Last time, we reviewed the Court’s unanimity rate in civil cases. This time, we’re looking at the data for how the Court’s civil decisions were distributed between one, two and three dissenting votes.

In 1990, one and two dissenter cases were 8.99% of the civil docket apiece. Three-dissenter cases accounted for only 3.37%. Two dissenter cases were slightly higher in 1991 than one-dissenter; there were no three dissenter cases. In 1992, two dissenter cases were 15.22% to 13.04% for one dissenter cases. Three dissenter civil cases were only 4.35%. In 1993, dissent increased: 23.68% of the Court’s civil decisions had one dissenter. 10.53% had two dissenters and 2.63% had three dissenters. In 1994, two dissenters accounted for a 3% larger share, while only 5.33% of the cases had three dissenters. In 1995, 17.86% had two dissenters, 12.5% had one and 7.14% had three. In 1996, one and three dissenters were an equal share – 9.09%. Twenty percent of the decisions had two dissenters. In 1997, 22.22% had one dissenter, 15.87% had two and 12.7% had three. In 1998, fully one quarter of the civil decisions had one dissenter – 25.35%. Two dissenters were 14.08% and 12.68% had three dissenters. In 1999, 24.39% of the civil cases had one dissenter, 9.76% had two dissenters and 17.07% had three.

In 2000, 18.42% of the civil decisions had two dissenters, 15.79% had one and 7.89% had three. In 2001, the unanimity rate increased – 9.8% two dissenters, 7.84% one dissenter and 7.84% three. In 2002, 12% of the civil decisions had one dissenter, 16% had two and 6% had three. In 2003, 15.22% had two dissenters, 10.87% had one and 4.35% had three. In 2004, 11.11% of the civil cases had three dissenters; 7.41% had one and 7.41% had two. In 2005, 14.58% had one dissenter and 4.17% had two. In 2006, 24.49% of the civil cases had one dissenter, 10.2% had two and 8.16% had three. In 2007, 9.76% had one dissenter, 7.32% had two and 2.44% had three. In 2008, the same fraction of the docket had one, two and three dissenters – 9.52%. In 2009, 7.32% of the civil cases had one dissenter and 9.76% had two.

In 2010, 12.12% of the civil docket had two dissenters, 9.09% had one and 6.06% had three. In 2011, 10.53% had one dissenter, 7.89% had two and 5.26% had three. In 2012, 17.5% of the civil cases had two dissenters, 15% had one and 12.5% had three. In 2013, 20.59% of the civil cases had one dissenter, 17.65% had two and only 2.94% had three. In 2014, the distribution was equal: 7.41% one, two and three dissenters. In 2015, 9.09% had one dissenter, 6.82% had two and 4.55% had three. In 2016, 14.29% of the Court’s civil decisions had one dissenter, 3.57% had two and 7.14% had three. The following year, there were more three dissenter cases – 11.54% – than one or two (both 3.85%). In 2018, 18.18% had one dissenter, 9.09% had two and 9.09% had three. So far this year, 8.7% of the Court’s civil cases had one and three dissenters and 4.35% had two.

Join us back here on Tuesday as we look at the data for the criminal docket.

Image courtesy of Flickr by COD Newsroom (no changes).

This week and next, we’re looking at the distribution of the Court’s civil and criminal cases – unanimous decisions and one, two and three dissenters (for these purposes, we’re defining a “dissenter” as anyone who votes against the Court’s judgment, regardless of whether he or she signs or joins a written dissent).

The unanimity percentage declined throughout the 1990s. In 1990, 78.65% of the Court’s civil decisions were unanimous. That fell to 75.47% in 1991, 67.39% in 1992, 63.16% in 1993 and 54.67% in 1994. The unanimity percentage increased a bit to 62.5% in 1995 and 61.82% in 1996 before falling below half – 49.21% in 1997, 47.89% in 1998 and 48.78% in 1999.

The unanimity percentage increased in the following decade. In 2000, 57.89% of the Court’s civil cases were unanimous. In 2001, it was 74.51%, then 66% (2002), 73.91% (2003) 74.07% (2004) and 81.25% (2005). The rate fell to 57.14% in 2005, but was 80.49% in 2007, 71.43% in 2008 and 82.93% in 2009.

For the most part, the unanimity rate has remained at roughly two-thirds during the past decade. It was 72.73% in 2010, 76.32% in 2011, 55% in 2012, 58.82% in 2013 and 77.78% in 2014. In 2015, 79.55% of the Court’s civil decisions were unanimous. In 2016, exactly three quarters of the Court’s civil decisions were unanimous. In 2017, 80.77% were. Last year, the rate fell to 63.64%, but 78.26% of the civil docket has been unanimous so far this year.

Join us back here next time as we review the Court’s divided civil decisions.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Michel Curi (no changes).

Yesterday, we showed that for the most part, the percentage of non-unanimous Appellate Court decisions on the Supreme Court’s docket is about the same on the civil and criminal dockets.  Today, we’re asking the companion question – how important is publication at the Appellate Court?  Last week, we showed that roughly sixty to eighty percent of the Court’s civil cases are published below.  Is publication equally important on the criminal side?

In a word: no.  From 1990 to 1994, the percentage was almost static: 44.93% (1990), 48.28% (1991), 44.57% (1992), 41.86% (1993) and 40% (1994).  In the five years following, the share fell by about a quarter: 29.11% (1995), 24.07% (1996), 34.92% (1997), 22.22% (1998) and 35.85% (1999).

In 2000, 22.09% of the Court’s criminal cases were published below.  In 2001, 32.76% were published.  In 2002, 44.29% were published below and in 2003, it was 35.38%.

But then something curious happened – from 2004 through 2019, publication at the Appellate Court was often more important on the criminal side than on the civil side.  In 2004, 67.74% of the Court’s criminal cases were published below.  In 2005, 64.41% were, and in 2006, 64% of the docket was published below.  In 2007, 53.57% of the criminal docket was published below.  In 2008, it was 54%, and in 2009, it was 55.77%.

In 2010, 60% of the criminal docket was published below.  In 2011, the number fell to 47.92%, but then it went up and stayed up: 57.58% (2012), 60.53% (2013), 67.65% (2014), 57.58% (2015), 62.86% (2016), 64.71% (2017), 69.23% (2018) and 78.57% (2019).

In Table 1368, we report the entire thirty years in a single graph.  What this table shows is that around the time the Court’s membership changed in 2004, the Court’s criminal docket was significantly less populated by unpublished decisions from the Appellate Court.

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

Image courtesy of Flickr by Sponki25 (no changes).

Last week, we reviewed the data for what percentage of the Court’s civil cases had a dissenter or were published below.  This week, we’re looking at the same question for the criminal side.

Between 1990 and 1994, nearly as many criminal cases as civil cases had a dissenter below – 21.74% (1990), 25.86% (1991), 11.96% (1992), 23.26% (1993) and 15.38% (1994).  But for the four years that followed, the Court concentrated its attention almost entirely on unanimous decisions from the Appellate Court: 3.8% (1995), 1.85% (1996), 9.52% (1997), 6.94% (1998).  In 1999, 13.21% of the Court’s criminal decisions were non-unanimous below.

From 2000 to 2002, the percentage of non-unanimous decisions remained very low: 6.98% (2000), 8.62% (2001), 10% (2002) and 13.85% (2003).  For the rest of the decade, the percentage rose to something close to the fraction for civil cases – 29.03% (2004), 27.12% (2005), 22% (2006), 28.57% (2007), 26% (2008) and 11.54% (2009).

Between 2010 and this year, there hasn’t been much difference between the fraction of non-unanimous decisions on the criminal and civil sides.  In 2010, 32.73% of the criminal cases had dissents below.  In 2011, it was 25%, and in 2012, it was 27.27%.  In 2013, 13.16% of the criminal cases had a dissenter below.  In 2014, the fraction rose to 23.53%; the following year, one-third of the Court’s criminal cases had a dissenter below.  In 2016, 20% of the Court’s criminal cases were non-unanimous below.  In 2017, 20.59% were.  Last year, 30.77% of the criminal cases had a dissenter below.  So far this year, that number has fallen to 14.29%.

In our final table, we report the entire thirty years in a single graph to show long-term trends.  What this reflects is that although the percentage of non-unanimous decisions from the Appellate Court varies widely from year to year, for about two-thirds of the time we’re studying – 1990-1994 and 2003-2019 – dissents at the Appellate Court were roughly as common on the criminal docket as they were on the civil docket, with twenty to thirty percent of the Court’s cases being non-unanimous below.

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the data for publication of criminal cases at the Appellate Court.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Andrew Hill (no changes).

Yesterday, we showed that the Supreme Court regularly reviews roughly three civil cases which were unanimous decisions at the Appellate Court for every decision which had a dissenter below.  Today, we’re looking at a similar question – how often does the Court review unpublished decisions?

Between 1990 and 1995, the share of published cases below on the Court’s civil docket was generally in the low eighty percent range.  But in 1996, it fell to 61.82%.  In the following years, the published share was 60.32% (1997), 66.2% (1998) and 73.17% (1999).

The published decisions’ share of the civil docket edged up a bit from 2000 to 2009.  In 2001, only 56.86% of the civil docket had been published below.  But that share rose to 72% (2002), 80.43% (2003), 74.07% (2004), 68.75% (2005), 87.76% (2006), 70.73% (2007), 95.24% (2008) and 80.49% (2009).

The published share of the docket remained quite high from 2010 to 2013 – 87.88% (2010), 94.74% (2011), 85% (2012) and 91.18% (2013), before falling back closer to its long-term trend.  In 2014, only 55.56% of the civil cases were published below.  In 2015, that rose to 79.55%.  The following year, it was 67.86%.  In 2017, 92.31% of the civil cases were published below, but in 2018 and so far in 2019, the share was down to 77.27%.

In our final table, we report all the data for the thirty years together.  What we see is that the share of published cases on the civil docket seems to have increased a bit across the past two decades.  From 1990 to about 2006, the civil docket’s share of published cases from the Appellate Court tended to be somewhere between sixty and eighty percent.  From 2006 to 2013, the share increased, generally to between eighty and ninety-five percent.  The share dropped sharply in 2014 to 55.56%, but across the past three years, there is some inclination that it may be returning to something like the 2006-2013 level.  So the bottom line is that while anywhere from ten to thirty percent of the Supreme Court’s civil decisions each year were unpublished at the Appellate Court, it’s true that publication is enormously helpful to getting review.

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

Image courtesy of Flickr by Bill Taroli (no changes).

One often hears that in order to successfully petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, a dissenter at the Appellate Court is crucial.  But is it true?  Today, we’re reviewing the Court’s civil docket.  In order to look at the data across the entire thirty years, we calculate the percentage of civil cases each year where there was a dissenter below.

Between 1990 and 1999, only about one in every four civil cases which the Supreme Court decided had had a dissenter at the Appellate Court.  The numbers were relatively close from 1990 to 1996: 23.6% (1990), 28.3% (1991), 22.83% (1992), 21.05% (1993), 28% (1994), 26.79% (1995) and 21.82% (1996).  Only 9.52% of the civil cases decided in 1997 had a dissenter below.  The number rose a bit to 15.49% in 1998 and even further in 1999, to 36.59%.

In 2000, 21.05% of civil cases had a dissenter below.  The number dropped in 2001 to only 7.84% before rising to 28% in 2002 and 36.96% in 2003.  In 2004, 18.52% of civil cases had a dissenter below.  In 2005, it was 22.92%, and in 2006, it was 24.49%.  In 2007, 36.59% of civil cases had a dissenter below.  The number fell a bit in 2008, to 30.95%, and a bit more in 2009, to 24.39%.

In 2010, 36.36% of civil cases had a dissenter below.  The following year, it fell to 26.32%.  In 2012, 30% of civil cases had a dissenter below.  In 2013, 29.41% of civil cases had a dissenter.  In 2014, the share fell to only 14.81% before rising to 34.09% in 2015, falling to 17.86% in 2016 and rising back to 38.46% in 2017.  In 2018, 22.73% of civil cases had a dissenter below.  So far in 2019, 18.18% of civil cases have had a dissenter below.

In Table 1356, we review the entire thirty years on a single graph.  We see here that although the percentage of cases with dissenters is seldom stable from one year to the next, at least since the mid-1990s, the numbers are clustered around a consistent mean of between 25% and 30%.  So the conclusion is clear: although a dissenter at the Appellate Court might help a petition for leave to appeal to stand out at the Appellate Court, the Court regularly decides roughly three civil cases which were unanimous decisions at the Appellate Court for every one which had a dissenter below.

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the share of civil cases which were published below.

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

Last time, we reviewed the 3-year floating average reversal rates in criminal cases for the Divisions of the First District.  In this post, we’re looking at the data for the rest of the state: the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Districts of the Appellate Court, and direct appeals from trial court judgments.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Second and Fifth Districts remained, for the most part, around the long-term trend reversal rate of 40-55%.  The Third District was a bit high – 69.57% in 1992, two-thirds reversal in 1993, 74.36% in 1994, 83.33% in 1998, 81.82% in 1999 and two-thirds in 2000.  The Fourth District started in the middle but was on the high side for the last four years of the period: 73.33% (1997), 64.29% (1998), 76.47% (1999) and 73.33% (2000).  The reversal rate for direct appeals was almost entirely unchanged across the nine years, nearly always between 40 and 45%.

Between 2001 and 2009, the reversal rate for the Second District rose from one-third in 2001 to the high fifties and sixties by the end of the period.  The Third District’s criminal reversal rate was in the fifties and sixties each year before finishing the period at 72.73% in 2008 and 70% in 2009.  The Fourth District’s reversal rate fell each year from 2001 (80.77%) to 2005 (44.44%).  Aside from a one-year dip to 30% in 2007, the rate stayed in the middle forties for several years before hitting 50% in 2009.  The Fifth District reversal rate was at 50% in 2003, 2004 and 2008, 55.56% in 2006, and two-thirds in 2005 and 2007.  The reversal rate for direct appeals was relatively low from 2001 (35.16%) to 2005 (39.02%), but then rose to 63.64% in 2006.  By 2009, the reversal rate for direct appeals was 45.45%.

Between 2010 and 2019, the Second District’s criminal reversal rate has varied quite a bit, from 38.46% in 2013 and 30.77% in 2014 to the mid-sixties in 2016, 2018 and 2019 and 87.5% in 2017.  Nevertheless, the numbers across the entire ten-year period compute to a median very close to its thirty-year average.  The Third District’s reversal rate was in the low-to-mid sixties for the most part from 2010 to 2016 (with the exception of a small jump to 75% in 2013), before dropping into the fifties for 2017, 2018 and 2019.  The Fourth District’s reversal rate was low for the most part from 2010 to 2016, but has jumped recently to 72.73% in 2017, 66.67% in 2018 and 72.73% in 2019.  The Fifth District’s reversal rate in criminal cases has been high in recent years: 100% in each year from 2010 to 2013, 83.33% in 2014, 75% in 2015, 72.73% in 2016, 66.67% in 2017, 71.43% in 2018 and 66.67% in 2019.  Direct appeals from the trial courts were faring well from 2010 to 2012 with reversal rates of 40%, 50% and 42.86%, respectively, but have been higher since: 75% (2015), 73.33% (2016), 92.31% (2017), 90.91% (2018) and 62.5% (2019).

In our final Table, we report the overall reversal rate for each District and Division for the entire period thirty-year period.  Unattributed cases from the First District were reversed 45.45% of the time.  Divisions One through Five of the First District had reversal rates in the mid-fifties – 56.25% (Division One), 54.35% (Division Two), 56.72% (Division Three), 56.82% (Division Four), and 50% (Division Five).  Division Six had a reversal rate of 46.34%.  The Second District’s overall reversal rate is 53.23%.  The Third District’s reversal rate is 63.83%.  Both the Fourth and Fifth Districts were in the mid-fifties – 56.52% (Fourth District) and 55.84% (Fifth District).  Direct appeals from the trial courts were reversed in 41.68% of cases.

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

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

This week, we’re looking at the reversal rate data for the criminal side of the docket.  Once again, we’re using three-year floating average to tamp down wild swings in the data from year to year (at least a bit), and to avoid needless complexity in the math, we count a case as a reversal when the decision below was affirmed in part and reversed in part.  In the first Table, we report the reversal rates for the years 1992 to 2000.

Three Divisions reached 100% reversal during these years: Division One in 1996, Division Four in 1996 and 2000, and Division Six in 1999.  But these were outlier years for the most part.  Division One was in the forty-to-sixty range from 1992 to 1995 and dropped to 33.33% in 1997 and 2000 and zero in 1998 and 1999.  Division Three’s reversal rate was in the eighties in 1992 and 1996 and in the sixties 1993-1995 and 1997 before tailing off at the end of the decade.  Division Six had a reversal rate of 50% in 1993 and 1994, 33.33% in 1995 and 1998, and only 25% in 1996 and 1997.

Reversal rates were somewhat less stable between 2001 and 2009.  Division One rose to 100% in 2003 and 2007.  Division Two was at 100% every year from 2001 to 2004 before falling steadily for the rest of the decade.  Division Three was at the long-term overall trend level of 45-65% reversal for most of the period before rising a bit 2007-2009.  Divisions Four and Five both had outlier years where their reversal rate jumped to 100% – Division Four in 2001 and 2002 and Division Five in 2004 and 2005.  Division Six was up to 100% in 2003 but dropped to zero only two years later.

In our final table, we report the 3-year floating average reversal rates for the years 2010 through 2019.  For the most part, the First District has been doing relatively well in criminal cases during these years, with reversal rates for the most part at or below the long-term average.  The only real exception to this is Division One, which has had a higher rate recently: 80% (2013), 100% (2014 & 2015), 66.67% (2016 & 2017) 70% (2018) and 100% (2019).

Join us back here next time as we address the reversal rates for the rest of the Districts, plus direct criminal appeals from the trial courts.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Russ Amptmeyer (no changes).

In Table 1342 below, we report the three-year floating average reversal rates for the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Appellate Districts for the years 1992 to 1999.  The Second District fared best during these years.  The Third and Fourth were relatively equal, and the Fifth District fared worst.

The Second District had only one spike, to a reversal rate of 73.68% in 1995.  The Third District began at 76.19% in 1993 but was otherwise between half and two-thirds.  The Fourth District had a reversal rate of 73.08% in 1992 and 73.68% in 1997.  The Fifth District was at 80.95% in 1999, 80.65% in 1992, and in the seventies for 1993, 1996, 1997 and 1998. \

The years 2000 to 2009 were similar.  The Second District reached a high of 70% reversal in 2004.  The Third District was quite low throughout the decade – 28.57% in 2001, 25% in 2002, 33.33% in 2006 and 35.71% in 2007.  The Fourth District was just slightly higher, with its reversal rate in the forties and fifties each year.  The Fifth District remained the highest reversal rate in the state: 81.25% in 2001, 75% in 2002 and 2003, 70.59% in 2007 and 90.91% in 2009.

The Fourth District has fared quite well between 2010 and 2019.  The Second District was fairly high for the first five years of the decade and lower since; the Third District was the reverse.  The Second reached a reversal rate of 76.47% in 2014 before dropping to 30.77% in 2017 and 42.86% in 2018.  The Third District was in the fifties from 2011 to 2014 but reached 71.43% in 2016, 70% in 2017 and 2018 and two-thirds so far in 2019.  The Fourth District was very low throughout: 30% in 2012, 2016 and 2017, 50% in 2018 and only 44.44% in 2019.  The Fifth District reversal rate was very high for the first half of the decade, but has improved considerably since: 92.31% (2010); 85.71% (2011); 78.57% (2012); 81.82% (2013); 90.91% (2014) and 90% (2015), then 64.29% (2016); 58.33% (2017) and 37.5% (2018) and two-thirds so far this year.

In our final table, we report the overall reversal rate of each Division and District for the years 1990 to 2019.  The Divisions of the First District and the Second, Third and Fourth Districts have all been quite close: 54.22% for 1.1; 60.98% for 1.2; 60.75% for 1.3; 51.16% for 1.4; 58.82% for 1.5; 55.7% for 1.6; 54.37% for the 2nd, 57.26% for the Third and 54.82% for the Fourth.  The thirty-year civil reversal rate for the Fifth District is 73.3%.

Next week, we’ll review the data on the criminal side of the docket.

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

For the past several weeks, we’ve been reviewing the county by county data for civil and criminal cases at the Supreme Court.  This week and next, we’ll be looking at the reversal rates for the Districts and Divisions of the Appellate Court.  First up today – Chicago’s First District.  Since it’s difficult occasionally to confirm which Division of the First District a case arose from, we divide the data into seven courts – Divisions One through Six and a catch-all for unallocated First District cases.   Because individual Divisions typically have no more than 2-4 cases decided by the Court in any given year, we use three- year floating average reversal rates – thus, the numbers reported below as “1992” are the combined reversal rate for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.  We then drop the 1990 data and add 1993 to report the next year (and so on).

As reported in Table 1339, reversal rates in the First District tended to cluster around the 50-60% mark through most of the 90s.  Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 5 all had spikes, as did the unallocated First District cases.  Division 1 hit 80% reversal in 1993; Division 2 reached 75% in 1996; Division 3 reached 81.25% in 1996 and Division 5 was at 100% in 1997.  The unallocated cases were reversed at an 87.5% clip in 1996.  Only Divisions 4 and 6 were consistent across the period, seldom dipping or spiking.  Unallocated cases were at 22.22% in 1993 and 33.33% in 1994.  Division 1 was at 30% in 1999.  Division 3 was at 36.36% in 1999.  The reversal rate of Division 4 was 37.5% in 1997.

The three-year floating averages were a bit more consistent from 2000 to 2009.  Division 1 had a three- year dip from 2007 to 2009 – 28.57% (2007), 12.5% (2008) and 25% (2009).  Division 2 fell to 28.57% in 2004 and one-third for the next two years.  Division 4 rose to 83.33% in 2004 and 80% the following year.  Division 5 was 80% in 2007 and 75% in the following year.  Division 6 dipped to 16.67% in 2006 and 27.27% in 2007.

The reversal rates became a bit more unstable over the past decade.  Division 1’s rate was at only 27.27% in 2010 before jumping to 100% in 2013 and 2014.  Division 2’s reversal rate was quite high early in the decade: 83.33% in 2010, 80% in 2011, 90% in 2012 and 2013, 100% in 2014 and 80% in 2014.  Division 3 was quite high at the beginning and end of the decade: 87.5% in 2010, 80% in 2018 and 2019.  Division 4 has fared well in the past decade for the most part – 33.33% in 2010 and 2019, 25% in 2011 and 30% in 2012.  Division 4’s highest rate was 71.43% in 2014.  Division 5’s reversal rate was 80% in 2011 and 2012 before falling to one-third in 2014 and 28.57% in 2015.  Division 6’s reversal rate reached 76.92% in 2012, 72.73% in 2014, 75% in 2015 and 80% in 2016.

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the data for the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Districts.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Adam Jones (no changes).