July Miss. Jury Verdict Reporter Preview

Here is a preview of the July 2017 issue of the Miss. Jury Verdict Reporter: $327,000 plaintiff verdict (minus 73% comparative fault = $88,290)- Gulfport federal court trip-and-fall (6/8/17); $123,727 bench verdict (Judge Weathers)- Forest County Tort Claims Act car wreck (5/17/17); $13,104 bench verdict (Judge Green)- Hinds County Tort Claims Act police chase negligence (6/15/17); $12,700 total verdict- 2 plaintiff Rankin County uninsured motorist case (6/24/16) defense verdict- Jackson federal court slip-and-fall covered here (6/23/17); defense verdict- Madison County breach of employment contract (6/15/17); defense verdict- Greenville federal court uninsured motorist case (6/20/17); and defense verdict- Harrison county county court car wreck case (6/14/17). View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Does the California Supreme Court Average More Questions to the Losing Side?

Yesterday, for post no. 1,000 we reviewed the academic literature on question-counting in oral arguments, and began comparing the past year, May 2016-May 2017, at the California and Illinois Supreme Courts.  Every researcher to date – including us in our study of the Illinois Supreme Court 2008-2016 – found that getting more questions than your opponent was generally a sign you were in trouble.  View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Blog Post No. 1,000: Comparing Oral Argument in the California and Illinois Supreme Courts

Today marks the milestone of my 1,000th blog post since Appellate Strategist began publishing on February 23, 2010. I thought we’d do a first today: comparing the two Supreme Courts we study in the same post.  Specifically, since I’ve had the honor of appearing at both the California and Illinois Supreme Courts, I thought we’d compare the data for the past year in each court. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Post No. 999: What Could We Infer When Justice Theis Asked the First Question in Civil Cases?

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.  View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

The Supreme Court Concludes There is No Need to Prove Psychiatric Illness to Establish Mental Injury: Saadati V. Moorhead

By | Canadian Appeals Monitor | July 18, 2017
By Sam Rogers Sam Rogers Is a Plaintiff required to prove that they suffer from a recognized psychiatric illness in order to recover for mental injury? The Supreme Court has definitively said the answer is “no” in their recent decision in Saadati v Moorhead, a case that will be critically important to anyone who regularly prosecutes or defends personal injury claims. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Study Confirms Plaintiffs Win Less Than They Used To

An interesting article recently hit the presses: The Curious Incident of the Falling Win Rate, by Alexander Lahav and Peter Siegleman. Here is the Article. The study is based on federal court results nationwide for 1980 to 2010. It opens: Between 1985 and 1995, the plaintiff win rate in civil cases adjudicated in federal district courts fell dramatically and consistently. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Coming Next Week: My 1,000th Blog Post

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. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus