Judge

Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Judge Disposed Appealed Reversed Court

Fred Cartolano 3037 137 12 Common


Thomas Crush 3372 119 10 Common
Patrick Dinkelacker 1258 44 8 Common
Timothy Hogan 1954 60 7 Common
Robert Kraft 3138 127 7 Common
William Mathews 2264 91 18 Common
William Morrissey 3032 121 22 Common
Norbert Nadel 2959 131 20 Common
Arthur Ney Jr. 3219 125 14 Common
Richard Niehaus 3353 137 16 Common
Thomas Nurre 3000 121 6 Common
John O'Connor 2969 129 12 Common
Robert Ruehlman 3205 145 18 Common
J. Howard Sundermann Jr. 955 60 10 Common
Ann Marie Tracey 3141 127 13 Common
Ralph Winkler 3089 88 6 Common
Penelope Cunningham 2729 7 1 Domestic
Patrick Dinkelacker 6001 19 4 Domestic
Deborah Gaines 8799 48 9 Domestic
Ronald Panioto 12970 32 3 Domestic
Mike Allen 6149 43 4 Muni
Nadine Allen 7812 34 6 Muni
Timothy Black 7954 41 6 Muni
David Davis 7736 43 5 Muni
Leslie Isaiah Gaines 5282 35 13 Muni
Karla Grady 5253 6 0 Muni
Deidra Hair 2532 5 0 Muni
Dennis Helmick 7900 29 5 Muni
Timothy Hogan 2308 13 2 Muni
James Patrick Kenney 2798 6 1 Muni
Joseph Luebbers 4698 25 8 Muni
William Mallory 8277 38 9 Muni
Melba Marsh 8219 34 7 Muni
Beth Mattingly 2971 13 1 Muni
Albert Mestemaker 4975 28 9 Muni
Mark Painter 2239 7 3 Muni
Jack Rosen 7790 41 13 Muni
Mark Schweikert 5403 33 6 Muni
David Stockdale 5371 22 4 Muni
John A. West 2797 4 2 Muni
C a s e P r o b l e m 1 : H a m i l t o n C o u n t y J u d ges (Refer Text Book Ch 4)

Hamilton County judges try thousands of cases per year. In an overwhelming majority of the
cases disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. However, some cases are appealed, and of those
appealed, some of the cases are reversed. Kristen DelGuzzi of The Cincinnati
Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by Hamilton County judges over a three-year
period. Shown in Table 4.8 are the results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 judges in
Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal Court. Two of the judges
(Dinkelacker and Hogan) did not serve in the same court for the entire three-year period.

The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges.
Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and the newspaper wanted to
know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. You
are called in to assist in the data analysis. Use your knowledge of probability and conditional
probability to help with the ranking of the judges. You also may be able to analyze
the likelihood of appeal and reversal for cases handled by different courts.

Managerial Report
Prepare a report with your rankings of the judges. Also, include an analysis of the likelihood
of appeal and case reversal in the three courts. At a minimum, your report should
include
the following:
1. The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts.
2. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge.
3. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge.
4. The probability of reversal given an appeal for each judge.
5. Rank the judges within each court. State the criteria you used and provide a rationale
for your choice.
Refer Data File: Judge

You might also like