United States: Does The California Supreme Court Average More Questions To The Losing Side?

Last Updated: July 26 2017
Article by Kirk Jenkins

Yesterday (July 20, 2017), 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.  So what did we find in California?

In Table 254, we compare the data for both Courts in affirmances.  We see the two courts are comparable: five of the seven California Supreme Court Justices averaged more questions to the appellant (the losing party) in civil affirmances.  Six of the seven Illinois Supreme Court Justices averaged more questions to the losing party.

Justice Corrigan led the Court in questions to appellants in civil affirmances with 6.06.  Justices Cuellar and Liu were next, averaging 5.6 and 5.11 questions to appellants.  The Chief Justice averaged 5.05 questions to appellants.  Justice Kruger averaged 4.06, Justice Chin 3.94 and Justice Werdegar averaged 3.58 questions to appellants.

Nearly all Illinois Supreme Court Justices averaged substantially fewer questions to appellants in civil affirmances than California Justices.  Justice Theis averaged 6.62.  Justice Garman averaged 2.92.  Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 1.75 and 1.08, respectively.  Justice Burke averaged 1 question to appellants, Justice Freeman 0.54 and Justice Kilbride 0.25.

Justice Liu led the California Justices in questions to respondents (the California term) in civil affirmances.  Justice Werdegar was next at 5.21 questions per argument.  Justice Cuellar averaged 4.25, and the remaining four Justices all averaged between two and three questions to respondents: Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (2.85), Justice Kruger (2.65), Justice Chin (2.5) and Justice Corrigan (2.39).

The Illinois Supreme Court Justices asked virtually nothing of appellees in civil affirmances.  Justice Thomas averaged 1.5 questions.  Justice Theis asked 1.31, Justice Garman averaged 1.08, Justice Kilbride 0.42, Justice Burke 0.36 and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 0.25.

So to summarize: California Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Chin, Cuellar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye averaged more questions to the losing party in the past year in civil affirmances.  Illinois Justices Burke, Garman, Freeman, Thomas, Theis and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged more questions to the losing party in affirmances.

We report the data for civil reversals in Table 255.

Justice Liu led the Court in questions to appellants in civil reversals with 6.41.  Justice Werdegar averaged 5.67. Justice Cuellar was right behind, averaging 5.5.  Justice Kruger averaged 3.93, Justice Chin 3.48, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye 3.39 and Justice Corrigan averaged 2.1.

Once again, the Illinois Supreme Court Justices were less active nearly across the board.  Justice Thomas averaged 3.7 questions to appellants in civil reversals.  Justice Burke and Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 1.56 and 1.2 questions to appellants.  Justice Garman averaged 0.8 questions to appellants, Justice Theis averaged 0.4, and Chief Justice Karmeier asked appellants in civil reversals no questions at all.

Justice Liu led the California Justices, averaging 7.45 questions to respondents in civil reversals.  Justice Corrigan averaged 6.48.  Justice Cuellar averaged 5.86 questions.  Justice Werdegar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye were nearly tied – 3.87 questions for Justice Werdegar and 3.86 questions for the Chief Justice.  Justice Kruger averaged 2.71 questions to respondents, and Justice Chin averaged 2.23.

Justice Thomas led the Illinois Justices, averaging 4.8 questions to appellees in civil reversals.  Justice Theis averaged 3.1 questions.  Chief Justice Karmeier and Justice Garman averaged two questions apiece, while Justice Burke averaged 1.67, Justice Kilbride averaged 0.7 and Justice Freeman averaged 0.25.

We summarize again: four of the seven Justices of the California Supreme Court averaged more questions to the losing side in civil reversals: Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Cuellar and Liu.  Six of the seven Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court averaged more questions to the losing party: Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Burke, Garman, Kilbride, Thomas and Theis.

So what's the bottom line – with only four of the seven Justices of the California Supreme Court averaging more questions to the losing party in reversals, can we say that the California Supreme Court is the first studied at length which didn't match the same pattern as the others, with the losing party averaging more questions?

The answer is "maybe."  In both California and Illinois, the majority of the Court fits the pattern: the losing party gets more questions.  The pattern holds with aggregate numbers.  In affirmances, the California Supreme Court averaged 33.4 questions to appellants and 26.8 to respondents.  The Illinois Supreme Court averaged 14.16 questions to appellants and 5.15 to appellees.  Among reversals, the California Supreme Court averaged 32.46 questions to respondents and 30.48 to appellants.  The Illinois Supreme Court averaged 14.52 questions to appellees and 8.04 to appellants.

The California result with reversals is interesting, but also reminiscent of the concept of regression to the mean.  The best description of that statistical concept I've ever heard came from the TV series Numb3rs.  Imagine you throw a wadded-up piece of paper at a waste basket.  You make the basket.  Then you do it three more times.  Have you beaten the odds?  Well, no – because as you keep trying, your completion rate will converge on 50%.

So it will be interesting to see where the California data goes in the years to come.  A slight majority of California Justices more heavily question the losing party in reversals, but as the years go by, will the data move towards the trend of every other court researchers have studied, with more and more Justices averaging more question to the losing party?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions