The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2018-19 term began with arguments last month, and the first opinion of the term is expected tomorrow. Before we dive into this year’s term, we thought we would review the statistics of the 2017-18 term and highlight a couple of the court’s important decisions from the term, which saw the conclusion of Justice Michael Gableman’sservice and the election of his successor, Justice Rebecca Dallet.
In 2017-18, the court issued 60 merits decisions in 36 civil cases and 24 criminal cases. The justices reached a unanimous decision in 18 of these cases or 29.5% of the time, while two or more justices dissented in 37 cases or 60.7% of the time. The court also issued three per curiam decisions affirming the judgment of the court of appeals in cases in which the justices were equally divided on the merits.
The number of writings for the term totaled 135, comprising 59 majority opinions, 50 dissenting opinions, 25 concurring opinions, and a per curiam order in an original action. All but eight of the cases that the court decided generated at least two separate opinions. Justice Shirley Abrahamson authored or joined the most dissenting opinions with 29 total, while Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Daniel Kelly authored or joined the most concurring opinions with 12 each. Justice Grassl Bradley authored the most opinions overall with 27. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was second with 26. Justice Gableman authored the fewest with 11.
The court issued its decisions with remarkable speed compared to past years, with 37 decisions released before June, 18 released during June, and 5 released in July. We will discuss the timing of opinions in greater detail in our next post.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.