Today, we turn our analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments between 2008 and 2016 to a new question: how likely is it that the Justice who asks the first question in a civil case is writing an opinion?
In Table 433 below, we report the percentage of instances in civil cases in which
Yesterday, we continued our ongoing analysis of the Court’s oral arguments by looking at whether the margin in number of questions between the parties tended to be larger when the Court was unanimous. We theorized that such an effect might be the result of the entire Court concentrating on one side, as opposed to evenly
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been taking a close look at what can be learned from the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments since 2008. We’ve shown that the Court tends to ask slightly more questions of appellants in civil cases, and definitely averages more questions to appellants in criminal cases. We’ve disproven the common
Yesterday, we compared the average level of questioning in civil cases since 2008 for winning and losing appellants, and winning and losing appellees, year by year, showing that in nearly every year, losing parties averaged more questions than winners. Then we calculated the odds of winning, based upon the comparison between how many questions you
All appellate specialists, without exception, prefer a “hot bench” at oral argument. The sole reason for you to be there is to find out what, if anything, is troubling the Court about your case, and try to answer their concerns. But the paradox of a hot bench is this: as I told an interviewer a
Yesterday, we looked for evidence that questioning at oral argument is driven by a desire to persuade a Justice’s colleagues by comparing the average questions to each side in non-unanimous versus unanimous decisions on the civil docket. Today, we repeat the comparison, looking at the Court’s criminal cases between 2008 and 2015. On the criminal
There are many theories among the appellate bar about what sparks questions from the court during oral argument. One of the most frequently heard theories is that the Justices are talking to each other – that Justices are raising points which are troubling their colleagues, or trying to expose what they see as problems with
For the past two weeks, we’ve been analyzing the voting dynamics on the Illinois Supreme Court, determining which Justices voted together most and least often over time in non-unanimous cases. Today, we conclude our analysis with the criminal docket between 2010 and 2015.
Just as we saw on the civil side, Justice Burke’s closest match
For the past two weeks, we’ve been studying the voting dynamics of the Illinois Supreme Court, tracking which Justices voted together most (and least) often in non-unanimous civil and criminal cases. This week, we’ve arrived at the most recent data. Today, we’re taking a look at agreement rates in civil cases from 2010 to 2015.
Yesterday, we analyzed the agreement rates between all combinations of the Justices in non-unanimous civil cases between 2005 and 2009. Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal docket during the same years.
We report the data for Chief Justice McMorrow, Justice Burke and Justice Garman in Table 404 below. Chief Justice McMorrow’s closest