With this post, we begin our short review of some of the academic literature regarding panel effects.
Of course, the first question one encounters when taking a case before an appellate court is how one’s panel will be chosen. A majority of appellate courts state, either in their operating procedures or their rules, that appellate
This week, we’re taking a short break from our usual number-heavy analysis for another glance at some of the vast academic literature on the analytic-driven analysis of appellate decision making. This is a four-part post – two here and two over at the California Supreme Court Review – sampling some of the literature on “panel
Today, we’re reviewing the contents of our database, which includes every case decided by the Illinois Supreme Court since January 17, 1990. For every case, we’ve captured the following data points:
Official Reporter Citation
Docket Number
Case Name
Petitioner
Petitioner Governmental Entity (Y/N)
Respondent Governmental Entity (Y/N)
Source of Appellate Jurisdiction
Originating
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, the California Supreme Court Review 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
Yesterday, we showed that Justice Garman has voted with the minority in 6.84% of her civil cases since joining the Court, slightly below Chief Justice Burke’s percentage. Justice Theis’ percentage is almost identical: she has voted with the minority in 6.83% of her civil cases since joining the Court in 2010. There are no strong
Last time, we looked at how often Chief Justice Anne Burke voted with the minority in civil cases – a proxy for how closely in sync with the philosophy of the other Justices she has been throughout her career. Today, we’re addressing the same number for Justice Garman.
The Chief Justice has been in the