

The Court has decided nineteen cases since 2014 involving the powers, duties and conduct of government officials and entities.  The Court has decided thirteen cases involving government procedure and nine involving private parties’ rights against the government.

Turning to the individual Justices’ votes, Justice Kilbride led with twenty-one votes in favor of challengers to government authority and conduct.  Justices Garman and Burke cast twenty votes apiece, Justices Theis and Freeman cast eighteen votes, Chief Justice Karmeier and Justice Thomas have cast seventeen votes each, and Justice Neville has so far cast one.

Justice Thomas has led with twenty-three votes against parties challenging government conduct.  Justice Theis has cast twenty-two votes.  Chief Justice Karmeier has cast twenty-one votes, Justice Garman has twenty, Justices Kilbride and Burke have nineteen, Justice Freeman has cast sixteen votes, and Justice Neville has cast three.

Across the entire twenty-nine-year period (1990-2019), challengers to government actions and authority have won seventy-five cases which losing one hundred two at the Supreme Court – a winning percentage of 42.37%.  Which Justices were more likely across their tenure to support challengers than a majority of the Court on which they sat?

Eleven Justices have supported challengers at a high rate than the overall winning percentage for challengers: Justices Rarick (73.68%), Kilbride (51.3), Rathje (50%), Harrison (47.92%), Fitzgerald (46.55%), Garman (46.02%), Thomas (45.22%), Burke (44.12%), Theis (43.85%), Stamos (42.86%) and McMorrow (42.68%).

Which Justices were less likely to support challengers in these cases than a majority of their Courts?  Justice Freeman voted for challengers in 42.17% of his cases.  Chief Justice Karmeier has done so forty percent of the time.  Four Justices were in the thirties: Cunningham (38.46%), Calvo (33.33%), Clark (31.82%) and Bilandic (30.77%).  The remaining seven Justices were in the twenties: Ryan, Moran and Ward (28.57% each), Nickels (26.67%), Heiple (26.42%), Neville (25%) and Miller (24.59%).

Join us back here next Tuesday as we take on a new issue.

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

 

 

How Have Non-Government Entities Fared in Cases Involving Governmental Agencies and Officers and Administrative Law (2006-2013)

Cases involving government and administrative law fell substantially between 2006 to 2013. During those eight years, the Court decided thirty-eight cases: eight in 2006, four in 2007, one in 2008, five in 2009, two in 2010, seven in 2011, five in 2012 and six in 2013.

The Court decided twenty cases won by the defender of government action or power below and eighteen won by the party challenging the government.

Once again, challengers to government conduct who won at the Appellate Court had a difficult time at the Supreme Court, winning eight cases while losing fourteen.

Defenders of government conduct and authority didn’t do much better, winning only five while losing eleven.

Overall (disregarding the winner below), challengers to government conduct won fourteen cases between 2006 and 2013 while losing twenty-four.

What kinds of issues was the Court deciding in these cases?  The Court decided twenty-one cases involving the powers and duties of government entities and officials, thirteen involving private individuals’ rights against the government, and only four involving government entities’ procedures.

Justice Kilbride led with fourteen votes between 2006 and 2013 for challengers to government authority and action.  Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Freeman and Thomas cast twelve votes each.  Justice Garman cast eleven votes, Justice Burke cast ten, Justice Theis cast seven, Justice Fitzgerald cast five and Justice McMorrow cast two.

Three Justices led the Court with twenty-six votes against challengers to government conduct and authority: Justices Freeman, Garman and Thomas.  Chief Justice Karmeier cast twenty-five votes against challengers, Justice Kilbride cast twenty-three, Justice Burke cast nineteen, Justice Fitzgerald cast fourteen, Justice Theis cast ten and Justice McMorrow cast three.

Join us next time for the final part of this post, covering the years 2014 to 2019 and taking stock of the overall numbers.

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

How Have Non-Government Entities Fared in Cases Involving Governmental Agencies and Officers and Administrative Law (1998-2005)?

Between 1998 and 2005, the Court decided a total of fifty-four cases involving government officers, agencies and powers: five per year in 1998, 1999 and 2000, six in 2001, eight in 2002, ten in 2003, eight in 2004 and seven in 2005.

Two-thirds of those government/admin cases were won at the Appellate Court by the party challenging government actions or authority – eighteen cases won by the government actor and thirty-six won by the challenger.  Between 2001 and 2004, twenty-three cases were won by the challenger at the Appellate Court and only nine were won by the government challenger.

Parties challenging government actions or entities very nearly gained a split in cases which had been won by challengers below.  Between 1998 and 2005, challengers arriving at the Supreme Court on a win won seventeen cases at the Supreme Court while losing nineteen.

Defenders of government actions and authority did gain a split in their cases: government entities which had won at the Appellate Court won nine and lost nine between 1998 and 2005.

Merging these data points, we find that overall parties challenging governmental entities or actions won twenty-six games between 1998 and 2005 and lost twenty-eight.

 

The Court decided twenty-two cases involving the powers and actions of governmental officers and entities.  Seventeen cases primarily involved government procedure and sixteen involved purported rights against the government.

Five Justices during these years cast twenty or more votes in favor of parties challenging governmental entities and power: Justice Freeman twenty-nine votes, Justice McMorrow twenty-seven votes, Justice Thomas twenty-three votes, Justice Fitzgerald twenty-two votes and Justice Kilbride twenty-one votes.   Justice Rarick cast fourteen votes for challengers and Justice Harrison cast twelve votes.

Justices Freeman and McMorrow led in votes against challengers to government action and authority, each casting twenty-four votes.  Justice Fitzgerald cast seventeen votes for government entities, Justice Garman cast fifteen and Justices Thomas and Kilbride cast fourteen votes for government entities.

Join us back here in a few days as we turn our attention to the years 2006 to 2019.

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

How Have Non-Government Entities Fared in Cases Involving Governmental Agencies and Officers and Administrative Law (1990-1997)?

Today, we begin our analysis of one of the Court’s most common areas on concern – cases involving governmental entities and administrative law.  As usual, we’ll begin with the first eight years – 1990-1997.

Between 1990 and 1997, the Court decided forty-eight cases which involved governmental entities and officers and administrative law: nine in 1990, two in 1991, eleven in 1992, four in 1993, ten in 1994, three in 1995, four in 1996 and five in 1997.

In Table 1190, we report the caseload, divided between government and non-government parties.  Note that in this data, we define “government” to include a private party who is defending governmental conduct or actions – for example, if a private entity was suing on a claim whose validity depended on whether an action of the Illinois Commerce Commission was within its authority, that entity would be classed as “government” here.

For the entire eight years, the Court decided sixteen cases won below by the defender of government authority and thirty-one won by the challenger to the government.  In 1990, the Court decided six government wins from the Appellate Court and only three challenger wins.  In 1991, the cases were equally divided – one government winner, one challenger winner.  In 1992, the Court decided only two cases won by the government defender and eight won below by the challenger.  In 1993, all four government-admin cases were won below by the party challenging the government.  In 1994, ten cases were divided nearly evenly – six government wins, four challenger wins.  From 1995 to 1997, the Court decided only one case won by the government power defender below – in 1995.  It decided two challenger wins in 1995, four in 1996 and five in 1997.

Below, we look at the data for challengers to government action who won below.  During these first eight years, most of the challengers lost – overall, only eight wins for challengers coming in on a victory as opposed to twenty-six losses.  From 1994 to 1997, challengers who won below lost thirteen times at the Supreme Court, winning only twice.

“Government” parties who won below – governmental officers and agents and private litigants relying on government actions – had an easier time, winning seven and losing six between 1990 and 1997.

Next, we merge this data to determine how challengers to government actions have fared overall, regardless of who won below.  The short answer: not well.  Between 1990 and 1997, challengers won twelve cases while losing thirty-three.

Next, we divide the docket up by what the primary issues were in the Court’s government and administrative law cases: (1) cases about the powers and actions of government officials and governmental entities (i.e., “what the government did”); (2) cases about government/administrative procedure (i.e., “how the government did it”); and (3) private parties’ rights against the government.

Between 1990 and 1997, the Court decided twenty-five cases involving the powers and actions of government officials and entities, fifteen cases involving issues of government procedure, and eight involving private actors’ rights against the government.

Finally, we turn to the individual Justices’ votes.  Justices Miller and Bilandic cast twelve votes each for challengers.  Justices Freeman and Harrison cast eleven votes each.  Justice Heiple cast ten votes for challengers.  Justices Clark and Nickels were next with seven votes apiece for challengers.

Justice Miller also led in total votes for government actors with thirty-five.  Justice Freeman cast thirty votes.  Justices Heiple (twenty-eight votes), Bilandic (twenty-six votes) and McMorrow (twenty votes) were next.  Justice Nickels cast nineteen votes for government actors, Justices Clark and Moran cast fifteen votes and Justice Harrison cast thirteen votes.

Join us back here next time as we examine the Court’s government and administrative law cases from 1998 to 2005.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Christina Rutz (no changes).

 

How Have Defendants Fared in Workers Compensation Cases (Part 4 of 4)

The Court’s workers compensation docket has been light in the last six years.  The Court has decided only three workers compensation cases recently – two in 2015 and one in 2016.

All three of the Court’s latest workers compensation cases were won by the plaintiffs below.

Defendants who won at the Appellate Court were one win and zero losses at the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs who won their workers compensation cases at the Appellate Court were winless at the Supreme Court, winning zero while losing two.

Overall, defendants have won all three workers compensation cases since 2014.

Next, we review the issues the Court decided in its workers compensation cases.  The Court decided one case in 2015 involving the power and structure of the Workers Compensation Commission, one case involving compensability and one case involving procedural issues.

None of the Justices have cast votes for defendants in workers compensation cases since 2014.  Justices Freeman, Garman, Kilbride, Thomas, Karmeier, Burke and Theis have all cast three votes against defendants.

Finally, we compare the Justices’ votes for the entire twenty-nine year period to the overall data regarding cases won by the defense side to determine which Justices were more likely to vote for the defense side than the Court as a whole.  Justice Miller voted for defendants 65.63 percent of the time, Justice Moran did so in sixty percent of cases.  Justice Nickels was 57.89%, Justice Rathje was 57.14%, Justice Heiple’s rate was 55.17%, Justice McMorrow’s was 52.5% and Justices Calvo and Cunningham voted with defendants half the time.

Finally, we review the Justices who were less likely to support defendants in workers compensation than the Court as a whole.  First, we have Justice Fitzgerald at 47.62%.  Three more Justices were in the forties – Justice Bilandic (46.43%), Freeman (41.07%) and Clark (40%).  Four Justices were in the thirties – Thomas (39.13%), Garman (37.04%), Stamos (33.33%) and Ryan (33.33%).  Justice Karmeier agreed with the majority only 27.78% of the time.  Justice Burke did so in 27.27% of cases.  Behind her were Justices Harrison (25.81%), Kilbride (23.08%) and Theis (16.67%).  Justice Rarick did not even vote for workers compensation defendants.

Join us next Tuesday as we turn our attention to a new area of law.

Image courtesy of Flickr by CheepShot (no changes).

How Have Defendants in Workers Compensation Cases Fared Since 1990 (Part 3 of 4)

Today, we continue our review of the Illinois Supreme Court’s workers compensation caseload.  Between 2006 and 2013, the Court decided twelve workers compensation cases – three in 2006, three in 2007, one per year in 2008, 2009 and 2010, none in 2011 or 2012 and three in 2013.

Seven of the Court’s most recent workers compensation cases were won by the plaintiff below and five were won by defendants.

Defendants who won workers compensation cases at the Appellate Court have had a rough time of late, winning only one while losing four.

Plaintiffs who won at the Appellate Court generally lost at the Supreme Court too, winning two and losing five.

Combining the last two tables to arrive at the overall won-lost, we find that between 2006 and 2013, defendants won six and lost six.

The Court has six cases involving issues of compensability, two involving the powers and structure of the Workers Compensation Commission, two involving procedural issues, and one each involving workers compensation exclusivity and lien and credit holders.

Turning to the Justices’ voting records, Justices Freeman, Garman and Thomas cast four votes for defendants in workers compensation cases.  Justices Karmeier and Burke cast three votes for defendants.  Justices Kilbride and Fitzgerald cast two votes for defendants and Justices McMorrow and Theis cast one vote each.

Justice Kilbride led during these years with nine votes against workers compensation defendants.  Justices Freeman, Garman and Karmeier cast eight votes against defendants each.  Justices Thomas and Fitzgerald voted against defendants seven times each.  Justice Theis cast two votes and Justices McMorrow and Burke cast one each.

Join us tomorrow as we finish our review of the Court’s workers compensation cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Rita Simon (no changes).

LexBlog