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      Concur-              of Court (d)   rences (e)   Dissents (e)   Total  Roberts           6             1             4          11 Kennedy           6             5             2          13 Thomas            7             15            9          31 Ginsburg          6             3             6          15 Breyer            7             3             9          19 Alito             7             2             6          15 Sotomayor         7             7             9          23 Kagan             6             2             1           9 Gorsuch           7             4             6          17 Per Curiam        12            --            --         12  Total             71            42            52         165                     DISSENTING VOTES (c)                      In Disposition by                           Memo-              Opinion   randum (f)   Total  Roberts         5          0          5 Kennedy         6          0          6 Thomas         14          1         15 Ginsburg       18          0         18 Breyer         20          0         20 Alito          15          1         16 Sotomayor      21          2         23 Kagan          16          0         16 Gorsuch        11          0         11 Per Curiam     --          --        --  Total          126         4         130  (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. Twelve per curiam decisions contained legal reasoning substantial enough to be considered full-opinion decisions in October Term 2017. See Sause v. Bauer, 138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018); Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S. Ct. 2555 (2018); North Carolina v. Covington, 138 S. Ct. 2548 (2018); Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942 (2018); Azar v. Garza, 138 S. Ct. 1790 (2018); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018); Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018); CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761 (2018); Tharpe v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 545 (2018); In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443 (2018); Dunn v. Madison, 138 S. Ct. 9 (2017); Kernan v. Cuero, 138 S. Ct. 4 (2017).  This table includes every opinion designated by the Court as a 2017 Term Opinion except for five. See Opinions of the Court--2017, Supreme Court of the United States, https://www. supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17 [https://perma.cc/ELC6-R9A5]. In three of the omitted opinions, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. See Cox v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2273 (2018) (mem.); Dalmazzi v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2273 (2018) (mem.); City of Hays v. Vogt, 138 S. Ct. 1683 (2018) (mem.). The remaining two omitted opinions are Washington v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1832 (2018) (mem.), in which an equally divided Court affirmed the judgment of the court below, and Montana v. Wyoming, 138 S. Ct. 758 (2018) (mem.), in which the Court issued a decree without an opinion.  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-one cases with full opinions this Term. … 
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.