Data Analytics and the Illinois Supreme CourtKane County Bar Association Appellate Practice CommitteeJuly 10, 2015

Kirk C. JenkinsSedgwick LLP

The Value of Data Analytics

Distinguishing Appellate Law from Trial Law• Persuading a Panel, not a Single Decision-Maker

The Science of Group Decision-Making• Statistical Analysis of Judicial Behavior:

Jurimetrics – dates back to 1941• Game Theory• Microeconomic Theory• Psychological Group Theories• Restraints on Voting Individual Preferences• Logistic Regression Models of Court Decision-Making

The Value of Data Analytics II

Bringing Precision to Conventional Wisdom• “The Supreme Court Doesn’t Grant to Affirm”• “The Supreme Court Never Reviews Rule 23 Orders or

Unanimous Decisions”• “The Court Doesn’t Care What District the Decision Comes From”• “Appellate decisions are getting longer”• This pair or that pair of Justices “always votes together”• Oral argument tells you nothing about the decision – the Justices

are playing devil’s advocate, or talking to each other

The Value of Data Analytics III

Lee Epstein, William M. Landes & Judge Richard A. Posner, The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice, (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2013).

“The better that judges are understood, the more effective lawyers will be both in litigating cases and, as important, in predicting the outcome of cases, thus enabling litigation to be avoided or cases settled at an early stage.”

The Supreme Court Data Library

629 civil cases, 2000-2014 More than 36,000 data points in the library Case Identifiers:• Case Name• Docket Number

Before the Lower Courts:• Appellate Court• Basis for Appellate Jurisdiction• Appeal Taken from Summary Judgment (Y/N)• Area of the Law

The Supreme Court Data Library II

• Philosophical Coding of Appellate Court decision (C/L)• Dissent before Appellate Court (Y/N)• Appellate Court decision published (Y/N)• Circuit Court or Board of original jurisdiction• Trial Judge

The Decision Process Before the Supreme Court:• Date of Oral Argument• Date of Decision• Days under Submission• Amici• Result & Vote

The Supreme Court Data Library III

The Opinions• Length of Majority Opinion• Length of Special Concurrences• Length of Dissents

Justice-by-Justice Data• Vote• Opinion (M/SC/D/joined SC or D)• Philosophical Coding of Vote• Recused (Y/N)

The Supreme Court Data Library IV

Oral Arguments• All Counsel Presenting Argument• Justice-by-Justice, First Question (Appellant/Appellee/Rebuttal)• Justice-by-Justice, Number and Order of Questions

Where the Docket Comes From

Leading Subjects, 2000-2014 Total Cases

Tort 142

Civil Procedure 70

Government/Administrative 61

Constitutional 57

Domestic Relations 44

Insurance 43

Workers’ Compensation 27

Which Circuit Courts?

Originating County, 2000-2014

Percentage of Civil Docket

1 Cook 44.9

2 Du Page 6.2

3 Sangamon 5.4

4 Lake 4.9

5 St. Clair 3.9

6 Will 3.6

7 Champaign 2.1

8 Madison 2.0

9 Winnebago 1.1

10 McHenry 0.7

12

5

7

4

6

8

9

10

3

Are Summary Judgments Easier?

YearPercentage of Civil

Docket from SJ

2014 25.9

2013 29.4

2012 22.5

2011 15.8

2010 20.0

2009 26.8

2008 19.5

2007 26.8

2006 14.9

2005 17.4

2004 27.8

Do Dissents Help?

YearPercentage of Docket

Dissent Below

2014 14.8

2013 29.4

2012 30.8

2011 26.3

2010 36.4

2009 28.2

2008 29.3

2007 36.6

2006 25.5

2005 26.8

2004 21.7

Time Under Submission

Lag Time between Argument and Decision

2010129.6

2014100.7

UNANIMOUS DECISIONS

2010203.9

2014193.8

DIVIDED DECISIONS

coming more quickly100.7

Frequency of Unanimous Decisions

YearPercentage of

Civil Docket

2014 71.4

2013 58.8

2012 55.0

2011 76.3

2010 72.7

2009 80.5

2008 70.7

2007 80.5

2006 57.4

2005 80.4

2004 70.4

Are Dissents Sharper?

Year Percentage 0-1 Dissenters

Percentage 2-3 Dissenters

2014 76.2 23.8

2013 79.4 20.6

2012 72.5 27.5

2011 86.8 13.2

2010 81.8 18.2

2009 90.2 9.8

2008 80.5 19.5

2007 90.2 9.8

2006 83.0 17.0

2005 95.7 4.3

2004 77.8 22.2

Reversal Rates by Appellate District

1st, 1 1st, 2 1st, 3 1st, 4 1st, 5 1st, 6 2 3 4 5

2014 100 80 75 83 33 73 81 57 50 82

2013 100 73 50 67 60 67 59 60 47 82

2012 63 90 50 30 80 77 58 75 30 79

2011 60 80 55 22 80 70 50 64 46 86

2010 27 83 88 33 50 70 57 70 50 92

2009 25 78 75 57 60 50 61 53 56 91

2008 13 62 63 44 50 40 50 46 56 73

2007 29 62 50 38 60 27 48 39 46 77

2006 50 33 50 50 43 29 50 36 46 73

2005 67 25 30 50 38 50 65 54 47 71

2004 64 0 22 67 38 67 70 54 59 52

What Kinds of Cases are Granted?

Area of Law2010-2014

Conservative Appellate Court Decisions

Liberal Appellate Court Decisions

Tort 30.8 69.2

Civil Procedure 50 50

Domestic Relations 53.3 46.7

Constitutional Law 50 50

Government and Administrative 45.5 54.5

Insurance 22.2 77.8

Workers’ Comp 50 50

Differing Reversal Rates?

Area of Law2010-2014

Conservative Appellate Court Decisions

Liberal Appellate Court Decisions

Tort 41.7 69.2

Civil Procedure 54.5 72.7

Domestic Relations 62.5 50.0

Constitutional Law 14.3 71.4

Government and Administrative 60.0 83.3

Insurance 100.0 57.1

Workers’ Comp 100.0 50.0

Voting Dynamics – The Court’s Center

Agreement Rates (Non-Unanimous Civil Cases, 2014)

2012 2013 2014

Garman-Thomas 81.8 84.6 83.3

Garman-Karmeier 75.0 73.8 83.3

Thomas-Karmeier 85.3 82.1 100.0

Voting Dynamics – Counting to 4

The Fourth Vote

2012 2013 2014

Garman-Burke 72.2 71.4 65.7

Garman-Theis 74.1 77.5 79.4

Thomas-Burke 67.6 66.7 62.5

Thomas-Theis 64.0 67.6 67.7

Karmeier-Burke 75.0 73.8 74.3

Karmeier-Theis 66.7 70.0 70.6

Oral Argument - Which Side Gets More Questions?

Year Appellants Appellees

2008 418 444

2009 765 497

2010 639 445

2011 635 387

2012 589 609

2013 524 316

2014 458 328

Total 4028 3026

Hot & Cold Courts

Fewest questions in a single argument (both sides represented)

Russell v. SNFA, 2013

Most questions in a single civil argument

In re Sophia G.L., 2008

Most questions to an appellant

In re Sophia G.L. (Reversed)

Most questions to an appellee

Secura Insurance Company v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 2009 (Reversed)

81 57 44 8

Are More Questions a Bad Sign? – Avg. Questions per Argument

Year Winning Appellants

Losing Appellants

Winning Appellees

Losing Appellees

2008 16.53 18.89 12.22 22.27

2009 19.93 20.64 11.00 13.93

2010 17.39 21.73 11.93 14.78

2011 14.72 30.56 7.83 14.48

2012 15.00 17.11 9.44 18.07

2013 13.63 17.67 7.87 10.42

2014 13.18 23.40 10.10 13.35

Total 15.96 20.07 9.83 15.29

Does It Matter if the Court is Split?

Year Appellants Unanimous

Appellants Not Unanimous

Appellees Unanimous

Appellees Not Unanimous

2008 18.78 13.33 18.72 17.83

2009 19.66 21.57 16.47 12.86

2010 19.50 19.00 14.17 11.67

2011 17.64 16.44 9.78 14.56

2012 15.00 16.28 15.76 15.89

2013 13.65 17.21 9.45 9.07

2014 17.05 16.83 11.84 17.17

Total 17.53 17.17 13.75 13.75

Does It Matter if the Court is Closely Split?

Year Appellants Unanimous

Appellants 3 Dissenters

Appellees Unanimous

Appellees 3 Dissenters

2008 18.78 2.00 18.72 22.00

2009 19.66 41.00 16.47 15.00

2010 19.50 23.50 14.17 8.50

2011 17.64 22.50 9.78 22.50

2012 15.00 9.75 15.76 11.00

2013 13.65 24.00 9.45 3.00

2014 17.05 19.50 11.84 22.00

Overall 17.53 18.08 13.75 14.62

Is the First Question the Majority Author?

Percentage of Arguments First Question from Author of Majority

Winning Appellant 25.17

Losing Appellant 24.69

Winning Appellee 19.75

Losing Appellee 28.06

Fitzgerald

678

Karmeier

643

Kilbride

604

Theis

553Burke

909

Garman

897

Freeman

701

Who Asks the Most Questions?

Thomas

2,223

Average Questions per Argument

Appellant Appellee Rebuttal

Thomas 3.90 4.42 1.35

Burke 1.91 1.69 0.42

Garman 1.56 1.97 0.32

Freeman 1.79 1.07 0.23

Fitzgerald 3.72 2.75 0.67

Karmeier 1.06 1.30 0.41

Kilbride 0.95 1.19 0.55

Theis 2.20 1.49 0.53

How Often is each Justice the First Questioner?

Appellant Appellee Rebuttal

Thomas 33.48 39.13 29.57

Burke 18.58 12.83 4.87

Garman 15.02 15.45 6.00

Freeman 22.37 11.84 2.19

Fitzgerald 12.63 12.63 17.89

Karmeier 5.60 9.91 9.91

Kilbride 2.67 4.44 6.22

Theis 11.45 7.63 10.69

Does the Result Matter?

Appellant Wins

Appellant Loses

Appellee Wins

Appellee Loses

Thomas 4.50 6.49 2.58 5.77

Burke 1.88 3.23 1.53 2.02

Garman 1.75 2.01 1.20 2.46

Freeman 2.25 1.70 1.19 1.35

Fitzgerald 4.69 4.09 2.71 4.10

Karmeier 1.33 1.72 1.43 1.28

Kilbride 1.41 1.56 1.08 1.29

Theis 2.04 3.81 1.38 1.64

Justice Burke’s Question Patterns

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 1.50 -- -- 4.50

Appellant – RR 1.40 2.88 14.00 --

Appellant – AA 2.46 6.64 None --

Appellant – AR 1.17 -- -- 6.00

Appellee – RA 0.50 -- -- 2.25

Appellee – RR 1.91 2.96 3.00 --

Appellee – AA 1.53 1.43 2.00 --

Appellee – AR 0.80 -- -- 4.25

Justice Burke & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 0.50 -- -- 0.50

Appellant – RR 0.20 0.41 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 0.09 0.71 None --

Appellant – AR 0.17 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RR 0.16 0.24 0.00 --

Appellee – AA 0.16 0.29 0.00 --

Appellee – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Chief Justice Garman’s Question Patterns

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 3.67 -- -- 4.00

Appellant – RR 1.64 2.32 2.00 --

Appellant – AA 1.96 3.78 2.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.50 -- -- 1.50

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 3.00

Appellee – RR 1.64 3.86 0.50 --

Appellee – AA 0.96 1.67 None --

Appellee – AR 3.00 -- -- 2.75

Chief Justice Garman & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.33

Appellant – RR 0.19 0.58 0.50 --

Appellant – AA 0.18 0.44 0.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.50 -- -- 0.50

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.33

Appellee – RR 0.12 0.45 0.50 --

Appellee – AA 0.07 0.33 None --

Appellee – AR 0.67 -- -- 0.50

Justice Freeman & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 1.00 -- -- 0.50

Appellant – RR 0.31 0.20 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 0.14 0.06 0.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.29

Appellee – RA None -- -- 0.20

Appellee – RR 0.14 0.00 0.00 --

Appellee – AA 0.09 0.14 0.00 --

Appellee – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.57

Justice Kilbride’s Question Patterns

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 1.33 -- -- 2.20

Appellant – RR 1.28 2.00 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 1.71 0.71 4.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.50 -- -- 2.67

Appellee – RA 0.50 -- -- 1.08

Appellee – RR 1.07 3.93 0.00 --

Appellee – AA 1.08 0.75 2.00 --

Appellee – AR 2.25 -- -- 0.78

Justice Kilbride & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.10

Appellant – RR 0.10 0.21 0.0 --

Appellant – AA 0.06 0 0 --

Appellant – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.11

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.08

Appellee – RR 0.06 0.07 0.00 --

Appellee – AA 0.02 0.00 0.00 --

Appellee – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Justice Thomas’s Question Patterns

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 6.00 -- -- 16.30

Appellant – RR 3.98 4.86 0 --

Appellant – AA 6.44 6.85 7.00 --

Appellant – AR 2.00 -- -- 4.50

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 1.00

Appellee – RR 5.70 7.18 2.50 --

Appellee – AA 2.61 2.38 1.00 --

Appellee – AR 2.00 -- -- 5.50

Justice Thomas & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 0.00 -- -- 1.33

Appellant – RR 0.49 0.72 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 0.76 0.77 1.00 --

Appellant – AR 2.00 -- -- 1.00

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RR 0.46 0.77 0.50 --

Appellee – AA 0.36 0.15 1.00 --

Appellee – AR 1.00 -- -- 2.00

Justice Karmeier’s Question Patterns

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 3.33 -- -- 0.00

Appellant – RR 1.04 3.11 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 1.03 4.27 6.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.67 -- -- 1.20

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RR 1.25 1.70 1.00 --

Appellee – AA 0.97 4.00 1.50 --

Appellee – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Justice Karmeier & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 0.67 -- -- 0.00

Appellant – RR 0.12 0.26 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 0.12 0.53 0.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.33 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RR 0.03 0.15 0.00 --

Appellee – AA 0.17 0.33 0.50 --

Appellee – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Justice Theis’s Question Patterns

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 3.75 -- -- 5.00

Appellant – RR 1.74 2.64 5.00 --

Appellant – AA 2.49 14.33 0.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RA 3.00 -- -- 1.33

Appellee – RR 1.37 2.14 10.00 --

Appellee – AA 1.28 1.67 1.00 --

Appellee – AR 5.00 -- -- 0.00

Justice Theis & the First Question

Not Writing Majority Concurrence Dissent

Appellant – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.33

Appellant – RR 0.15 0.50 0.00 --

Appellant – AA 0.23 0.67 0.00 --

Appellant – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RA 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Appellee – RR 0.03 0.07 0.00 --

Appellee – AA 0.10 0.50 0.00 --

Appellee – AR 0.00 -- -- 0.00

Applying Our Conclusions

In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015Appellant Appellee Rebuttal

Burke 0 0 0

Kilbride 0 0 0

Freeman 0 0 0

Garman 1 2F 1

Thomas 11F 0 6

Karmeier 0 0 1F

Theis 0 0 0

Result . . .

Justice Karmeier for the Court

7-0Affirmance

Applying Our Conclusions II

Leetaru v. The Board of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois, 2015 – 210 days under submission

Appellant Appellee Rebuttal

Burke 3F 0 0

Kilbride 0 0 0

Freeman 0 0 0

Garman 1 2 1F

Thomas 3 4F 0

Karmeier 2 9 1

Theis 0 0 0

Result . . .

Justice Karmeier for the Court

Justice Burke dissenting

4-3Reversal

Applying Our Conclusions III

Skokie Castings v. Illinois Insurance Guar. Fund, 2013 – 332 days under submission

Appellant Appellee Rebuttal

Burke 4 2 3

Kilbride 6 0 0

Freeman 0 0 0

Garman 2 1 0

Thomas 3F 4 1F

Karmeier 2 2 2

Theis 0 1F 0

Result …

Justice Karmeier for the Court

Justice Thomas dissenting

Justice Kilbride dissenting

5-2Affirmance

Lessons from the Data

A side asked significantly more questions is in trouble – both overall, and with each Justice

The first questioner may be writing the majority Chief Justice Garman, Justices Burke, Karmeier, Theis

and to a degree Thomas – more active if writing, more likely to be the first question

Treating Questions as a Tentative Opinion

Kirk C. Jenkins, Chair (also California)Agelo L. Reppas

Sedgwick’s Appellate Task Force

Hall R. MarstonDouglas L. CollodelMichael M. WalshMatthew A. Reed

S. Vance Wittie Robert C. WeillErin E. Dardis

Aaron F. MandelPeter C. Condron

Questions?

Kirk C. JenkinsOne N. Wacker Drive, #4200Chicago, IL 60606Tel: (312) 641-9050Kirk.Jenkins@SedgwickLaw.comGoogle Plus: https://plus.google.com/+KirkJenkins/posts LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kirkcjenkins Twitter: @KirkCJenkins

@ISCReview

Blogs:Appellate StrategistIllinois Supreme Court Review