Over the past couple of weeks over at the California Supreme Court Review, we’ve been analyzing the California Supreme Court’s experience with certified questions.  So today, we turn our attention to the same issue: how often does the Illinois Supreme Court decide certified questions?

The Court’s certified question docket is governed by Supreme Court Rule 20, which provides that the Court may accept certified questions from the United States Supreme Court or the Seventh Circuit (but from no other court).

The short answer is: not often.  The Court decided one certified case in 1997, one each in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2011 and 2012, and one in 2016.  Seven of the Court’s certified questions originated from the Northern District of Illinois, and one originated from the Central District.  Three of the court’s certified question cases arose from tort law, two arose from government and administrative law, and one each arose from tax and employment law.

In Table 513, we report the percentage of certified question appeals which the defense won in each subject area.  What the data shows is that the defense has fared quite well.  Defendants have won three quarters of the tort law cases, and the only plaintiff’s win was by an insurer which would have traditionally been the defendant.  Defendants won none of the government law cases, but all of the tax law and employment law cases.

Join us back here tomorrow as we continue our analysis of the Court’s certified question cases.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by Werner22brigitte (no changes).

Yesterday, we reviewed Justice Theis’ question patterns in criminal cases between 2010 and 2016.  Today, we ask what it’s possible to infer when Justice Theis asked the first question in  criminal cases.

Justice Theis voted with the majority in 84 criminal affirmances and 102 criminal reversals.  She wrote the majority opinion in fourteen of those affirmances and fifteen of the reversals.  When voting in the majority of an affirmance, there was a 26.19% chance that Justice Theis would ask the first question of appellants, and a 17.86% chance that she would ask the first question of appellees.  When writing the majority opinion in an affirmance, Justice Theis asked the first question of appellants half the time, and of appellees in 28.57% of cases.  When not writing an opinion, there’s a 22.06% chance that Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants, and a 16.18% chance that she’ll lead off against the appellees

When voting in the majority of a reversal, there was a 27.45% chance that Justice Theis would ask the first question of appellants, and a 16.67% chance that she’d lead off against the appellees.  When writing the majority opinion, there was a 26.67% chance that she would ask the first question of appellants, and a 20% chance that she would begin the questioning of appellees.  Justice Theis only voted with the majority in two criminal cases where she wrote a concurrence – she asked the first question of appellants in one case, but not of appellees in either case.  When Justice Theis wasn’t writing, there was a 27.06% chance that she would ask the first question of appellants, and a 16.47% chance that she would ask the first question of appellees.

Justice Theis didn’t ask the first question of either side in any case where she voted in the minority of a criminal matter, so that wraps up our review of Justice Theis’ oral argument data.

Join us back here next Tuesday as we begin another phase of our analysis.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by JudithScharnowski (no changes).

Last week, we reviewed the data from Justice Theis’ participation in oral arguments in civil cases since she joined the Court in 2010.  This week, we turn our attention to Justice Theis’ record in criminal oral arguments.

Justice Theis voted with the majority in 84 criminal affirmances and 102 criminal reversals.  She wrote the majority opinion in fourteen criminal affirmances.  She wrote concurrences in two affirmances, and voted with the majority while not writing in 68 affirmances.  Justice Theis wrote the majority opinion in fifteen criminal reversals, wrote two special concurrences, and didn’t write while voting with the majority in a reversal in 85 cases.

In criminal affirmances, Justice Theis tended to ask more questions of the losing party – 2.85 questions to appellants, 1.42 questions to appellees.  Writing the majority opinion had a significant impact.  When writing the majority, Justice Theis averaged 4.43 questions to appellants and 2.57 to appellees.  When writing the concurrence, Justice Theis averaged 4.5 questions to appellants and 3.0 to appellees.  When not writing in an affirmance, Justice Theis averaged 2.47 questions to appellants and 1.13 to appellees.

When voting with the majority in a reversal, Justice Theis averaged more questions to the appellants – 2.59 questions to appellants, 2.18 to appellees.  Writing the majority opinion had very little impact on Justice Theis’ patterns in reversals; she averaged 2.33 questions apiece to appellants and appellees.  In the small number of concurrences in criminal reversals, Justice Theis averaged 10.5 questions to appellants and 0.5 to appellees.  When not writing an opinion in reversals, Justice Theis averaged 2.39 questions to appellants and 2.19 to appellees.

When Justice Theis voted with the minority in criminal affirmances, she averaged more questions to the party she voted against than the party who lost.  She averaged 0.5 questions to appellants, four questions to appellees.  Justice Theis didn’t write any dissents in criminal affirmances.

When Justice Theis voted with the minority in criminal reversals, she averaged five questions to appellants and none to appellees.  Although she wrote one dissent from a criminal reversal, she asked no questions in that case.  When not writing an opinion in a criminal reversal, she averaged 10 questions to appellants and none to appellees.

Join us back here tomorrow as we wrap up our analysis of Justice Theis’ question patterns in oral arguments 2010-2016.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by TPSDave (no changes).

Yesterday, we began our analysis of Justice Theis’ question patterns in civil cases.  Today, we continue our work on Justice Theis’ civil arguments since taking office in 2010.

When voting in the majority of an affirmance, there’s a 32.88% chance that Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants, but only a 15.07% chance that she’ll lead off against the appellees.  Writing the majority opinion has a substantial effect – when voting in the majority of an affirmance, there’s a 72.73% chance that Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants, and a 36.36% chance that she’ll ask the first question of appellees.  When not writing an opinion and voting in the majority of an affirmance, there’s a 25.81% chance that Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants, and a 11.29% chance she’ll ask the first question of appellees.

When voting in the majority of a reversal, there’s a 24.76% chance that Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants, but only a 6.67% chance she’ll lead off with the appellees.  Writing the majority opinion, once again, has a substantial effect – there’s a 52.38% chance Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants and a 9.52% chance she’ll ask the first question of appellees when voting with the majority in a reversal.  When writing a concurrence, there’s a 50% chance that Justice Theis will ask the first question of appellants.  She hasn’t asked the first question of appellees in any case where she wrote the concurrence.  In reversals where Justice Theis voted with the majority, there was a 17.07% chance that she’ll ask the first question of appellants, and a 6.1% chance that she’ll ask the first question of appellees.

When voting in the minority of an affirmance, there’s a 40% chance that Justice Theis would ask the first question of appellees.  She didn’t ask the first question of appellants in any case.  When not writing an opinion, there was a 0% chance that Justice Theis would ask the first question of appellants, and a 66.67% chance that she would lead off against appellees.

When voting in the minority of a reversal, there’s a 25% chance that Justice Theis would lead off against appellants; she’s never asked the first question of appellees.  When writing a dissent, there’s a 50% chance that Justice Theis will lead off against appellants, but no chance that she’ll ask the first question of appellees.   Justice Theis didn’t ask the first question in either of the cases where she voted in the minority of a reversal.

Join us back here next week as we review Justice Theis’ record in oral arguments of criminal cases.

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

For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing the patterns in Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s questioning in civil and criminal cases between 2008 and his retirement in 2010.  This week, we review the question patterns of his successor, Justice Mary Jane Theis.

Justice Theis voted with the majority in 73 civil affirmances and 105 civil reversals.  She wrote the majority opinion in 11 affirmances and 21 reversals.  She wrote no concurrences in civil affirmances, but wrote concurrences in two reversals.

Overall, Justice Theis has averaged 3.85 questions to appellants in affirmances (the losing party), and 1.19 questions to appellees.  When writing the majority opinion in affirmances, she averages 9.82 questions to appellants but only 1.55 to appellees.  When not writing an opinion, Justice Theis has averaged 2.79 to appellants in affirmances, and 1.13 questions to appellees.

Justice Theis has averaged slightly more questions to appellants in reversals as well – 2.16 questions to appellants, 1.81 to appellees.  Writing the majority opinion has a substantial impact, as Justice Theis has averaged 3.38 questions to appellants and 3.14 to appellees.  When writing a concurrence, Justice Theis has averaged four questions to appellants and five to appellees.  When not writing an opinion in a reversal, Justice Theis has averaged 1.8 questions to appellants and 1.39 to appellees.

When voting in the minority of an affirmance, Justice Theis averages more questions to the party she is voting against than to the party who actually loses the case – 0.4 questions to appellants, 2.6 questions to appellees.  Justice Theis has asked no questions in the two cases where she voted in the minority of an affirmance and wrote a dissent.  When not writing and voting in the minority of an affirmance, Justice Theis has averaged 0.67 questions to appellants, 4.33 to appellees.

When voting in the minority of a reversal, once again, Justice Theis averages more question to the party she votes against – 3.75 to appellants, 1.75 to appellees.  When writing a dissent from a reversal, she averages 7.5 questions to appellants and 2 to appellees.  When not writing an opinion, Justice Theis has asked no questions of appellants, and 1.5 questions to appellees.

Join us back here tomorrow as we continue our analysis of Justice Theis’ patterns in civil cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by David Wilson (no changes).

Last week, I was looking at our archives, pulling up old research, and I stumbled onto this two-year old post – my 500th on Appellate Strategist. Now that our other two blogs, Illinois Supreme Court Review and California Supreme Court Review, have been publishing for a while, I decided to check the dashboards there too. And it turns out that this summer – next week, in fact – I’ll be publishing my 1,000th blog post.

Since I’ve always got data to quote, here are the numbers:

My first post on Appellate Strategist was published February 23, 2010. In all, I’ve published 604 posts there.

My first post on Illinois Supreme Court Review was published January 9, 2015. In all, I’ve published 264 posts on ISCR.

And finally, my first post on California Supreme Court Review was published April 27, 2016. I’ve published 129 posts on CSCR, making my total for the past seven years and five months 997 posts (and no, I’m not counting this simultaneous post on all three blogs – that would be cheating . . .)

So join us next week as we count down towards 1,000 – and if you’ve got a suggestion for what you’d like to see in the 1,000th post – let me know in the comments. And in the meantime, for an ongoing collection of news and analysis from a wide variety of sources, visit our Flipboard curated magazines on the California Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Chad Kainz (no changes).

Yesterday, we reviewed the data for Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s question pattern in criminal cases between 2008 and 2010.  Today, we look at a different aspect of the data – was the Chief Justice more likely to ask the first question of either side, depending on how he was voting and whether he was writing an opinion?

The Chief Justice was far more likely to ask the first question of appellants when he ultimately voted to affirm.  He asked the first question in criminal affirmances 32.2% of the time, to only 6.78% of appellees.  As usual, writing the majority opinion had a substantial effect.  When he was writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked the first question of appellants 62.5% of the time, and of appellees 25% of the time.  When not writing an opinion, Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked the first question of appellants 27.45% of the time, and of appellees 3.92% of the time.

For reversals, the Chief Justice once again was more likely to start the questioning of an appellant.  He began with appellants 41.82% of the time, but only 18.18% of the time with appellees.  Writing the majority opinion had a substantial impact.  When writing the majority in a reversal, there was an 83.33% chance that the Chief Justice would ask the first question, and a one-in-three chance that he would ask the first question of appellees.  When not writing an opinion, there was a 36.73% chance that Chief Justice Fitzgerald would ask the first question of appellants, and a 16.33% chance that he would ask the first question of appellees.

As we noted yesterday, Chief Justice Fitzgerald didn’t vote in the minority in a single one of the criminal cases where he heard argument and voted between 2008 and 2010.  In the cases where he heard argument but retired before the decision, Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked the first question in only two – both times, of the appellee.  In one of those cases, the firm ultimately affirmed 7-0.  The other was the case we discussed yesterday, where Chief Justice Fitzgerald questioned the appellees much more heavily, but the Court ultimately affirmed with modifications by a vote of 4-3.

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s successor, Justice Mary Jane Theis.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by Free-Photos (no changes).

Last week, we continued our analysis of the Court’s oral arguments between 2008 and 2016 with a look at former Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s patterns in civil cases during the two years before he retired, 2008-2010.  This week, we turn our attention to Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s patterns in criminal cases.

In all, Chief Justice Fitzgerald voted with the majority to affirm in 59 cases, and voted with the majority to reverse in 55 criminal cases.  He wrote the majority opinion affirming in eight criminal cases, and wrote the majority opinion reversing in six criminal cases.

In both affirmances and reversals, Chief Justice Fitzgerald followed the same pattern as most of the other Justices, questioning the losing party more heavily.  In affirmances, Chief Justice Fitzgerald averaged 5.46 questions to appellants, but only 2.41 to appellees.  Writing the majority opinion had a substantial effect; in cases where he was writing the majority, Chief Justice Fitzgerald averaged 14.25 questions to appellants, and 3.25 to appellees.  Chief Justice Fitzgerald wrote no concurrences in affirmances during these years.  When he was not writing an opinion, Chief Justice Fitzgerald averaged 4.08 questions to appellants and 2.27 to appellees.

In the 55 cases where he joined the majority of a reversal, Chief Justice Fitzgerald averaged 4.67 questions to appellants and 4.82 questions to appellees.  Interestingly, writing a majority had more of an effect on the winning party – when writing the majority, Chief Justice Fitzgerald averaged 10.5 questions to appellants, and 7.83 to appellees.  Chief Justice Fitzgerald wrote no concurrences in criminal reversals.  When he was not writing an opinion in a reversal, Chief Justice Fitzgerald averaged 3.96 questions to appellants and 4.45 to appellees.

Chief Justice Fitzgerald didn’t vote with the minority of a single criminal case between 2008 and 2010.  There’s only evidence that the Chief Justice’s retirement might have made a difference in the result in one case argued in 2010.

The Chief Justice participated in nine arguments in 2010 where the case was decided after his retirement. In five of those nine cases, he asked no questions at all.  In one of the remaining four cases, he asked more questions of the appellant, suggesting that he was leaning towards affirmance.  The Court affirmed unanimously in that case.  In the remaining three cases where Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked more questions of the appellees, the Court reversed unanimously in two.  In only one case, where Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked fourteen questions of appellees to only four of appellants, did the Court wind up affirming with modifications by a four to three vote.

Join us back here tomorrow as we conclude our analysis of Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s patterns in oral arguments between 2008 and 2010.

Image courtesy of Pixabay by kaicho20.

Yesterday, we began our review of the limited data from civil cases in which Chief Justice Fitzgerald both participated in oral argument and voted between 2008 and 2010.  Today, we wrap up our look at the civil docket.

As we noted yesterday, the Chief Justice voted with the majority in 32 civil affirmances, writing the majority opinion in five of those cases.  In those cases, there was an 18.75% chance that he would ask the first question of appellants, and a 12.5% chance that he’d lead off with the appellees.  There are only a few affirmances in which Chief Justice Fitzgerald wrote the majority opinion, but the impact of writing was the opposite of what we would expect.  In those cases, there was a 20% chance that he would ask the first question of appellees, and he never asked the first questions of appellants.  In affirmances where Chief Justice Fitzgerald didn’t write an opinion, there was a 22.22% chance that he would ask the first question of appellants, and an 11.11% chance that he would lead off against the appellees.

As we mentioned yesterday, Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s patterns in civil reversals were the opposite of most Justices – he averaged more questions to the winning party than to the side who lost.  Overall in reversals, Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked the first question of appellants in 32.73% of cases, and led off with the appellees in only 14.55%.  On the reversal side, writing the majority opinion meant it was far more likely that the Chief Justice would begin the questions – in those cases, there was a 55.56% chance that he would ask the first question of appellants, and he began against appellees a third of the time.  In the 46 civil reversals where Chief Justice Fitzgerald didn’t write an opinion, there was a 28.26% chance that he’d ask the first question of appellants, and a 10.87% chance that he’d begin against the appellees.

Chief Justice Fitzgerald heard argument and voted with the minority in only one civil case between 2008 and 2010 – a reversal.  In that case, he didn’t begin the questioning with either side.

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s question patterns in criminal cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Phil Roeder (no changes).

Our review of the Court’s oral arguments between 2008 and 2016 continues this week with Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald.  Since Chief Justice Fitzgerald retired in 2010, our data is more limited than it is for other Justices.  Because we’re tracking correlations between questions and voting, we disregard the cases in 2010 for which the Chief Justice heard oral argument but which were handed down after his departure from the Court.  We begin with the civil docket.

Chief Justice Fitzgerald voted with the majority in 32 civil affirmances.  In five of those cases, he wrote the majority opinion.  He wrote no concurrences in civil affirmances.  Overall, like most Justices, he averaged more questions to the appellant – the losing party in affirmances – than to the appellees.  He asked 139 questions of appellants, an average of 4.34 questions per case, and 79 questions of appellees – an average of 2.47.  As usual, writing the majority opinion had an impact, but interestingly, when Chief Justice Fitzgerald wrote the majority opinion, he averaged slightly more questions to the winning party – 7.4 questions per case to appellees, 6.6 to appellants.  In affirmances where Chief Justice Fitzgerald didn’t write an opinion, he averaged 3.93 questions to appellants and only 1.56 to appellees.

Chief Justice Fitzgerald voted with the majority in 55 reversals in civil cases.  In nine of those cases, he wrote the majority opinion.  He wrote no concurrences in those cases, leaving 46 where he didn’t write an opinion.  In reversals, the Chief Justice averaged more questions to the winning party.  He asked 258 questions to appellants (4.69 per case) and only 172 to appellees (3.13 per case).  Writing the majority opinion, as usual, had a substantial effect.  In those cases, the Chief Justice averaged 7.67 questions to appellants and 7.33 to appellees.  In the 46 reversals where he didn’t write an opinion, Chief Justice Fitzgerald asked 189 questions of appellants (4.11 per case) and 106 to appellees (2.3 per case).

For every other Justice, after examining the data for cases in which the Justice voted with the majority, we’ve tracked the trends where he or she voted in the minority.  For Chief Justice Fitzgerald, there’s almost no data for voting in the minority in civil cases.  Between 2008 and 2010, Chief Justice Fitzgerald wasn’t in the minority of an argued civil affirmance a single time.  He dissented from one civil reversal, asking one question of the appellant and none of the appellee.

Join us back here tomorrow as we look further at the data for Chief Justice Fitzgerald’s question patterns in civil cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by David Wilson (no changes).