Academic journal article Harvard Law Review

The Statistics

Academic journal article Harvard Law Review

The Statistics

Article excerpt

TABLE I (a)  (A) ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES                             OPINIONS WRITTEN (b)                   Opinions     Concurences                of Court (d)       (e)        Dissents (e)     TOTAL  Roberts             8               2              7            17 Scalia              8               5             11            24 Kennedy             8               5              1            14 Thomas              8              11              6            25 Ginsburg            9               1              7            17 Breyer              8               5              5            18 Alito               8               6              8            22 Sotomayor           8               3              5            16 Kagan               8               2              3            13 Per Curiam          5              --             --             5  Total               78             40           52 (g)       170 (g)                              DISSENTING VOTES (c)                             In Disposition by                               Memorandum                 Opinion         (f)          TOTAL  Roberts            11            0             11 Scalia             17            0             17 Kennedy             7            1              8 Thomas             16            0             16 Ginsburg           16            0             16 Breyer             13            0             13 Alito              16            1             17 Sotomayor          16            0             16 Kagan              14            0             14 Per Curiam         --            --            --  Total             126            2            128  (a) A complete explanation of how the tables are compiled may be found in the Supreme Court, 2004 Term--The Statistics, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 415, 415-19 (2005).  Table I, with the exception of the dissenting-votes portion of section (A) and the memorandum tabulations in section (C), includes only full-opinion decisions. Five per curiam decisions contained legal reasoning substantial enough to be considered full.opinion decisions during october Term 2012. These cases were Ryan v. Schad, 133 S. Ct. 2548 (2013); Nevada v. Jackson, 133 S. Ct. 1990 (2013); Marshall v. Rodgers, 133 S. Ct. 1446 (2013); Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Howard, 133 S. Ct. 500 (2012); and Lefemine v.Wideman, 133 S. Ct. 9 (2012). This table includes every opinion designated by the court as a 2012 Term Opinion except for one. See 2012 Term Opinions of the Court, Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt .gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=12 (last visited Sept. 29, 2013). The omitted opinion is Boyer v. Louisiana, 133 S. Ct. 1702 2013, which dismissed the associated writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.  A memorandum order is a case decided by summary order and contained in the Court's weekly order lists issued throughout the Term. This category excludes summary orders designated as opinions by the Court. The memorandum tabulations include memorandum orders disposing of cases on their merits by affirming, reversing, vacating, or remanding. They exclude orders disposing of petitions for certiorari, dismissing writs of certiorari as improvidently granted, dismissing appeals for lack of jurisdiction, disposing of miscellaneous applications, and certifying questions for review. The memorandum tabulations also exclude orders relating to payment of docketing fees and dissents therefrom.  (b) This portion of Table I(A) includes only opinions authored in the seventy-eight cases with full opinions this Term. Thus, dissents from denials of certiorari and concurrences or dissents from summary affirmances are not included. A concurrence or dissent is recorded as a written opinion whenever its author provided a reason, however brief, for his or her vote.  (c) A Justice is considered to have dissented whenever he or she voted to dispose of the case in any manner different from the manner specified by the majority of the Court. … 
Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.