APPELLATE DIVISION ON APPEAL: THE JUSTICES RATES OF AGREEMENT, REJECTION, AND VINDICATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS

Transcription

1 BONVENTRE.FINAL.JERRY DOC 6/16/2007 6:00:24 PM APPELLATE DIVISION ON APPEAL: THE JUSTICES RATES OF AGREEMENT, REJECTION, AND VINDICATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS Jaso A. Chera* Jessica Blai-Lewis** Vicet Marti Bovetre*** For the Ceter for Judicial Process**** I. INTRODUCTION New York State s itermediate appeals justices vary widely i their rates of success o review by the, the State s highest court. At oe ed, there are those justices whose votes ad opiios, whether majority or disset, are cosistetly ratified by the high court. At the other ed, there are those whose positios are regularly rejected. Aalogously, whe some of the justices disset agaist the majority decisio of their court, they are * Studet Executive Editor, Ceter for Judicial Process; Albay Law School, Class of 2008; B.A., Momouth Uiversity. ** Former Studet Executive Editor, Ceter for Judicial Process; J.D., Albay Law School, Class of 2005; B.A., SUNY Plattsburgh; Assistat District Attorey, Albay Couty, New York. *** Director, Ceter for Judicial Process; Ph.D., M.A.P.A., Uiversity of Virgiia; J.D., Brookly Law School; B.S., Uio College; Professor of Law, Albay Law School; Editor, State Costitutioal Commetary. Professor Bovetre wishes to ackowledge the studet cotributios to this project. Prior to her graduatio from Albay Law School, co-author Jessica Blai-Lewis supervised the iitial research ad prepared a iitial draft of the report with the assistace of owgraduated Studet Cotributig Editors Daielle Baroe ad Michael Mule of the Class of 2005 ad Malika Paulso of the Class of Co-author Jaso Chera, Class of 2008, cofirmed ad updated the etire research ad, with the editorial assistace of Ms. Blai- Lewis, prepared a revised draft that served as the basis for writig this fial report ad as the source of all the data herei. **** The Ceter for Judicial Process is a idepedet, opartisa, oprofit orgaizatio devoted to the iterdiscipliary research ad study of courts ad judges, icludig decisiomakig ad votig, the judicial role ad selectio, ad other facets of the ature of the judicial process. 983

2 984 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 frequetly vidicated by a reversal at the. Other justices oly see their miority positios rejected a secod time upo appeal at the state s highest court. These ad other related observatios are amog the fidigs of a study examiig Appellate Divisio decisios reviewed by the sice the year The study examied every o-uaimous decisio of each of the four departmets of the New York State Appellate Divisio redered betwee Jauary 1, 2000 ad December 31, 2005, which was i tur reviewed o appeal by the by Jue 2006, the poit at which the data collectio for this study was completed. 1 There were a total of 254 such Appellate Divisio decisios i which at least oe justice wrote a opiio or cast a vote dissetig from the result reached by the majority. 2 This report begis with a prelimiary overview of the study, providig some geeral observatios about the umber of decisios i the study from each Appellate Divisio departmet as well as some highlights of the fidigs about idividual justices. This report the outlies the fidigs cocerig those Appellate Divisio justices with high success rates whe their opiios ad votes have bee subject to review, ad those justices with cotrastigly low rates. Next, this report surveys those justices whose Appellate Divisio dissets have ofte become 1 The research for this study was coducted usig Westlaw ad LexisNexis, as well as the websites for each of the four departmets of the Appellate Divisio ad the website of the. See New York State Homepage, (last visited Feb. 20, 2007); New York State Uified Court System: Appellate Divisios, appellatedivisios.shtml (last visited Feb. 20, 2007) (providig liks to each departmet s website). Searches were coducted to collect every divided decisio of the Appellate Divisio redered from Jauary 1, 2000 through December 31, The history of each decisio was the searched to determie if it was appealed to the. Every such divided Appellate Divisio decisio that was reviewed o appeal by the by Jue 2006 was used for this study. 2 The reasos for the traditioal focus o divided decisios i judicial studies have bee elaborated coutless times. Suffice it to say that such decisios are much more revealig of the judges idividual views tha are the uaimous decisios that ofte, if ot typically, mask those views i compromise ad collegiality. See HENRY J. ABRAHAM, THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 237 (7th ed. 1998) (explaiig that a decisio siged by oe member of a court is more likely the product of may mids ); DAVID M. O BRIEN, STORM CENTER: THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN POLITICS 265 (2d ed. 1990) (discussig how uaimous opiio[s are] the result of egotiatios ad compromises ); C. HERMAN PRITCHETT, THE ROOSEVELT COURT xii (1948) (explaiig how divided decisios supply a widow ito a court s ier sactum ); Vicet Marti Bovetre, New York s Chief Judge Kaye: Her Separate Opiios Bode Well for Reewed State Costitutioalism at the, 67 TEMP. L. REV. 1163, 1167 (1994) (otig that uaimous decisios are more compromise tha covictio ).

3 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 985 majority ruligs ad those justices whose dissets rarely or ever have. A brief coclusio offers some fial thoughts ad suggests some possible patters correspodig to the high ad low success rates of the justices. Fially, detailed fidigs of the study are illustrated i graphs ad tables withi this report to facilitate readily visual comparisos ad cotrasts. 3 II. OVERVIEW Of the total 254 divided Appellate Divisio decisios reviewed by the, the largest proportio, early oe half, was from the First Departmet. The smallest proportio was from the Third Departmet. Specifically, ad i descedig order, 118 of the decisios, or 46% of the total, were from the First Departmet; 55 decisios, or 22%, were from the Secod Departmet; 51 decisios, or 20%, were from the Fourth Departmet; ad 30 decisios, or 12%, were from the Third Departmet. 4 The affirmed 176 of the total 254 Appellate Divisio decisios, or 69%. The Secod Departmet was affirmed the most frequetly. I descedig order, the rate at which the divided decisios were affirmed was 80% for the Secod Departmet; 70% for the Third Departmet; 67% for the Fourth Departmet; ad 65% for the First Departmet. 5 Amog the idividual Appellate Divisio justices, the variatios were more proouced ideed, much more so. Regardig rates of success upo review that is, the frequecy with 3 Additioally, the raw data for this study are reflected i the detailed charts appeded to this report. The figures i this report are derived from the data reflected i those charts. 4 These proportios correspod to the total umber of divided decisios reviewed or ot reviewed by the from each departmet. From Jauary 1, 2000 through December 31, 2005, the period of Appellate Divisio decisios studied, the First Departmet redered 351 total divided decisios; the Secod Departmet redered 225; the Third Departmet redered 128; ad the Fourth Departmet redered 174. Notably, these proportios do ot correspod to the total decisioal output from each departmet, whether the decisio was uaimous or ot, or whether or ot reviewed by the. The Secod Departmet decided the most cases overall. For example, i caledar years 2004 ad 2005, the Secod Departmet haded dow, respectively, 3,642 ad 3,890 slip opiios, while the First Departmet haded dow 2,387 ad 2,313; the Third Departmet haded dow 1,583 ad 1,875; ad the Fourth Departmet haded dow 1,961 ad 1, The First Departmet, which had the lowest rate of affirmace ad, thus, the highest rate of reversal, also had the highest rate of review. Of the total 351 divided decisios redered by the First Departmet from Jauary 1, 2000 through December 31, 2005, 118, or 34%, had bee reviewed by the o appeal by Jue For the Secod Departmet it was 55 divided decisios reviewed out of 225, or 24%. For the Third Departmet, 30 divided decisios reviewed out of 128, or 23%. For the Fourth Departmet, 51 divided decisios reviewed out of 174, or 29%.

4 986 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 which the high court reached the same result o appeal as that for which the justice had writte a opiio or cast a vote i a divided decisio the differeces are dramatic. So, for example, there are justices, such as Justice Thomas Mercure of the Third Departmet, with whom the has agreed at a very high rate. For Mercure, the agreemet rate was 100%. He participated i fiftee divided decisios at the Appellate Divisio, ad, o appeal, the high court reached the same result for which he had voted i every case. By cotrast, there are justices, such as Justice Joh Lahtie also of the Third Departmet, who have had much less success. Lahtie participated i twety divided decisios, ad the Court of Appeals agreed with his vote oly four times a agreemet rate of oly 20%. Amog the frequet disseters, there is Justice Peter Tom of the First Departmet. He cast a dissetig vote i twety-three cases, the most for ay Appellate Divisio justice durig the period studied. Justice Samuel Gree of the Fourth Departmet disseted eightee times, or i 82%, of the divided decisios i which he participated, a higher rate tha for ay other Appellate Divisio justice. There are other justices who disseted less frequetly but were vidicated o appeal by the state s high court wheever they did. So, for example, Presidig Justice Gail Prudeti of the Secod Departmet, the late Justice Myriam Altma also of the Secod Departmet, 6 ad Justice Mercure of the Third Departmet, each disseted twice ad were vidicated both times. O the other had, some of those who sit o the Appellate Divisio such as Justices Aita Florio ad Daiel Luciao of the Secod Departmet, ad Justice Athoy Carpiello of the Third Departmet, each disseted several times but were ever vidicated o appeal by the. These ad other related observatios about the idividual justices of the Appellate Divisio emerged from the curret study. The balace of this report, both i the discussios that follow ad i the accompayig tables ad graphs, provide a more complete accout of the most saliet fidigs. 6 Justice Altma passed away o Jauary 29, Deaths: Altma, Hoorable Myriam J., N.Y. TIMES, Ja. 31, 2005, at B8.

5 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 987 CHART 1 Appellate Divisio Decisios Reviewed by the : Percetage ad Number from Each Departmet FOURTH DEPT 20% [ 51 ] THIRD DEPT 12% [ 30 ] FIRST DEPT 46% [118 ] 1st Departmet 2d Departmet 3rd Departmet 4th Departmet SECOND DEPT 22% [ 55 ] CHART 2 Appellate Divisio Review by the : Affirmace ad Reversal Rates by Departmet 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1st Dep't 2d Dep't 3rd Dep't 4th Dep't Decisios Affirmed 65% 80% 70% 67% Decisios Reversed 35% 20% 30% 33% III. COURT OF APPEALS AGREEMENT AND REJECTION: THE HIGH AND LOW RATES As oted at the outset, there are Appellate Divisio justices with whom the always or early always agrees, ad there are others whose votes ad positios the high court usually

6 988 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 rejects. Amog those justices with the highest rates of agreemet by the, Justice Mercure s record surely stads out as particularly strog. The high court s agreemet with all fiftee of the votes he cast i divided Appellate Divisio decisios icludig the two votes he cast i disset is perhaps the most remarkable. Other especially otable records iclude those of Justices Milto Williams ad David Friedma of the First Departmet; Presidig Justice Prudeti, the late Justice Altma, ad Justice Gabriel Krausma of the Secod Departmet; Presidig Justice Cardoa ad Justice Robert Rose of the Third Departmet; ad Justice Joh Lawto of the Fourth Departmet. 7 Presidig Justice Prudeti, like Mercure, had a perfect record o review by the durig the period studied. She participated i five divided Appellate Divisio decisios, ad the high court agreed with her vote i every case, icludig two where she disseted. The agreemet rate for Justice Altma was 91%, reflectig ratificatio of te of her eleve votes i divided Appellate Divisio decisios, icludig both of her dissetig votes. For Justice Krausma, the agreemet rate was 80%, or twelve of his fiftee votes, icludig three of his four dissetig votes. The Fourth Departmet s Justice Lawto had a 77% agreemet rate by the, or sevetee of his twety-two votes, icludig six of eight dissetig votes. Justices Williams ad Friedma of the First Departmet had their votes ratified by the, respectively, i 74% ad 73% of the divided cases i which they each participated. For Williams this icluded six of ie dissetig votes, ad for Friedma, this icluded seve of eleve dissetig votes. The Third Departmet s Justice Rose had a agreemet rate of 76%, or thirtee of sevetee divided decisio votes. Notably, he joied his court s majority i every case ot oce did he cast a vote i disset. Presidig Justice Cardoa of the Third Departmet, o the other had, disagreed with the majority six times durig the study period. Of all his votes cast i divided decisios, the Court of Appeals agreed with 67% of them, or eight of twelve, icludig three 7 While other Appellate Divisio justices might have established otable records, the discussio i this report is limited to those records that seem the most distictive ad to those justices who were still active durig the latter part of the covered study period, with the exceptio of Justice Altma who passed away early i the last year of the study period but was icluded i this study.

7 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 989 of those i disset. At the opposite ed of the spectrum are those justices with whom the has disagreed at rates that are just as high. The previously metioed record of Justice Lahtie is particularly strikig. The high court rejected 80% of the results for which he voted i divided Appellate Divisio decisios. That is, the Court of Appeals disagreed with sixtee of his twety votes, icludig eleve of his fourtee votes i disset. Other justices with sigificatly high rejectio rates are Justices Florio, Luciao, ad Gloria Goldstei of the Secod Departmet; Justices Carpiello ad Kare Peters of the Third Departmet; ad Justice Leo Hayes of the Fourth Departmet. TABLE 1 High Rates Mercure: 100% Prudeti: 100% Altma: 91% Krausma: 80% Lawto: 77% Rose: 76% Williams: 74% Friedma: 73% Cardoa: 67% High Rejectio Rates Lahtie: 80% Florio: 75% Carpiello: 70% Peters: 68% Hayes: 68% Luciao: 67% Goldstei: 67% Justice Florio s votes i divided Appellate Divisio decisios were rejected by the 75% of the time, or ie of twelve votes; this icludes six votes i disset, oe of which the high court vidicated. The Third Departmet s Justice Carpiello had seve of his te divided-decisio votes rejected by the high court, or 70%, icludig all five of his dissetig votes. Justice Peters of the same departmet had a 68% rejectio rate, represetig thirtee of her ietee votes, icludig eight of her ie votes i disset. The rejected the vote of the Secod Departmet s Justice Luciao 67% of the time, or six of the ie votes he cast i divided decisios. Notably, the six rejected votes were the same six he cast i disset. From the same departmet, Justice Goldstei also had a 67% rejectio rate. I her case, this represets twelve out of eightee votes, icludig eleve out of thirtee votes i disset. From the Fourth Departmet, Justice

8 990 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 Hayes had a rejectio rate of 68%, represetig twety-oe of thirty-oe votes, icludig all but oe of his thirtee votes i which he disseted from the majority of his court. 100% CHART 3 ad Rejectio by the : Justices with the Highest ad Lowest Rates 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Mercure Prudeti Altma Krausma Lawto Rose Williams Friedma Goldstei Luciao Hayes Peters Carpiello Florio Lahtie Rate 100% 100% 91% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 33% 33% 32% 32% 30% 25% 20% Rejectio Rate 0 0 9% 20% 23% 24% 26% 23% 67% 67% 68% 68% 70% 75% 80% IV. APPELLATE DIVISION DISSENT, COURT OF APPEALS VINDICATION Amog those Appellate Divisio justices who cast the most dissetig votes or who disseted i a high proportio of those divided decisios i which they participated, some saw their positios frequetly adopted o appeal by the, ad others ever or rarely did. First Departmet Justice Tom s Appellate-Divisio-high umber of twety-three dissetig votes comprised 46% of his total fifty votes i divided decisios. Nie of those twety-three were vidicated by the high court. Fourth Departmet Justice Gree s Appellate-Divisio-high disset rate of 82% represeted eightee of the twety-two divided-decisio votes he cast durig the studied period. The agreed with oly five, or 28%, of those dissetig votes. Other justices with a high umber of dissetig votes durig the period studied iclude Justices Richard Adrias ad Agela Mazzarelli of the First Departmet; each cast twety-two votes i disset. For Adrias, these 56% of his total thirty-ie votes i divided decisios were vidicated te times by the, for a 45% vidicatio rate. For Mazzarelli, these 46% out of forty-

9 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 991 eight total votes were vidicated six times a 27% rate. Also from the First Departmet, Justice David Saxe disseted twety times, or i 40%, of the fifty divided decisios i which he participated. Six of his dissetig votes were vidicated, or 30%. TABLE 2 High Disset Rates Gree: 82% Goldstei: 72% Lahtie: 70% Luciao: 66% Adrias: 56% Peters: 53% Florio: 50% Cardoa: 50% Carpiello: 50% Mazzarelli: 46% Tom: 46% Saxe: 40% High Vidicatio Rates Mercure: 100% Prudeti: 100% Altma: 100% Krausma: 75% Lawto: 75% Williams: 67% Friedma: 64% Pigott: 63% Cardoa: 50% Low Vidicatio Rates Carpiello: 0% Florio: 0% Luciao: 0% Hayes: 8% Peters: 11% Goldstei: 15% Lahtie: 21% Buckley: 27% Mazzarelli: 27% Of those justices with very high vidicatio rates, may are, ot surprisigly, the same who have previously bee idetified as havig high agreemet rates. Justices Mercure, Prudeti, ad Altma each had a 100% vidicatio rate for their respective two dissetig votes. Justices Krausma, Lawto, Williams, ad Friedma also had especially strog records of vidicatio. For Krausma, the agreed with his dissetig vote 75% of the time, or three out of four of his votes cast i disset. For Lawto it was also 75%, or six out of eight dissetig votes vidicated o appeals; for Williams, 67%, or six out of ie; ad for Friedma, 64%, or seve out of eleve. I additio to Presidig Justice Prudeti of the Secod Departmet, two other Presidig Justices had high vidicatio rates. Presidig Justice Eugee Pigott of the Fourth Departmet was vidicated 63% of the time by the, or five of his eight dissetig votes. Ad, as previously oted i discussig his high agreemet rate, Presidig Justice Cardoa of the Third Departmet was vidicated 50% of the time, or three of his six votes cast i disset.

10 992 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 Agai, ot surprisigly, some of the justices with the lowest vidicatio rates were amog those with the lowest agreemet rates (i.e., highest rejectio rates). Justices Carpiello, Florio, ad Luciao each had zero percet vidicatio rates. The Court of Appeals agreed with oe of their respective five, six, ad six dissetig votes. Additioally, previously metioed Justices Hayes, Peters, Goldstei, ad Lahtie were rarely vidicated. For Hayes, oly oe dissetig vote out of thirtee was embraced by the, or oly 8%. For Peters, it was oe out of ie for 11%; for Goldstei, two out of thirtee for 15%; ad for Lahtie, three out of fourtee for 21%. Fially, amog the Presidig Justices of the four departmets, oly Presidig Justice Joh Buckley of the First Departmet had a particularly low vidicatio rate equalig 27%. The Court of Appeals agreed with oly three of his eleve dissetig votes. 80% GRAPH 4 Vidicatio by the : Dissetig Justices w/ the Highest & Lowest Rates [ad at least five dissets] 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lawto Williams Friedma Pigott Cardoa Adrias Tom Saxe Gree Buckley Mazza-relli Lahtie Gold-stei Peters Hayes Carpi-ello Florio Luciao Rate 75% 67% 64% 63% 50% 45% 39% 30% 28% 27% 27% 21% 15% 11% 8% 0% 0% 0% V. CONCLUSION Two poits should be made before closig. The first is a caveat ecessary to avoid misleadig implicatios; the secod will suggest some possible threads tyig the foregoig figures together. First, the rates of Court of Appeal agreemet, rejectio, ad vidicatio do ot ecessarily correlate to good or bad, right or wrog, or wise or foolish. The authors of the report certaily do ot

11 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 993 believe that they do. Likewise, a high agreemet rate does ot ecessarily suggest a better judge or does a high rejectio rate ecessarily idetify a worse oe. This is aalogously so for the vidicatio rates. Ideed, there are votes of Appellate Divisio justices with which the authors wholeheartedly agree but with which a majority of the did ot. There are dissets that we believe should have bee vidicated but were ot. What ca be said about the rates discussed i this report is that they represet degrees of success o review by the. The authors do ot posit much more tha that. Secod, there are idetifiable patters that appear, at least o a prelimiary examiatio, to correspod to high rates of Court of Appeals agreemet ad rejectio, respectively. For example, amog those justices with the highest agreemet ad vidicatio rates, Justices Tom ad Friedma of the First Departmet ad Justices Mercure ad Rose of the Third Departmet, each had votig records i civil cases that were very strogly pro-defedat plaitiffs did ot ofte wi their votes. O the other had, several of the justices with the highest rejectio rates ad lowest vidicatio rates had strog pro-plaitiff votig records, which icluded Justice Mazzarelli of the First Departmet, Goldstei of the Secod Departmet, Lahtie ad Peters of the Third Departmet, ad Hayes ad Gree of the Fourth Departmet. Similarly, votig records that largely favored the idividual over govermet i civil litigatio also correspoded to low success rate upo Court of Appeals review. Justices Luciao ad Florio of the Secod Departmet ad Lahtie ad Peters of the Third Departmet had such records. Further examiatio of such itriguig correlatios was beyod the scope of the curret study. What is suggested by the iitial idicatios here, however, is worthy of further research. 8 8 It might also be oted that, while the rates idetified herei do reflect patters established over a period of years ad would ot, therefore, be expected to chage dramatically over a short period of time, either should it be expected that the rates will remai etirely static. I fact, by way of illustratio, while publicatio of this study was pedig, the reviewed ad affirmed a 3-2 decisio of the Appellate Divisio, Third Departmet, i which Justices Mercure ad Carpiello voted together i the majority. Hece, while Mercure s extremely high rate of agreemet persisited, Carpiello s especially high rate of rejectio by that court did ot. See Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albay v. Serio, 859 N.E.2d 459 (N.Y. 2006), aff g 808 N.Y.S.2d 447 (App. Div. 2006).

12 994 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 APPENDIX Table 3 Cases Court of Appeals Affirmed Court of Appeals Reversed Pro Crimial Pro Crimial Pro Gov t Pro Idividual Total 254 1st Dep t 2d Dep t 3rd Dep t th Dep t Table 3 (cot.) Pro Civil Plaitiff Pro Civil 1st Dep t d Dep t rd Dep t th Dep t 5 21

13 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 995 Table 4 1st Dep t Tom Sulliva Marlow Adrias Lerer Buckley Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Table 4 (cot.) 1st Dep t Roseberger Rubi Wallach Saxe Nardelli Williams Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff

14 996 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 Table 4 (cot.) 1st Dep t Gozalez Catterso Mazzarelli Elleri Friedma Sweey Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff

15 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 997 Table 5 2d Dep t H. Miller Schmid t Ritter Skelos Crae Luciao Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Table 5 (cot.) 2d Dep t Lifso Rivera Adams Goldstei Spolzio Krausma Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Lifso Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Lifso Pro Civil Plaitiff

16 998 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 Table 5 (cot.) 2d Dep t Flori o S. Miller Smit h Altma Prudeti Mastr o Friedma Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Table 5 (cot.) 2d Dep t Towes McGiit y Feuerstei O Brie Thompso Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Bracke Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff

17 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 999 Table 5 (cot.) 2d Dep t Sulliva Magao Joy Cozier Satucci Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff

18 1000 Albay Law Review [Vol.70 Table 6 3rd Dep t Mercure Crew Lahtie Kae Peters Rose Spai Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Majority Table 6 (cot.) 3rd Dep t Cardoa Muggli Carpiello Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Majority 6 8 5

19 2007] Appellate Divisio o Appeal 1001 Table 7 4th Dep t Scudder Pigott Gorski Martoche Lawto Kehoe Hayes Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Majority Table 7 (cot.) 4th Dep t Gree Hurlbutt Pie Smith Wiser Burs Total Divided Cases Disagreemet/Rejectio Votes i Disset Vidicatios Pro Govermet Pro Idividual Pro Civil Pro Civil Plaitiff Majority