Comments on: Superficial analysis of CT Supreme Court decisions http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:36:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: SaucyVixen http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/#comment-15401 SaucyVixen Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:27:27 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/#comment-15401 Thanks for that tidbit. I feel much better now. Thanks for that tidbit.

I feel much better now.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/#comment-15397 Gideon Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:50:45 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/#comment-15397 I might do that next weekend. I toyed with that idea, but by the time I got done with this analysis, I was bored. Another tidbit, though: Justice Katz wrote the only dissent of the whole period. Just <i>one</i> dissent in 49 cases. Only <i>two</i> concurrences in 49 cases. That's it. So 46 decisions with one opinion. 48 of them where all the judges agreed on the outcome. Incredible. I might do that next weekend. I toyed with that idea, but by the time I got done with this analysis, I was bored.

Another tidbit, though:

Justice Katz wrote the only dissent of the whole period. Just one dissent in 49 cases.

Only two concurrences in 49 cases. That’s it.

So 46 decisions with one opinion. 48 of them where all the judges agreed on the outcome. Incredible.

]]> By: SaucyVixen http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/#comment-15359 SaucyVixen Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:28:36 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2008/02/02/superficial-analysis-of-ct-supreme-court-decisions/#comment-15359 You wrote: "What might be really interesting, however, is the percentage of times the state is granted certification as opposed to the defendant. I suspect one number is rather high and the other quite low. I’m not going to do that, however, because that’s just too tedious." Right. Because your analysis clearly wasn't tedious at all. I mean... Hell, Gid, if you're gonna be a legal nerd, you may as well go all in. You wrote: “What might be really interesting, however, is the percentage of times the state is granted certification as opposed to the defendant. I suspect one number is rather high and the other quite low. I’m not going to do that, however, because that’s just too tedious.”

Right. Because your analysis clearly wasn’t tedious at all. I mean… Hell, Gid, if you’re gonna be a legal nerd, you may as well go all in.

]]>